Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Baron_Von_Nogard 11-30-07, 10:37 AM	I got a DM who gets really annoying. When I first started playing I didn't really pay attention cause I was still green. But now as an experience player, it's beginning to well **** me off. For one thing, he always seems to play low magic campaigns. That's fine with me really, just that we should have challanges that aren't always with mages. The second part is how he likes to ban, call things broken, or nerf them. My brother when he played his character used to cast spells like wraithstrike and star mantle just to be able to beat the tougher enemies. Then after that campaign, those were either banned or nerfed. Seems like a lot of the spells from the Spell Compendium as nerfed or broken. I played an elderic knight for a bit on our current campaign. I couldn't even use the were spells cause they were deemed "broken". Serious what is really broken. Our characters aren't otherwise we'd be killing off everyone energy with little challange. Hence the reason I stopped playing spell casters and turned to fighters. Then he alters some of the feats as well. I will admit he does add some good things for like the roleplaying play as well as making some magical items better and changing the Weapons of Legacy by not making you have negative parts. But the big deal I have was when the Tomb of Battle appeared. At first I thought it was just more fighter classes but after reading it I fought it a great book. Fighters have a hard time killing Wizards no matter what is I see it as. Plus we are in a low magic world so it's even hard. Book of the Nine swords helps players enjoy the fighter class once again but it hates it saying that he has to learn new rules and that yet again things are "broken".
DyloniusFunk 11-30-07, 10:44 AM	No DM is obligated to allow material just ebcause it';s bene published. If the game has allreayd started and a book comes out, he's not obligated to let material from it into the game. Now for material he's allreayd allowed, just outright banning it seems a bit unfair. I'm of the belife that the DM has the right to allow material he's allowed, but once he's allowed it, just arbitrarily banning it is just petty and mean. But in this case it sounds likje your DM might have allowed stuff he wasn't familiar with. Maybe he thought allowing Spell Compendeum would make things easier, not realizing how many spells there were in it. I would talk to him, figure out what he dosen't like and see if you can work out a compromise. If he's not new and is just6 being an ass, then simply leave. no d&d is better than bad d&d
mato_hibiki 11-30-07, 11:40 AM	Define 'power hungry' please. And for the love of mana, USE the ENTER key! My eyes need a CLW after those two blocks of pain text.
ryguysolis 11-30-07, 12:18 PM	I'm always wary about new material as well when I DM. At a minimum I make sure that I have read the book and cover to cover and that I feel like I understand most of the implications it could have for the game and for the players not using the new material. If, as is sometimes the case, I did not have a lot of free time to read new rulebooks and keep planning sessions I would likely not allow the new material during that campaign. I'm going to be immedialy suspect of any player of mine who insists I allow a new class/feat/spell/item/etc. after giving me nothing more than a 30 second description of it. In short, I don't think your DM is power hungry, more likely he is just trying to make sure his players aren't.
RobbyPants 11-30-07, 12:39 PM	For one thing, he always seems to play low magic campaigns. Well, this can be a ploy of DMs to keep control of the situation. As long as he's compensating by adjusting the encounters, it's no real big deal. My brother when he played his character used to cast spells like wraithstrike and star mantle just to be able to beat the tougher enemies. Well, Wraithstrike is made of pure awesomeness, and I can see why he doesn't like it. Still, just be glad he's not using it on you guys to it's full potential. A wraithstriking dragon with Power Attack can be scary to behold! :eek: Personally, I allow the spell, but it is strong for its level. Seems like a lot of the spells from the Spell Compendium as nerfed or broken. Honestly, a lot of the spells in the Spell Compendium are broken. Without specific examples, I can't agree or disagree with his ruling. Plus we are in a low magic world so it's even hard. Book of the Nine swords helps players enjoy the fighter class once again but it hates it saying that he has to learn new rules and that yet again things are "broken". Well, in a low magic world, the ToB becomes much more powerful by comparision. The ToB does a good job of narrowing the gap between melee characters and casters. It doens't fix the problem, but it helps it. In a low magic world, instead, the ToB would serve to introduce more powerful characters. If the benchmark for his campaign world is the fighter and monk, then the ToB is borkenly powerful. If the benchmark is the cleric, druid, wizard, artificer, and archivist, then it seems perfectly balanced, if not a little weak. Given his setting, it might be a good call. That, and introducing a new book of rules into an existing game can be a nightmare.
