When questioned about their motives and capabilities as a DM to make good decisions, most gamers are incapable of accepting that they might make mistakes and bad decisions. Instead, they hide behind the canned response that has become in our day and age: "The DM is always right".
There are three problems with this statement:
- It implies that there is a certain amount of rightness or wrongness about a decision in the first place, when many game decisions are merely arbitrary, and cannot be right or wrong. They merely are. This is more aptly phrased as: "The DM will make arbitrary decisions from time to time that reflect his/her personal preference. They are neither right nor wrong, but rather a matter of preference".
- It ignores the possibility of objective wrongness by stating that any arbitrary rule can be jammed into the system at any point and made to still hold the whole system together. There is a point at which consistency will be violated by stubbornly sticking to this system, and the DM becomes wrong. If the DM simultaneously says that 2+2=4 and 2+2=5, nothing short of Orwellian re-programming will allow that to sit right with a player, and it is still objectively wrong.
- The DMG whole-heartedly admits that DMs will be in the wrong at times. In fact, they have devoted an entire section of the DMG to things that DMs do that are wrong, stupid, inconsiderate, ignorant and/or destructive. (pg. 100 of the 3.0 DMG, or pgs. 45-46 of the 3.5 DMG for those watching at home)
2) Rule 0 means that the DM can change whatever he wants
Rule 0 refers to pg. 4 of the 3.0 PHB (the numbering has been removed in 3.5), wherein it states that the first step of character creation is to check with the DM to see what differing variants he is using in the campaign.
It is trivially true that whenever a group of people plays a game, they can by mutual consent alter said rules. That cannot be disputed, as there is no one forcing people to play Monopoly with the shoe piece - you can decide that in the interest of preventing infighting to get the piece, it will not be used. Or you can decide to give rent to Free Parking, or what have you.
The same applies to D&D, with the caveat that some of the reasonings behind certain rules changes will be kept as the sole providence of the DM. But the players in the game must agree with the DM, AHEAD of time, on any alterations to the rules set to comply with rule 0.
Ad hoc PC screwing in the middle of a camapaign does not fall under the providence of Rule 0, as Rule 0 only applies at the beginning of character creation. (and I think it's called Rule 0 in tribute to the 0th law of Thermodynamics)
3) All classes are created equal, and are playable as written
Class design is a pickle for game designers, as they have to try to appease a vast audience who have a miriad of playing styles with about 10 canned classes. So in order to do so, they have to design all of the classes with an approximately equal amount of capabilities in each of the major playing styles. (hack-em and slash-em, no-dice in-depth, dice-based in-depth, with other styles being a combination of the above)
But even in that attempt, some classes clearly come out better than others in different playing styles - a dice-based in-depth human rogue will fare much better than a fighter due to the plethora of in-depth skills available to the player, whereas a rogue in an undead hunting hacker campaign will be at a severe disadvantage to the fighter.
I liken this to card design in recent Magic: The Gathering sets. When they design the card pool for a set, they design cards for all sorts of different formats. Some cards are meant to be played in Type II, others in draft, block, some are meant to rotate to Type I immediately (like getting banned in Type II before they are even released) and others are 1.5 material. Others still were never meant to see tournament play and were solely designed for fun play and/or combo decks.
One can see evidence of this design strategy in class design as well, which really relegates certain character class choices to certain games, and some classes are demonstrably weaker than other in differing formats. As such, certain classes require re-tooling when played in different formats.
4) All spells are created equal, and should be balanced against each other
As above, spells have differing uses. Some spells are campaigning spells, some are traveling spells, some are for nit-picky DMS who keep track of everything and others are for blast-em DMs who only care about raw damage output and always make their saves against Hold Monster (
).In fact, the most broken spells in the game are non-combat spells that don't even do any damage. (as is the case with MtG as well) As such, when performing spell design one must keep in mind the possibilities for abuse in more than just hack-em campaigns (which is something that even the game designers seem to have forgotten in places...
)5) "No-dice gaming" is D&D
If you want to be a thespian, be my guest. But don't hamstring your characters with the d20 system which was designed for rolling dice. The "D" in D20 means dice. I honestly can't understand why "high" roleplayers even bother using a combat-intensive gaming system to emulate inter-personal interactions when they don't even use the d20 to resolve them.
Using the correct simulation tools is vital to accomplishing your goals. I wouldn't start using Fortran to program a graphical interface, nor would I use Visual Basic to do computationally intensive simulations; choosing the right simulator for the right problem/situation saves one a lot of hassle and misery. So if you want to ignore all of the mechanics of the d20 system while still using it for character/world creation, you're really causing yourself more trouble than is necessary and you're probably better off with some other gaming (simulation) system.
What is the point in spending all the time calculating skill points, ability bonuses/modifiers, to-hit modifiers, etc., etc., etc. if you're just going to wing it anyways and ignore what the numbers are telling you? Why bother building a character with skill points when you don't require the players to ever roll a dice for social interactions? Find some other gaming system and go to town - d20 is not fitting your needs at all.
6) "role"-players don't min/max
Pure and utter poppycock, I say. By "role"-player in this context I am referring to people who claim that their character is solely story-based, and never took any skills/feats to optimise their character.
By definition, if you don't take skills to optimize the aspects of your character that you would consider to be attributes, then you are doing bad roleplaying and are just assembling a bunch of "flight of fancy" abilities. So good "role" players are in fact min/maxxers.
7) "roll"playing is mutually exclusive with "role"playing
There is nothing in the usage of dice and combat that necessitates the exclusion of playing a role with your character, or character development. You can do both at the same time. While it is true that there are people who do one to the exclusion of the other, that is their preference and Gygax-given right; but it does not mean that you can't do both. It just means that some people prefer to do it one way or another.
8) D&D doesn't need (much) magic
It still baffles me how/why people try to make low-magic D&D settings. The entire game was designed around the premise that magic is a present, common and pervasive force in the world. It is not rare. It is not common either, but (almost) every person in the D&D world must be at least basely aware of the presence of magic in order for any consistency.
If you don't believe me, count the number of monsters in the Monster Manual that don't have some form of magical ability/origin.
Then go and count the number of pages in the PHB devoted to spells.
Then go and count the number of core classes that don't get access to magic or some form of (Su) or (Sp) ability. (hint: two. Barbarian and Fighter; the other 9 all get inherently magical abilities or the ability to manipulate magic at some point)
Then go to the DMG and find out how many pages of magical items there are compared to the number of non-magical items in the PHB.
In the end, you have to face the fact that D&D is not "low-magic", nor will it work as such without extensive modifications, at which point you aren't playing D&D anyways and instead have designed your own gaming system. (see point #5 about picking the right tool for the right job - find some other gaming system if you want to run low/non-magical campaigns)
9) As long as you can make house rules, there are no inherent flaws in the game
This oft-lauded fallacy is in direct violation of many logical principles, the most important of which is that the test for self-consistency of a system cannot rely on the ability to change the rules of the system after the test of self-consistency has been made, which leads to bootstrapping infinite loops.
As was discussed above (in #2), it is trivially true that any group of people can decide to change the rules of whatever game they are playing as there is no external force enforcing a particular rules set upon them (except in the RPGA ;)), but that does not mean that the rules shouldn't be reasonably balanced and consistent beforehand. It is not the job of the players to make the game internally consistent and playable from the get-go, but rather it is their responsibility (and right) to tailor the rules to their desires once the basics have been taken care of for them by whatever company manufactures the game.
As such, I come here to figure out what it is that the gaming company messed up on before I get into trouble in a game, to try to figure out fixes/patches in the hopes that they (WOTC) will at least listen, and at the very least to hammer out a set of workable patches for DMs if WOTC refuses to listen (like they did with many of the problematic spells linked in my sig).
10) Literal wording is more important than intent
This is the same mistake that many amateurs make when trying to interpret legal documents. While it is true that judges usually take a more literal interpretation of legalise than the average person, it is also true that the interpretations that accompany their decisions in court are equally as important, if not more important, than the decisions themselves. The "interpretations" (which are seperate documents attached to the rulings) are used as precedent and guidelines for future interpretations of the laws laid down by legislators.
As it is impossible to take every situation into account when laying down a law the judicial system acts as interpreters of the will and intent of the legislators while still being bound by the literal reading of the law. The same applies here - the game designers have tried (in some cases ;)) to make the rules as clear as possible, but some eventualities arise which are not covered 100% by the written code and require interpretation, or are covered and lead to ludicrous results. Then it becomes the job of the enforcers of the law (i.e. the DMs) to come up with an interpretation that makes sense.
Now while not all DMs are really qualified to make such decisions and make bad decisions as a result, when we discuss things on the boards the hope is that we can try to be reasonable at points and interpret the letter of the law with the correct intent/spirit. (now of course there is the other danger that the players are left in a sea of confusion as to what the rules are because of inconsistent and irrational judgments, so a balance is required). But hyper-literal readings are just as erroneous as whimsical readings.
11) D&D is/was a war game
While D&D started initially as a miniatures war game (before it was D&D), its first incarnation was nothing like that.
D&D has rules for tactical combat. It has an in-depth combat system. It has HP, AC, and many ways to do damage. So in that respect it is kind of like a war game.
But where D&D splits off from traditional war gaming is in its execution outside of combat. It is entirely possible to play D&D without immersing yourself heavily in combat. Yes the system relies heavily on combat statistics and the use of combat to resolve issues, but the extent to which that applies is variable from group to group. In war games, the premise is that there is war, violence and bloodshed and you are supposed to resolve it somehow - usually through superiority in arms (combined with some diplomacheese of course).
In D&D, however, the primary objective is to play an individual character and explore/act out their lives and interaction with the outside world. When D&D split off from Chainmail, it was because the designers wanted to have special characters who had lives outside of just killing things on the field of war, and the idea of evolving their characters in a fantasy world was very appealing. As such the psychological method of role-enactment, or roleplaying, came into fruition with the advent of D&D and the war-gaming aspect was toned down to allow for heroic fantasy.
With the re-introduction of miniatures into the D&D scene the game is re-discovering some of its war gaming roots, but still remains heavily reliant on DM arbitration, player whims for plot line development (and plot lines for that matter), world interaction, fleshed out NPCs and non-combat skills - none of which are part of a traditional war game. 3e took a step back towards war-gaming with the introduction of many standardised aspects of the game to allow players more control over their characters (which some DMs and players still complain bitterly about, for no good reason IMO), but has still left in many "fuzzy" aspects of the game that the DM must arbitrate.