Myers 11-30-07, 12:41 PM	I gotta join the crowd on the I see no problem with the DM. Non-core stuff is very often broken and can quickly screw over a campaign, personally my policy as a DM is spells are brought to me before they are permitted to go on a character sheet, as I don't have time to search through the whole spell compendium to find each and every broken spell, then have a game screwed up, and me having to cross off 80% of the monster manual just because I missed one spell that turns hard battles into easy tasks. Also just because you aren't walking over everything doesn't mean that your abilities aren't broken. When stuff is screwing over a game, DM's often quietly boost the stats of the enemies, add resistances, HP etc on the fly, when something just seems wrong. Anyway the point is if your having fun, deal with it. If your not, go find a group that plays to your style.
Krusk 11-30-07, 12:58 PM	Honestly it sounds to me that your DM is a bad tactician. When encounters come around he is unprepared for you guys to have an ability or spell that will alter how the battle is fought and he cant adapt enough. For example, you guys are fighting on a boat. Someone uses a spell that creates a wall of force over the water so you have some ground to fight on. His entire enemy tactic was to have the enemy push you into the water. Now that thats not an option he is screwed and the encounter is 12X easier than it should be. Next session you find wall of force banned or modified. For feats it sounds like he is using a lot of premade enemies, who all have pretty poor feat selections. When your characters have good feats, it throws him off. So he changes your feats to make them in line with alertness. My advice is to ask the DM to make monsters himself, feating them up and everything. Suggest he give them spell focus instead of alertness. Things like that. As for spells and abilities, if there is anyway you can help him work on his tactics so he is better and easier able to adopt to change you might find he is less limiting on them.
kelvinaw273 11-30-07, 05:52 PM	Sounds to me like you just have a bad DM. Take on the mantle, show him how it's done.
RyndarLocke 12-01-07, 12:06 PM	Sounds to me like you just have a bad DM. Take on the mantle, show him how it's done. Well in a perfect world that would work. But, most people can't even run a game as good as the bad DM they complain about. However, the guy is complaining he doesn't have 110% access to stuff his DM doesn't know yet. I still don't allow the Book of Nine Swords. Or the Complete Psonics. I just dislike both books. Am I a bad DM?
ImpossiblitiesAreEndless 12-01-07, 12:49 PM	He's not only complaining about not being able to use all the material. I agree if the DM doesn't want to allow a new book it's up to him, but the DM's doing more than just that. For instance it sounds like he has them fight a lot of mages in a low magic campaign. Does that really make sense? The OP said he's fine with low magic, but fighting tons of mages in one is what the OP is unhappy about. And then nerfing feats once he becomes a fighter? Sure nerfing spells since some can be too powerful and wizards tend to be the most powerful, but from what I've seen most people agree fighters are weak. Does the DM really need to toss nerfed feats at him too? And really the DM ought to have looked at it before letting him take it, not letting him take then nerfing it once he has it. And to the OP, maybe try DMing or get someone more reasonable to try it. I sorta doubt your DM will suddenly become any better.
Dog_O_War 12-01-07, 01:24 PM	Play a dwarven sorcerer/fighter. Have only two good stats; con and charisma. Maybe have a half decent str, but basically the fighter levels are there for "tricks and hit points" while the sorcerer levels are there to keep yer will up. Take feats like Iron will and great fort; really pour on the saves. When you are able to save versus everything, and have spells like resist elements always available, see if he cries when he can never "hurt" you. 'Point I'm making is show him his error through a play-test; both him DMing and you Dming; throw a wraith at him when he has no magic weapon (or an encounter similar to any one he's put you through, where only the "broken" stuff let you survive). Ask him if he intended to kill the group, because without these "broken" things, He would've. Some people only learn through wearing another's shoes; see if your DM is one such person.
The_Shaman 12-02-07, 01:43 PM	I can certainly blame the DM for changing things mid-game, if that has been the case. Of course, it can be done if the DM realizes s/he was horribly wrong about this or that little spell and what it does to the game (freezing touch, wraithstrike, polymorph, etc), but even then, as the DM, s/he should have taken those into consideration. Now, if it's supposed to make the game more challenging - i.e. the characters breezed through what was supposed to be a tough fight and it's not because of good rolls or OMGWTFBBQ tactics - they can simply improve their opponents instead of putting out the ban bat and whacking at the players. The DM is the one with the CR table - so if those lizardfolk suddenly get 2 fighter levels, what's the problem with that? And then the DM can just, you know, play them intelligently as well. A bronze dragon hovering over your ship is bad enough,but a bronze dragon which uses its spells to conjure up a storm and swims under the ship to capsize it can be much more trouble. Of course, the OP might be at fault for being an inveterate and whiny powergamer of the worst sort; I don't know any of them so I can't say. However, if the DM is out to make the players' lives miserable they should talk to him/her and try to get a break. D&D is supposed to be a game where everyone has fun and gets a chance to shine - which is why the DM, as judge and narrator, has the most important job of them all.
CrimsonDeath 12-02-07, 03:06 PM	IFor one thing, he always seems to play low magic campaigns. That's fine with me really, just that we should have challanges that aren't always with mages. Okay, this is the only thing that really jumped out at me. Why are you constantly fighting mages in a low-magic world? ...Are they from the Tower of Exaggerated Sorcery?
Nephlite 12-02-07, 07:48 PM	Well in a perfect world that would work. But, most people can't even run a game as good as the bad DM they complain about. However, the guy is complaining he doesn't have 110% access to stuff his DM doesn't know yet. I still don't allow the Book of Nine Swords. Do you have a reason? Or the Complete Psonics. I just dislike both books. Neither do I. I perfer Expanded Psionocs Handbook because Complete Psi was crap. They nerfed too much stuff. So I'd like that book not allowed. Am I a bad DM? I'd more data. Banning Complete Psi gave you good DM points. If you banned XPH than that would be bad DM points.
Hippokrene 12-03-07, 03:39 AM	I still don't allow the Book of Nine Swords. Or the Complete Psonics. I just dislike both books. Am I a bad DM? Yes. If your only litmus test is "I don't like it" then you are a bad DM.
Etarnon 12-03-07, 03:45 AM	A DM's campaign is theirs to do with what they will. A player's response is to play or vote with their feet. The only REQUIRED books are core, since that is the rule base, nothing else.
kelvinaw273 12-03-07, 07:36 AM	Well in a perfect world that would work. But, most people can't even run a game as good as the bad DM they complain about. However, the guy is complaining he doesn't have 110% access to stuff his DM doesn't know yet. I still don't allow the Book of Nine Swords. Or the Complete Psonics. I just dislike both books. Am I a bad DM? Of course not - and this is my point: You only need three core books (and the SRD if you want to add any extras) to run a game. And frankly, you'd have to suck pretty badly to be as bad as this DM is. Just start small, with a basic quest (like 'deliver the package' or 'bandits in the hills') and let the rest happen as it will. DMing is NOT as hard as it seems, it just takes some work.
Empirate 12-03-07, 08:33 AM	Many people are posting many things based on their own preconceptions about how a D&D campaign should work. Which is the point of a forum such as this, surely. But still, the OP hasn't spoken up once after starting this thread, which is bad form, and hasn't provided enough to go on, either. So some posts here rub me in quite the wrong way, things like: Okay, this is the only thing that really jumped out at me. Why are you constantly fighting mages in a low-magic world? ...Are they from the Tower of Exaggerated Sorcery? You have absolutely no background on the campaign except it is low-magic, right? Let me paint you a scenario how the OP's post might be read in a totally different light: Can you imagine a campaign world in which (arcane) magic is considered evil, in which magic-users are the enemy, in which each and every true hero wouldn't sully his hands with reality-warping perversions? Suddenly, that low-magic campaign in which you're constantly fighting mages makes a whole lot of sense, right? It's flavorful, and done right, it puts a lot of pressure on the group to adapt and fight intelligently. However, the PCs seem to be at a loss. Centered on magic (admittedly a, if not the, core power source in D&D), they don't know what to do and counter with magic of their own - magic, at that, which is generally accepted to be quite powerful, walking the rim of brokenness. Wraithstrike has been pointed out to be one very good spell - one I can see myself banning, too. I don't really see the point in allowing melee touch attacks for weapon-wielding guys. Or rather, I can see the point, and I don't like it. It synergizes all too well with things like SA or Power Attack, and consequently fundamentally changes the way one has to think about the most basic mechanic of D&D: to-hit and AC. Starmantle is another spell that I'd probably not allow in my campaign, if only because of the Evasion thingy... its mechanics are poorly thought-out and are prone to abuse. The Tome of Battle is intended (as has been stated here) to close the gap between warrior and spellcaster classes. In a low-magic world, this might well disrupt a DM's plans. So he imagined magic to be sinister, dangerous, full of spite, in a word, evil. Along comes Mr Swordsage or whatever and uses magic, only he calls it maneuvers instead. Would make me a little skeptical, to say the least. Also, my processing capabilities as a DM are much more tapped out than those of the average player. Learn a whole new ruleset to accomodate one player's ideas of what he wants a character be able to do mechanically? Don't think so. I'd rather put the time into creating memorable NPCs and situations than in memorizing more rules. Same goes for Psionics. So if I were the DM, I'd think about the situation and conclude that I'm responsible for running an enjoyable campaign. Thinking things through, I'd ban some things (like the above), until it is proven to me that they don't ruin my campaign. A DM is in his rights to do so, if he thinks it will further everybody's enjoyment of the campaign. Some players whine about it, sure, but they just wait and see how everything pans out in the end - surely it'll be all right, when the campaign's overall flavor is good, right? And so on. I think you can see where I'm going. While this is no more than a scenario, and in reality, the OP's DM might actually be a bad DM, we don't know that. Basically, the OP's post is nothing more than a very common whine, with no way for us to judge the whole situation at his gaming table. We can do without those, thank you very much.