So while D&D still retains some aspects of Chainmail in its current (and past) incarnations, it is fundamentally different from a war game or one that is strictly based upon combat, and has moved into the realm of psychological mind-hump.
12) D&D is an expensive hobby
I'm going to try to compare to a similar hobby here: computer games (which many D&Ders are rabid fans of), and which also has approximately the same time-scale as D&D with the 3.5 edition having just been released. (by this, I mean that upgrading D&D after 3 years from its initial release is about how long a computer stays "modern" or a gaming system "trendy" and still supported with new games. You will also get about the same amount of play time and re-usability if you are a "stay-modern" type of person)
Cost for the 3 core books, one package of dice and a pencil: $97 US (DMs only)
Cost for the PHB, some dice and a pencil: $37 US (players)
Cost for a new game cube, some fixings and 5 free games (from eBay): $180 US
Cost for a used Playstation, some fixings and a couple of games (from eBay): $160 US
Cost for a new-ish computer (1.5 GHz) with a monitor, some peripherals and a couple of games: $700 (on the very low end)
Cost for a racing car: > $1 million
Now the even better thing about D&D (even though it is already cheaper even if you upgrade every couple of years) is that your books never break or need fixing. They may need patches like all of the above, but you don't have to worry about paying a ton in servicing costs.
Example, I do believe you can be playing Dungeons and Dragons without using dice. It isn't as easy, and its obviously less random, but dice are not the defining factor of the game in my book.
And Rule 0 does not refer only to the character creation rule in the PHB, it also encompasses the Adjucation rules in the beginning of the DMG, and those do indeed say the DM can change or ignore any rule he/she sees fit for thier game. The DM needs to have the ability to do this, or homebrew campaigns become impossible, and homemade items and feats and skills are useless.
As for the rest of it, the game is designed to be flexible. You can run a low or even no magic game and still be playing D&D. You can run plasma rifles against dragons and you're still playing D&D. There is no right way, and no wrong way to play this game.
1. Acceptable. As in "is it acceptable?" Can the Game Master accept it? Can the Players accept it? Does this acceptance exist a majority of the time for the majority of the people playing?
2. Feasible. As in "is it feasible?" Is it feasible within the rules that exist and that are being used? Is there a compromise between the rules verbatim and the Rule's Lawyers that are looking for and wanting to use "Loop Holes"?
3. Fun. As in "are we having fun?" Is the goal of the game, that being to have fun; being reached? Are the players laughing, smiling and looking forward to the game? Are the characters and their world becoming more "believable"?
These are a lot of questions.
They won't all come up at the same time.
They won't all be answerable at the same time.
Though, in time; one will be able to remember to keep track of these things. Quite possibly helping one destroy the misconceptions that chonjurer rightly describes as being prevalent.
It's quite sad how many people gripe about the prices of manuals, but then I shouldn’t talk, since I'm responding to a post that gripes about griping. That doesn't mean that it doesn't annoy me horribly though.
-EE
Originally posted by chonjurer
6) "role"-players don't min/max
Pure and utter poppycock, I say. By "role"-player in this context I am referring to people who claim that their character is solely story-based, and never took any skills/feats to optimise their character.
By definition, if you don't take skills to optimize the aspects of your character that you would consider to be attributes, then you are doing bad roleplaying and are just assembling a bunch of "flight of fancy" abilities. So good "role" players are in fact min/maxxers.
You're confusing optimization with min/maxing stats and attributes. To quote the Merriam-Webster dictionary to optimize is "to make as perfect, effective, or functional as possible". That means that you optimize something subject to a certain appreciation of effectiveness and functionality.
In simpler terms, when you optimize you have several arguments:
1) An object to optimize,
2) A perception or judgment as to how it would be better, more effective, more functional, perfect, etc.
2) The variables with which to improve it.
That means that if you want to, say, optimize a productive process in your factory, first of all you ask yourself: what am I going to try to improve? Suppose you decide that the only thing that needs reviewing are your costs structure. Then you ask yourself: how would they be improved? By lowering them, of course (assuming quality, quantity, and all other aspects of your product remain constant). Finally you ask: how will I lower them?
A role-player may want to optimize several different arguments. She may want, for instance, to create an original character. If she only cares about making an original character and isn't really concerned with the character's combat effectiveness, for instance, then (without any other restrictions) the more original the character is, the better it will be. So that she might decide on a very young halfling sorcerer with low charisma. It would certainly be pretty original (can't say I see many halflings, fewer halfling sorcerers, and I don't think I'd even thought of a sorcerer with exceptionally low charisma until posting this), and that in itself might make the character interesting, engaging, intriguing, etc.- which is exactly what that role-player wanted. So she optimized her character without min/maxing stats and abilities.
Good role-players are not min/max-ers as it is commonly understood. They're optimizers, and they will optimize their characters so that they have the most fun in playing them, so that the characters will be most effective in the campaign setting, and so that it will be a good experience. Min/max-ers may be good role-players as well, but that is in spite of, not because of, the way they create their characters.
One can see evidence of this design strategy in class design as well, which really relegates certain character class choices to certain games, and some classes are demonstrably weaker than other in differing formats. As such, certain classes require re-tooling when played in different formats.