Bopple 12-03-07, 09:22 AM	I am not sure about his campaign. OP didn't give us enough specifications to judge. I wouldn't comment any on it. As for Wraithstrike, Starmantle, and ToB. Wraithstrike is one of the most powerful spells for gishes out there. It is not unknown that many a DM ban it. Yeah, it's good to watch it working. But then again, it's even more devastating when it's used against PC's. I don't like to see my PC dying with 1 hit. OMG, I don't. And Starmantle? Oh. Please. It's one of the most broken spells out there. Exalted and Vile materials are mostly banned. ToB? It's not broken. No. But it overshadows the conventional noncaster classes. Some books like ToB, ToM, WoL, Ghostwalker and ect implement radically different rules. And you cannot blame DM and force him to learn new rules. It is not his obligation nor your right. Anyway, it's neither unknown that a lot of DM's ban ToB.
Sunic_Flames 12-03-07, 09:28 AM	Conventional non caster classes are already overshadowed. Just with ToB, swinging a sword without magic bolstering it isn't a foolish tactic.
Bopple 12-03-07, 09:45 AM	Power is always a relative matter. And people tend to accept the gap between the casters and the noncasters without resistance or hurt feeling. But if there were both a ToB melee and a non-ToB melee PC in the party, it would let down the non-ToB player. He wouldn't feel it's fair.
The_Shaman 12-03-07, 10:15 AM	Depends on the meleer imo. I've seen some okay stats showing that a barbarian can, by and large, keep up with a warblade. However, a monk and knight/ paladin compared respectively to a swordsage and a crusader may come off somewhat lacking.
Necroramo 12-03-07, 12:24 PM	Yes. If your only litmus test is "I don't like it" then you are a bad DM. +1
Dog_O_War 12-03-07, 01:13 PM	Yes. If your only litmus test is "I don't like it" then you are a bad DM. I'd rather hear "I don't like it" from my DM and that be the basis of why it is not allowed rather than, "I don't like it because I think it is broken". Not liking something is not a sign of a bad DM. I don't like Faerun, so I don't use it. I am not a fan of Eberron (though I like some of the ideas presented in it), so I don't use ebberon material. I hate psionics in D&D because I find the flavor to be revolting. These things do not make me a bad DM. They make me human, as I have likes and dislikes. If I were to say "I hate psionics because they are broken" then I would say that is a trait of a bad DM. No reason given as to WHY they are broken (and even if there was, I cannot fathom it being a good reason, or even a mediocure one), shows the poorest of human traits; fear of the unknown, and bigotry. But banning something on the sole basis of "I don't like it, so I don't use it" is not a bad trait.
Hippokrene 12-03-07, 03:22 PM	These things do not make me a bad DM. They make me human, as I have likes and dislikes. No one is saying that a human can't have likes and dislikes. I am saying that if the only thing that matters is your dislike for it, then you are a bad DM.
Dog_O_War 12-03-07, 03:32 PM	No one is saying that a human can't have likes and dislikes. I am saying that if the only thing that matters is your dislike for it, then you are a bad DM. So then I can play my half-drow warlock/paladin who's also a distant relation of drizzt in your game?
Exposed_Wires 12-03-07, 04:06 PM	So then I can play my half-drow warlock/paladin who's also a distant relation of drizzt in your game? Check and mate.
Bopple 12-03-07, 06:37 PM	Huh. Nothing wrong with disliking certain materials. That is called, 'personal taste'. You cannot force others to like something. There are lots of people out there who hate OA, psionics or ToB for flavor reasons. So they are all bad dm's, just because they don't like those materials?
MoltenDm 12-03-07, 09:41 PM	I do suffer a "Power hungry" Dm and im sure thats the wrong word for him sience it doesnt make sense. Anyway Ive seen this happen and it may look fairly easy to some to just say "hey you dont like it? get another dm" but its not always that easy im not sure if you'all have noticed this but there arent ALOT of players around well at least not here what buggs me is that my Dm in particular knows this and he often says "you dont like my rules dont play" because he knows no one wants to be a Dm and he takes advantage of that, they are always right in their world but that doesnt mean that arent jerks. My Dm only makes changes when rules tend to make this better for us, like new feats or spells OR too many magic items or tresure in a adventure, but he doesnt really do sht when it comes to monsters being to powerful or too chessy. we've never passed the 7th lvl mark so you get the idea. He likes to have us near death all time and thinks it makes it that much better when we dont die cus it isnt "easy" He pushes it until he pushes it too far and kills us and then says oops and we start from lvl 1 He enojoys a realistic feel to the fantasy game and we "enjoy" each having done 10,000 characters by now, i know this sounds like we shouldnt put up with this but HEY we like playing D&d and its better than not playing at all..doesnt mean it doesnt suck or it couldnt be better
Mock26 12-03-07, 11:24 PM	What's the age of the DM? What's the age of the rest of the group?
Etarnon 12-04-07, 12:29 AM	Bad D&D is worse than No D&D. Despite the lack of players you can start writing up a campaign, and players will arrive, when it is time.
TarlSS 12-04-07, 03:13 PM	Well, like any resource, if you have a local monopoly, you can be a douchebag. The way to solve that is to break the monopoly, or break the person's face. I assume you've tried diplomacy for sometime now.
RyndarLocke 12-04-07, 05:40 PM	Yes. If your only litmus test is "I don't like it" then you are a bad DM. Really, so if a DM was running an oriental only game, and I wanted to be a Knight from England. And, he said "No I don't like mixxing the flavors of my game, you can use that book." He's a bad DM? You know why I don't use ToB? Because it undermines the core classes. Why be a fighter if you can be a sword sage ect? I also don't allow the ToB because it was announced it's 75% 4th edition material. I'm happy for 4th edition, I'll buy every book released. But, I don't want to mix 4th testing material with 3.5 tested and true material. And, Psonics, I don't want to have classes that can manipulate magic effects with a non-magical way. And, yes I know Psonics is magic and all, but I just don't like the that type of game. A Mind Flayer does what he does as supernatural/spell like abilities, and let it be done with that. It's a whole other set of rules to do Psonics and ToB that I'd rather not mix with everything else that D&D already has. The Complete Scoundrel introduced skill tricks or whatever, and I have yet to have a player want to use it. So I'm still out on that.
Hippokrene 12-04-07, 06:05 PM	So then I can play my half-drow warlock/paladin who's also a distant relation of drizzt in your game? If Drizzt existed in my game, yes. Also, remember that if you take a level in another class, you can't raise your paladin level again. Also, wouldn't it have made more sense to use something I actually dislike in your example? Really, so if a DM was running an oriental only game, and I wanted to be a Knight from England. And, he said "No I don't like mixxing the flavors of my game, you can use that book." He's a bad DM? No. And it's 'mixing.'
Legdiwena 12-04-07, 06:48 PM	Also, remember that if you take a level in another class, you can't raise your paladin level again. If he took paladin levels first, he would be an ex-paladin for ceasing to be LG when he took alignment shift for warlock levels.
Dog_O_War 12-04-07, 06:54 PM	If Drizzt existed in my game, yes. Also, remember that if you take a level in another class, you can't raise your paladin level again. Also, wouldn't it have made more sense to use something I actually dislike in your example? This was just the prime example of why disallowing because of dislike is not the sign of a bad DM. If I had said, "super-smart scientist from the future, with all of the knowledge skills and craft-know how to build real-world guns" you'd probably say no, even if I was starting as an expert. Same with, "I'ma play a gay dwarf named Fart-knocker! I'll be a cleric and worship my own deity named 'Deoder Ant' and still have domains granted to me because of the "don't actually need a god to be a cleric and still have divine powers" clause in the book!" Point I was making is that disallowing something because the flavor is ill-suited or you plain don't like something for personal reasons is more than a valid excuse.
Hippokrene 12-04-07, 07:04 PM	If he took paladin levels first, he would be an ex-paladin for ceasing to be LG when he took alignment shift for warlock levels. This is true as well. I was envisioning an "Evil half-drow warlock learns to value life and becomes a defender of the good" scenario. It would all depend on how the player saw their character. You know a half-drow warlock/crusader might be a better idea.
Legdiwena 12-04-07, 07:06 PM	Crusader would probably be better. Warlock would lose his abilities if he became good, right?