The GM has a couple of options: retool a class or expect that no one will play that class -- this is not a bad thing either. If the campaign is going to be focused on a certain path that will affect the usefulness of specific classes, the players should know of the slant. The players can then make informed choices for their characters. Someone may decide to play a Rogue in an undead killer campaign for the skillset and be willing to live with the very infrequent unsefulness of sneak attack. As long as the player knew what he was getting he has no reason to complain.
Of course a DM cannot always be right he is human, but inorder for the game to function the DM must be a judge who must make rulings and players need to go forward or the enjoyability of the game will suffer
2.) I am probably missing the point on this one.
Rule O alas a gm will change whatever he wants as long as the players let him (they let him by still playing in his game.) he does not need a rule to justifiy it.
Rules changes are not enherently bad. Look at Arcana Unearthed, Mutants and Masterminds, Hero Templates and Prestige Races. Yet players should be made aware of rules changes at the start of the game (as no one likes the rules changed in the middle of the game.)
Yet some of my gamers play a very life like and mysterious game.
Players are offten not told what certian rules changes are simply because thier characters would not be aware of the change to the world around them until the experiance those changes.
3.) I agree whole heartedly.
D&D is only an expensive hobby for a DM who wants to be kept up to date on all the new changes and new rules you can get from the dozens of books out there.
Originally posted by chonjurer
[b]12) D&D is an expensive hobby
I'm going to try to compare to a similar hobby here: computer games (which many D&Ders are rabid fans of), and which also has approximately the same time-scale as D&D with the 3.5 edition having just been released. (by this, I mean that upgrading D&D after 3 years from its initial release is about how long a computer stays "modern" or a gaming system "trendy" and still supported with new games. You will also get about the same amount of play time and re-usability if you are a "stay-modern" type of person)
Cost for the 3 core books, one package of dice and a pencil: $97 US (DMs only)
Cost for the PHB, some dice and a pencil: $37 US (players)
Cost for a new game cube, some fixings and 5 free games (from eBay): $180 US
Cost for a used Playstation, some fixings and a couple of games (from eBay): $160 US
Cost for a new-ish computer (1.5 GHz) with a monitor, some peripherals and a couple of games: $700 (on the very low end)
Cost for a racing car: > $1 million
Now the even better thing about D&D (even though it is already cheaper even if you upgrade every couple of years) is that your books never break or need fixing. They may need patches like all of the above, but you don't have to worry about paying a ton in servicing costs.
I dont knowif i agree that DnD is an expensive hobbly, for you see i agree that $30 is a lot of money to spend on a book(s) Look at how much most hardcover books that size are now... i've seen smaller books for $50. And i think if DnD is something you really want to get into it is worth paying that much for the books because if you figure like chonjurer did it makes sense that you get a lot more time out of the DnD books than stuff that costs a lot more money. There are still people that play the original DnD still look how long those books lasted, and most other books you buy even if its "the greatest book in the world" you'll probably only read it twice. But thats just my opinion.
Cost for the 3 core books, one package of dice and a pencil: $97 US (DMs only)
Cost for your quotes 1.7 GHz Celeron computer and moniter, no games: $350 US
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe $350 is more than $97. I'd spend a HELL of alot more than that on any computer I bought---but that's because I'd want the best (probably around $1000), and would be starting from scratch, buying all new parts. I think all the D&D books I have (and I've got ALOT) total maybe $500... And with this $350 computer of yours, we haven't bought games yet.
Otherwise, I must say that, in general, I do agree with nearly every point made by chonurer, with the exception of Edelritter's thoughts on Good Roleplayers "min/maxing" versus optimizing--I totally agree with Edelritter.
-EE
My point was that a computer isn't quite as expensive as he makes out.
I could also make the point that you can use that computer for a lot of things outside of playing a game (like, for instance, signing onto a messageboard and being pedantic).
But then I noted that D&D really isn't all that expensive, as long as you stick to the basics.
It's nice however to see someone who gets it put it all together like this.
I applaud you.
You're confusing optimization with min/maxing stats and attributes. To quote the Merriam-Webster dictionary to optimize is "to make as perfect, effective, or functional as possible". That means that you optimize something subject to a certain appreciation of effectiveness and functionality.
Actually you are confused.
The confusion that “optimization” is the same as “Character Optimization as per the Character Optimization Board, Wizards of the Coast Website.”
CO is by definition equal to Min/Maxing. This is done for precision and the sake of clarity. CO coverers the mathematical constructive part of character generation. CD (Character Development) is the creative non-mathematical part of character generation.
Proof that this is incorrect.
Two players generate characters, one reads through all the books and finds the best combinations possible. The other writes all the abilities on pices of paper divides them into groups and puts them into hats. Then he draws his character out of the hats, one choice at a time.
By some fluke both end up with the same character. Did both min/max? Clearly not. Obviously it is possible to generate an optimised character without min/maxing. The alternative is to define min/maxing in a way that very much cheapens the effort and skill that real min/maxers display.
Role players who end up with optimised characters do so purely by accident. In their case its the flavour text that draws them in, not real analysis of the options. A roleplayer might use an elemental burst weapon. A min/maxer would analyse the situation and realise that elemental burst weapons are not worth it.