Hippokrene 12-04-07, 07:10 PM	Dog_O_War: "This was just the prime example of why disallowing because of dislike is not the sign of a bad DM." Except... 1. There was nothing to dislike. 2. I didn't disallow anything because I disliked it. In fact, the only thing I 'disallowed' (being related to Drizzt) I disallowed because the character doesn't exist. And you know what? If someone really, really want to be related to Drizzt, I'd just make my own Drizzt and drop him in my campaign. "If I had said, "super-smart scientist from the future, with all of the knowledge skills and craft-know how to build real-world guns" you'd probably say no, even if I was starting as an expert." Not at all. If someone is willing to start with an NPC class, I'm willing to make a great many concessions. More importantly, I want to run a game that my players want to play. Yes, if everyone says they want a bleak, fantasy horror game then I won't let someone play Buzz Lightyear from the future who runs around blasting people with his wrist mounted laser-cannon. Of course, the chances of someone asking to play Buzz Lightyear after everyone has stated they want a horror campaign is quite low. "Same with, "I'ma play a gay dwarf named Fart-knocker! I'll be a cleric and worship my own deity named 'Deoder Ant' and still have domains granted to me because of the "don't actually need a god to be a cleric and still have divine powers" clause in the book!" I might disallow this, but it has nothing to do with me disliking gays, farting, or deodorant. "Point I was making is that disallowing something because the flavor is ill-suited or you plain don't like something for personal reasons is more than a valid excuse." I agree with the first, but not the second. Disallowing something because the flavor is off is valid. Disallowing something solely because you dislike it is not. Moreover, it's often easier to insert something with 'the wrong flavor' than you might think. A knight from a foreign land washes up on the shores of my own. That's entirely plausible, and if it's not, than I could probably tweak it so a justicair from a foreign land washes up on the shores of the campaign.
Hippokrene 12-04-07, 07:17 PM	Crusader would probably be better. Warlock would lose his abilities if he became good, right? A warlock can be any chaotic or any evil. So, CG, CN, CE, NE, or LE.
Legdiwena 12-04-07, 07:19 PM	My bad, I thought they had to be non-good.
Puritan13 12-04-07, 07:21 PM	I dislike the Tome of Battle, but don't disallow it. If one of my players wants to play a Swordsage or something, then I'll crack open the book and learn about it. It all boils down to me wanting my players to enjoy the game. Thats why I DM, to provide fun for the group. I have also discovered that I enjoy their enjoyment. This is a far cry from the type of DM I was back in my 20's. I needed an iron fisted control over the group.
Dog_O_War 12-05-07, 12:58 PM	Dog_O_War: "Point I was making is that disallowing something because the flavor is ill-suited or you plain don't like something for personal reasons is more than a valid excuse." I agree with the first, but not the second. Disallowing something because the flavor is off is valid. Disallowing something solely because you dislike it is not. Moreover, it's often easier to insert something with 'the wrong flavor' than you might think. A knight from a foreign land washes up on the shores of my own. That's entirely plausible, and if it's not, than I could probably tweak it so a justicair from a foreign land washes up on the shores of the campaign. You'll find that the "second thing" of what I said that you disagreed with is often symbiotic with the first, or if it's not - then the excuse is because "I think it's broken". Which is what I was saying. "Plain disliking something" means you either do not like the flavor, or you think there is some inherent mechanical flaw to it. You may call your dislike many things, but it boils down to these two. People disallow homebrew often because it is not their personal flavor, but sometimes it is mechanics that are the reason. People will disallow certain classes because of flavor in a given setting, but not wanting the PC's to be spellcasters for a setting boils down to mechanics.
kelvinaw273 12-05-07, 01:36 PM	I haven't been presented with homebrew character classes or races in twenty years, but I'd look long and hard at any I was presented with. Really, you can build most class options you want out of what is available, and there are a LOT of official options. Having seen some of the things that people come up with on the boards as homebrew classes, I shudder. I think it is perfectly acceptable for a DM to say: "This is how it's going to be ..." and outlining his rules, whatever they are, provided he does so in advance of the game starting. Thus the DM can start with: "Your classes can be from any official supplement, you are all first level and you are all from the village of Sprog in the hicks, you've mostly grown up together and all know one another, although some of you may have moved to the village for various reasons at least five years ago, and you are all close to your 'coming of age'." Having limits can make for some very interesting adventures, because you have to work harder with less.
Nephlite 12-05-07, 01:59 PM	This was just the prime example of why disallowing because of dislike is not the sign of a bad DM. If I had said, "super-smart scientist from the future, with all of the knowledge skills and craft-know how to build real-world guns" you'd probably say no, even if I was starting as an expert. Super smart like Wizard smart? First, you don't have the technology or materials. Now you could quest for it, but than again you'd need knowledge check to even build it. Second, Crafting takes years for expensive stuff (look at Full plate): so you'll not get to make them until 10th level at earliest if that. So seems sub-optimal, but I'd allow it since for past 9 levels your character seems sucky. Plus, the modern guns in DMG are not that great other than damage. Same with, "I'ma play a gay dwarf named Fart-knocker! I'll be a cleric and worship my own deity named 'Deoder Ant' and still have domains granted to me because of the "don't actually need a god to be a cleric and still have divine powers" clause in the book!" Sure, sounds great, but you better tell me your cause and follow it. Because that is also how it works. Point I was making is that disallowing something because the flavor is ill-suited or you plain don't like something for personal reasons is more than a valid excuse. Disagree with second. Flavor is mutable so sure change it, but it can always work.