Originally posted by chonjurer
8) D&D doesn't need (much) magic
It still baffles me how/why people try to make low-magic D&D settings. The entire game was designed around the premise that magic is a present, common and pervasive force in the world. It is not rare. It is not common either, but (almost) every person in the D&D world must be at least basely aware of the presence of magic in order for any consistency.
Well, personally I think it should be possible to make a world that is low on magic using the D&D rules. D&D after all started out being based around classical fantasy such as LotR and while it has risen greatly in power level, you should still be able to play out a game in a setting like you read about in Lord of the Rings or Conan the Barbarian.
Yes, the core rules basis implies that magic will be relatively common and a certain level of wealth is factored into CRs... great. You can and should be able to simply reduce the EL of your encounters and be OK.
The real problem is class balance in such a situation. A spellcaster without magical gear does better than a noncaster without magical gear. That's a class design problem. Class abilities should be straight out balanced both with and without magical items. Magical items should be considered a boost, not an absolute requirement, that way everyone stays equal. When you create classes with more or less dependance on magic items you're generally begging for some sort of imbalance. I have yet to find a DM who keeps perfectly with the recommended party wealth levels in the DMG.
1) Fewer NPC sorcerers/wizards/druids/clerics.
The spellcasting abilities of the other classes are very minor things in relation to the classes that are primarily spell casters. This generally does not affect PC's choices of class any more than the relative rarity of say, gnomes, would affect the PC's access to that race.
2) Alteration to item creation rules resulting in less availability of magical items.
Putting the rules back to the 2e version of them, for example, makes magical items a precious treasure rather than a commodity. It eliminates magical item stores and makes in-party crafting of items much more difficult, but it restores the sense of accomplishment at crafting a vorpal weapon. There isn't much satisfaction from merely spending X gold, Y exp, and Z time to save yourself X gold. The 2e rules for magic item creation were nebulous and complex, but if a dm is really interested in a low-magic campaign, they can be worth the effort to quantify.
----
Also, you missed a class when you were accounting for non-spellcasting classes with no (Su) or (Sp) abilities. The rogue receives none of that. Even slippery mind (their most magic-like ability) is (Ex).
As a DM I don't always make my players roll dice for social interactions that would call for Diplomacy, Bluff checks, etc., but I expect that the players will put points into those skills if they want to roleplay them that way. If a low Cha, no Diplomacy character starts trying to be the party face, I'd make the player roll for it. The player might make a good presentation, but the character might have a habit of spitting while he talks.
MadBlue
Originally posted by chonjurer
1) The DM is always right
When questioned about their motives and capabilities as a DM to make good decisions, most gamers are incapable of accepting that they might make mistakes and bad decisions. Instead, they hide behind the canned response that has become in our day and age: "The DM is always right".
This point I have to argue with. Of course DMs aren't always right, but from my experience as a DM the misconception that the DM is always right is necessary evil, at least for groups that have just started out.
One of a DM's most important jobs is to say "No" once in a while. Players obviously do not want to hear the DM tell them "No", so they're bound to argue - unless they're held back by the premise that for a DM to run the game, he decisions have to always be considered correct. This is important for groups where the players and the DM are unfamiliar with each other and the DM needs to set initial boundaries to keep the game from getting out of hand. If every player started out thinking they could argue with any (read: every) DM decision they don't like, then the new groups would never get off the ground.
After a while, though, the players will learn better. When my players think I've made a mistake they have no reservation about speaking out, but we've known each other for ever ten years and they've become comfortable with most of my decisions. For new, untested groups, DMs have to establish thier authority so that they can live up to thier responsibility of running the game. For that purpose the mantra that "The DM is always right." is a very useful myth, but as a myth it's also something the players are bound to outgrow as they gain more experience with a new DM.
If you play a character with no Ranks in Diplomacy, Bluff and Gather Information as if he's a social butterfly, you're not being a good roleplayer. You're being a good roleplayer if you're playing the character as if he doesn't have those skills.
As a DM, I prefer to roleplay social situations over rolling dice, but if the player wants the character to be as good with words as the player is - and wants what he says to sway NPC reactions in favor of the party - the character should have the kinds of skills that back up what the player wants to roleplay.
Besides, it's not fair to let a player of a Rogue or Bard who wants to get by on "good roleplaying" use the skill points they'd normally be spending on Charisma-based skills to pump up Tumble, Hide, Move Silently, etc.
MadBlue
Depending on what you call "newish", that can be a pretty broad range. Usually, though, even with a broad collection of books, that's still not going to come to the cost of said "newish" computer. Not any computer I'd consider "decent", anyway, to apply another relative term.
I really don't disagree with anything else you said. Please keep it kind.
#6 By definition, if you don't take skills to optimize the aspects of your character that you would consider to be attributes, then you are doing bad roleplaying and are just assembling a bunch of "flight of fancy" abilities.
Agreed so far. Like you, I am taking it as read that good roleplaying in D&D is about bringing the character on paper to life, and not just about acting. Others may disagree. Probably the very people who pay little attention to the character-on-paper. But then:
So good "role" players are in fact min/maxxers.
I disagree. There is a key difference between taking skills to match (optimize) aspects of your character ... and min/maxing. To me, by definition a min/maxer is concerned more with statistics than character.
A good role player will chose attributes that match their character concept, and roleplay appropriately. A min/maxer is concerned with beefing up their character to maximise their stats, and will often (but not always) then roleplay inappropriately, ie against the stats. For example the clichéd highly articulate/low intelligence fighter. Or low charisma party leader.
#7 - Agreed. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Originally posted by Sildatorak
----
Also, you missed a class when you were accounting for non-spellcasting classes with no (Su) or (Sp) abilities. The rogue receives none of that. Even slippery mind (their most magic-like ability) is (Ex).
This is a little nit picking but the rouge has the skill use magic device which with enough ranks would allow the rouge to cast spells from scrolls.
I think the real key is that most of these problems stem from a lack of mutual respect between gamers with different styles and opinions. Unfortunately, all it takes is one person to sour the game for all involved in a groups. If I'm the odd man, I'll drop from a game rather then sit there and muddle through an adventure I don't enjoy. If someone is disruptive in our group and doesn't leave his own, we'll tell him to go.
Each group is entitled to make their own adjustments and changes. That's how we end up with a wonderful variety of campaign settings.
Each groups is entitled to preserve it's own gaming experience. The DMG directly addresses possible methods of dealing with problem players. It only recommends barring the player as a last resort, but the designers recognise there is sometimes a need for that sad event to occur.
If there’s' a misconception that I would add to your list, it is that any set of random players should be able to enjoy a game as a single semi-cohesive group. This is not true. Some people’s temperaments do not go well together and cannot always be reconciled.
Personally, I like to think I take a more liberal approach to the Dungeons and Dragons. To my mind it has always been a reference. These are rules for arbitrating a role playing game, but not necessarily your specific game. It seems even more apparent in 3rd edition as it has become easier, by design, to make alterations and tailor the experience to your groups expectations.
To your specific Gripes:
1)The DM is always right.
I think this statement stems from the assumption that a new DM refers to the passages you point out (regarding things to avoid) and has otherwise done his homework. This statement is also the simplest expression of the concept that the DM is the final arbiter of the rules during the game.
Our house rule is you may make any rules suggestion/question you like. The DM will make an immediate ruling. Any differences in opinion are to be discussed after the session before it's added to the house rules document for future reference. We like to keep the game moving!
2) Rule 0 means that the DM can change whatever he wants.
While the groups as a whole has a say in the general way the game is played, there will always be aspects of the campaign environment that are solely the DMs discretion. The division between these 2 categories is thin and wavering line. I expect the topic almost always results in a loud din of strong and diverse opinions.
3) All classes are created equal, and are playable as written.
4) All spells are created equal, and should be balanced against each other.
I agree that not all classes (and spells) are not suitable for all styles of play, nor are they suitable for play in all campaign settings 'as is'. Part of this is due to the specifics of the campaign setting, another part is player preferences, and lastly a good part is based from the DMs skill to provided appropriate challenges for his players according to their characters strengths and weaknesses.
5)"No-dice gaming" is D&D.
Why not? I enjoyed the White Wolf settings as LARPs infinitely more than the tabletop version I had participated in. There is no reason that a campaign setting, with all it's characters, plots, and quirks cannot be translated to another rules set as long as the participants approve of the change.
6) "role"-players don't min/max.
7) "roll"playing is mutually exclusive with "role"playing.
Of course the aren't mutually exclusive! It's just that many people treat them as such.
I loved the response that referred to a player 'optimising' a character for the type of game experience they expect/prefer. I often do a loose background (and goal) to justify my choices when I move on to the mechanics of character creation.
8) D&D doesn't need (much) magic.
I have played in both high and low magic campaigns and enjoyed both. My preference is in the middle-low region, but thats because I don't have a good command of the majority of magic spells and items listed in the core books, nor do I particularly feel like dedicating the time to learn them. Fortunately, everyone in my group feels the same. Probably part of why we still game together.
9) As long as you can make house rules, there are no inherent flaws in the game.
As long as the group can agree on a house rule, does it really matter that the base system had a flaw? Too many flaws can make the base system unusable without extensive work, as was my opinion with the first Star Wars D20. Such a product should never reach the shelves in that state. But my tolerance for flaws is such that I can take the core D&D book as is and deal with any problems as they arise. I make a few mistakes, but I try to learn from them too. So far it's a good deal for me. Your mileage will vary.
10) Literal wording is more important than intent.
I consider the opposite to be true. Again, this is a matter of the group’s preference and personal interpretation.
11) D&D is/was a war game.
I think every RPG system I have ever seen has more rules related to combat than any other subject. I cannot vouch for the history of D&D and the intent of Mr Gygax and Co. when drafting the first revisions, but I think it's safe to say that the game today is very different in tone and execution that it was all those years ago. For better or for worse.
My roommate is an long time player who has been playing for nearly as long as D&D has been for sale. He keeps threatening to introduce us all to a short 1st edition AD&D game and I hope he does. It should be an interesting experience to discover the appeal of the earlier revisions.
12) D&D is an expensive hobby.
For my money, I think this is one of the least expensive hobbies around if you don't feel the need to buy up every little thing. I still don't own any 3.5 books of my own.
Technically speaking, the game could be run solely with a single PHB and a talented, imaginative, and dedicated DM.