Dog_O_War 12-05-07, 03:16 PM	Super smart like Wizard smart? First, you don't have the technology or materials. Now you could quest for it, but than again you'd need knowledge check to even build it. Second, Crafting takes years for expensive stuff (look at Full plate): so you'll not get to make them until 10th level at earliest if that. So seems sub-optimal, but I'd allow it since for past 9 levels your character seems sucky. Plus, the modern guns in DMG are not that great other than damage. Sure, sounds great, but you better tell me your cause and follow it. Because that is also how it works. Disagree with second. Flavor is mutable so sure change it, but it can always work. ...okay, clearly some of you live in a strange, chaos realm where everything is acceptable, and nothing is a bad enough example for you to say 'no' to. So miss my point. Choose to be ignorant with responses like this one here, and keep on telling me I'm wrong about what flavor is acceptable in a given game, and to what the DM can say 'no' to. This is not an attack on you, Nephlite, or on anyone else here, atleast not any more than quoting rules at a person laying out an obsurd example is to attempt to get a point across. Also, I've said it before, and I'll say it again; it is the rules of the game that are mutable; never the fluff or the flavor. Otherwise it would not be the game a person signs up to play. To give this an example; when you eat ice cream, the rule is that it must be cold; you get it though for the flavor. However you can eat "warm" ice cream, as it is the flavor you're after. You don't freeze cream expecting it to taste like ice cream, it just doesn't work that way.
Exposed_Wires 12-05-07, 03:40 PM	Super smart like Wizard smart? First, you don't have the technology or materials. Now you could quest for it, but than again you'd need knowledge check to even build it. Second, Crafting takes years for expensive stuff (look at Full plate): so you'll not get to make them until 10th level at earliest if that. So seems sub-optimal, but I'd allow it since for past 9 levels your character seems sucky. Plus, the modern guns in DMG are not that great other than damage. Sure, sounds great, but you better tell me your cause and follow it. Because that is also how it works. Disagree with second. Flavor is mutable so sure change it, but it can always work. I disagree entirely. As a DM, I'm charged with constructing a world. It's important that this world be as complete in my mind as possible so that i can react to whatever the PCs cook up. The more cohesive the elements are, the more believable. The more believable, the more the players will invest themselves in the game and the more fun they will have. When i start frankenstein'ing in stuff that I don't think belongs cause my players ask, my vision deteriorates. I don't care if the mad scientist seems balanced, I don't want laser guns in my detective thriller. That's not cause I don't know how to work it in, because i could find a way. I could incorporate the scientists sole laser into the storyline as an item that everybody and their mother is going to try to steal and transition the story into a stealth/escape campaign, but I don't want to. It would taint the idea of my original world. Would you seriously play with a fart-knocker? At what point do you just say "Let's just go watch Bio-dome"
aotrscommander 12-06-07, 07:28 AM	I disagree entirely. As a DM, I'm charged with constructing a world. It's important that this world be as complete in my mind as possible so that i can react to whatever the PCs cook up. The more cohesive the elements are, the more believable. The more believable, the more the players will invest themselves in the game and the more fun they will have. When i start frankenstein'ing in stuff that I don't think belongs cause my players ask, my vision deteriorates. I don't care if the mad scientist seems balanced, I don't want laser guns in my detective thriller. That's not cause I don't know how to work it in, because i could find a way. I could incorporate the scientists sole laser into the storyline as an item that everybody and their mother is going to try to steal and transition the story into a stealth/escape campaign, but I don't want to. It would taint the idea of my original world. Would you seriously play with a fart-knocker? At what point do you just say "Let's just go watch Bio-dome" I'm inclined to agree. Personally, I'd me more leery of playing in a game where anything goes - because I'd expect it to be low on internal consistancy and credibility because of showhorning everything in, which is one of my biggest bugbears - than one where the DM had set some sensible limits, because to me that'd imply a more carefully constructed world. Obviously too many restrictions is worse than none but to my mind none is worse than some. Not to mention some concepts are just plain stupid (Fart-Knocker being one) or I believe inappropriate to the game. I put a great deal of effort and detail into running my games and I expect the players to meet me at least part of the way. It's not hard to add anything into a fantasy world; hell, a quick glance through comics and TV can provide you with enough contrivances to last you forever. The point is, I shouldn't have to.