IMHO combining roll and role playing is one of the hardest parts of DnD. On the one hand, your character has strengths and limitations. On the other hand, you are in "control" of your character and want them to make good decisions. This is especially true in social interactions and having your character make decisions. The issue is the same. You want your character to do or say "good" things, but that might not be "in character."
A few ways to deal with this (one or more can be used):
1. Stats effect personality: Examine your character, and figure out how their stats effect their personality, choosing their actions accordingly. For example a character with low INT could be in denial and propose ludicrous or unfeasible ideas or try to act like experts on subjects they don't understand, getting defensive when others contradict them or suggest alternatives. On the other hand, the same character might be quiet and avoid making strategic decisions. A character with high CHA might be a persuasive speaker, attractive, humorous, or just fun to hang out with. Each of those would effect their personality in different ways.
2. Use the dice: When your character is making a choice, have them make an INT, WIS, or CHA check. Assign a DC for your character coming up with the "right" choice or realizing that a stupid (but interesting) choice is a good idea. Roll and go with it.
This is good if you are indecisive and can take the "burden" of a character doing something stupid off you as a player. Remember, "bad" choices can make for interesting adventures. For example, a psion in a campaign I am in made a check to see if his character though that writing a letter to a group of cranium rats who had been attacking him was a good idea. That "bad" choice led to some good adventures.
3. Roll first: When you do social interactions, roll first. Use the roll in your role playing. If you succeed really well on diplomacy, speak logically and eloquently. If you fail horribly on diplomacy, be rude and stupid. For example, the story of the player failing a bluff and shouting out "LOOK! It's the oldest trick in the book!"
4. Roll last: For social interactions, act in character. The roll is simply used to represent subtleties beyond your conscious control. If you bluff well, you speak confidently. If you fail an intimidate attempt, you simply don't look threatening. DMs should add circumstance modifiers to a social roll depending on what the character "actually says" in conversation. A rude character, for example, will take a large penalty to diplomacy and will be unlikely to succeed, even on a good roll.
5. Roll sometimes: When roleplaying a social interaction directly, don't roll and simply play it out. When you choose to simply describe what your character does, then base the result of the interaction on rolls.
Just my excessive number of cents.
1) Ok, the Dungeon Master isn't always right. However, it is not up to my players to decide whether or not what I am doing is right or wrong. It is in the best interests of all involved to let the Dungeon Master handle the rulings and such so that the game is not bogged down with arguments, rules questions, etc.
2) If I find a flaw in the game system, I am going to change it. Or if I want to try something new I will. I try to stick to the book as much as possible (I'm pretty much a rules lawyer), but in some instances, the rules are just too generic. Most of the time I will let my players know any rulings I've changed or any house rules that are in place before the campaign. However, I'm not going to break character and explain the rules changes in the middle of an encounter.
3) All classes are balanced, they are not equal. It depends on the game. Sure, if your DM keeps throwing spell-resistant foes at you, then yes, the melee characters are going to be more powerful than the spellcasters usually. However, if your DM knows what he's doing he will take into consideration the character classes in the party and attempt to create encounters that are challenging for everyone but also give advantages to certain character classes at least once in a while.
4) Ok, I agree with you here!
5) Alright, now this section irked me a little. I purchased D&D and I have every right to promote roleplaying in my campaigns. I make use of the dice regularly and have a healthy dose of combat in my campaigns too, it just doesn't take up the majority of the game unlike most Hack 'N Slash games. Sometimes you can not let the dice determine everything either. For example, take conversation. I do have them roll a skill check of the corresponding skill (diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, etc.), but I always have them converse, and give them a bonus or penalty based on their words, too. I think this is a good balance. Sometimes when they're in a hurry to get going, I'll allow a basic Gather Information or Intimidate check, etc. without having to roleplay the situation out completely.
6) In my campaign, they don't. If they do, they no longer play my campaign. It's that simple. If you're going to be a powergamer, go play a video game or Warhammer or something... And it's one tough cookie trying to convert these types of players too.
7) Sounds good to me.
8) Sometimes, I find it very sad that one high-level spellcasting PC or NPC alone can take on an entire army of thousands and end up winning most of the time with nay but a scratch (if that). I would prefer to keep playing my favourite gaming system, D&D, but to find a suitable low-magic fix I have had to test some other gaming systems: 7th Sea, Call of Cthulhu, Exalted, etc with varying success.
9) Yep. Sounds good.
10) Yeah, I definitely agree with you here, although you seem to contradict yourself here in regards to earlier statements...
11) I partially agree and disagree here. D&D is a good mix between a wargame and a roleplaying game, yes... However I would appreciate if the next incarnation of D&D does't promote combat and min/maxing as much as 3rd Edition has...
12) I agree, D&D is very inexpensive. Heck, you can even play for $5 if you buy a pencil and a tube of dice. I personally don't allow rulebooks at the table most of the time, unless you have to research one of your spells or something. I've played an entire campaign quite successfully with none of the players owning a Player's Handbook, but having access to mine whenever they needed it. That was soon after D&D 3E was released, by the way.
In my experience most people that don't optimize or min/max a character to the fullest only do so because they don’t know all their options. An example would be a person that wants to play a fighter/wizard and see the spell sword PRC and says, “Hey that’s cool. It fits my idea I'm going to do that.” This player has probably not seen the Bladesinger or Eldritch Knight PRC and if they were shown those they would probably go with one of those instead of the spell sword.