kelvinaw273 12-06-07, 09:56 AM	Judging from the comments, I'd say that most players forget that the DM is entitled to enjoy the game as well the players. The game world is the DM's 'character' - you resent it when the DM says halfway through the game "No, your character wouldn't do that!" - well trying to change the setting is exactly the same to the DM: It's HIS baby. If you don't like it, don't play.
unrepentantweed 12-06-07, 09:20 PM	The best thing is to get every one together, the players and the DM and talk things out. Feedback is essential, with out communication about expectations and desires its hard to find out what every one wants. If most of the people like what is going on then then things are great. However the vast majority like a different play style then changes can be made. Inherent in every game is an implicit social contract where every one agrees at least some what to the nature of the game. The a part of the responsibility of being a GM it to try and meet this. Since the DM is open, and upfront, and has responded to past experiences it seems from what I have read that this is not a power hungry GM at all. I thought of several ways to say this, and well there is only one way to say this. <rant> The original poster as a player is a munchkin, a power gamer who is mad that the DM is doing his job and trying to keep balance in the game. Despite the attempts to balance the game there are flaws in the D20 system. Things are that are broken and imbalanced, there is power creep, some of them have been mentioned in this thread, some like the book of nine swords do not fit gracefully with the core 3rd ed D20 rules(i.e it's more broken than most of the 3rd party products.) If you want game with blatant imbalances of power, with power creep with each supplement play RIFTS. </rant>
Empirate 12-07-07, 09:23 AM	...okay, clearly some of you live in a strange, chaos realm where everything is acceptable, and nothing is a bad enough example for you to say 'no' to. So miss my point. Choose to be ignorant with responses like this one here, and keep on telling me I'm wrong about what flavor is acceptable in a given game, and to what the DM can say 'no' to. This is not an attack on you, Nephlite, or on anyone else here, atleast not any more than quoting rules at a person laying out an obsurd example is to attempt to get a point across. Also, I've said it before, and I'll say it again; it is the rules of the game that are mutable; never the fluff or the flavor. Otherwise it would not be the game a person signs up to play. To give this an example; when you eat ice cream, the rule is that it must be cold; you get it though for the flavor. However you can eat "warm" ice cream, as it is the flavor you're after. You don't freeze cream expecting it to taste like ice cream, it just doesn't work that way. YES! Thank you for pointing that out. Some people simply fail to get the point for no other reason than they don't want to. Congratz on saying something I've been wanting to say since reading Nephlite's first interjection in that vein of his. Not to bash on him, he's certainly entitled to play the game the way he wants to, but his way of arguing was really annoying me there.
Voran 12-07-07, 02:48 PM	I got a DM who gets really annoying. When I first started playing I didn't really pay attention cause I was still green. But now as an experience player, it's beginning to well **** me off. For one thing, he always seems to play low magic campaigns. That's fine with me really, just that we should have challanges that aren't always with mages. The second part is how he likes to ban, call things broken, or nerf them. My brother when he played his character used to cast spells like wraithstrike and star mantle just to be able to beat the tougher enemies. Then after that campaign, those were either banned or nerfed. Seems like a lot of the spells from the Spell Compendium as nerfed or broken. I played an elderic knight for a bit on our current campaign. I couldn't even use the were spells cause they were deemed "broken". Serious what is really broken. Our characters aren't otherwise we'd be killing off everyone energy with little challange. Hence the reason I stopped playing spell casters and turned to fighters. Then he alters some of the feats as well. I will admit he does add some good things for like the roleplaying play as well as making some magical items better and changing the Weapons of Legacy by not making you have negative parts. But the big deal I have was when the Tomb of Battle appeared. At first I thought it was just more fighter classes but after reading it I fought it a great book. Fighters have a hard time killing Wizards no matter what is I see it as. Plus we are in a low magic world so it's even hard. Book of the Nine swords helps players enjoy the fighter class once again but it hates it saying that he has to learn new rules and that yet again things are "broken". *sigh* Here's a novel series of ideas: 1)Try to talk with him and work things out or 2)Don't PLAY in his group or 3)Learn to do it yourself. Or some combination of the 3. Its not like you've signed a contract that keeps you in the group for a set period of time, you can exercise some free choice and not continue to aggravate yourself. Its like showing up to some guys house to play his Xbox 360, then complain about what games he has. Or bringing some xbox 360 game along with you and thinking you'll just be able to play it on the guy's machine.