Real "role" players do optimize their characters. After all, real people with even a slight amount of intelligence will work to learn skills and techniques that benefit them more, not less. Certainly real people with enough skill to be a PC class have some intelligence in this regard.
It's a matter of priorities. Min/maxers make statistics not just their top priority, but practically their only priority. For a min/maxer having the "best" character obscures their desire to have an interesting character, to have a unique character, and to allow the whole group have a good time.
Often min/maxing leads to other annoying role-playing habits. For example min/maxers may become rules lawyers (interpreting the rules selectively and literally to have an unbalanced result) so as to have the most powerful characters. Min/maxers may become power-gamers (being unaccepting of non-combat elements of the role-playing experience regardless of what other player's think) because they feel inferior when their combat optimized characters are placed in non-combat situations. Finally, min/maxers may become PC-killers, to give themselves the "ultimate" proof that their character is better than someone else's character.
To sum up: Optimizing is good, normal. Min/maxing is bad, unpleasant. The difference is a matter of attitude.
An example would be a person that wants to play a fighter/wizard and see the spell sword PRC and says, “Hey that’s cool. It fits my idea I'm going to do that.” This player has probably not seen the Bladesinger or Eldritch Knight PRC and if they were shown those they would probably go with one of those instead of the spell sword.
This is based on the flawed assumption that the Bladesinger or Eldritch Knight is intrinsically SUPERIOR to the Spell Sword (the 3.5 Complete Warrior version is the one I'm thinking of). The classes have very different FLAVOR. A non-Elven Bladesinger is bogus. An Eldritch Knight can't wear Armor. What if I want to play a mystical knight "Spellcaster in Armor" who can channel spells through his blade? That demands a Spellsword, not a Blade Singer, and NOT an Eldritch Knight.
Choosing to avoid the Spellsword simply because it lacks "full caster progression" is a min/max choice, not a character-based choice. That said, almost everyone does at least a little "Min/Maxing."
Now on point 8...that D&D is for high-magic games. Hmmm, interesting theory. 3.0/3.5e certainly has more prevalent magic at lower levels than 2e did. You used to have to be able to cast 7th level spells to make permanent magic items! Which would restrict item creation (under today's spell progression) to 13th level characters. But such items can now be made by 5th level characters (Arms and Armor, Wondrous Items)! And classes that used to get spells at 9th level (Paladins and Rangers) now get them at 4th.
So the game has become more "high-magic" than it used to be. Does that mean that those of us who want to play a lower-magic game like we used to need to stop playing D&D? Don't be ridiculous.
Of course, we could have a long debate on what "high-magic" means. We could have the same argument about "Epic" I'm sure. D&D is definitely a "high fantasy" game. But you can certainly have "high fantasy" in a world that many here would call "low-magic." The Lord of the Rings; Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser; Conan; A Song of Ice and Fire; Memory, Sorrow and Thorn; and heck, even the Wheel of Time (which IS low magic by D&D standards, and that's a terrifying thought) spring to mind, and that's just to name a few.
Most "low-magic" people just want to keep magic magical (I know that's my goal). They don't want characters tromping around brimming with ultimate cosmic power (TM) and armed to the teeth with 23 magical items, including their boots, gloves, belt, hat, shirt, vest, cloak, armor, shield, 4 weapons, jewelry, backpack, belt pouches, and underwear. That used to be called a "Monty Haul" campaign. Now it's called "normal."
Sorry for the rant. Just thought I'd give the other side's viewpoint.
Cost for the PHB, some dice and a pencil: $37 US (players)
Having a set of books that you can use over and over again for years and years to create and play in your own world: Priceless
Any DM that doesn't respect a player's thoughts/concerns/complaints needs a beating just as bad as a player that doesn't respect the DMs role as the referee. Please remember that.
1) The DM is always right
When questioned about their motives and capabilities as a DM to make good decisions, most gamers are incapable of accepting that they might make mistakes and bad decisions. Instead, they hide behind the canned response that has become in our day and age: "The DM is always right".
There are three problems with this statement:
-It implies that there is a certain amount of rightness or wrongness about a decision in the first place, when many game decisions are merely arbitrary, and cannot be right or wrong. They merely are. This is more aptly phrased as: "The DM will make arbitrary decisions from time to time that reflect his/her personal preference. They are neither right nor wrong, but rather a matter of preference".
-It ignores the possibility of objective wrongness by stating that any arbitrary rule can be jammed into the system at any point and made to still hold the whole system together. There is a point at which consistency will be violated by stubbornly sticking to this system, and the DM becomes wrong. If the DM simultaneously says that 2+2=4 and 2+2=5, nothing short of Orwellian re-programming will allow that to sit right with a player, and it is still objectively wrong.
-The DMG whole-heartedly admits that DMs will be in the wrong at times. In fact, they have devoted an entire section of the DMG to things that DMs do that are wrong, stupid, inconsiderate, ignorant and/or destructive. (pg. 100 of the 3.0 DMG, or pgs. 45-46 of the 3.5 DMG for those watching at home)
I don't know if you are trying to make a point here or I am just understanding the statement differently, but the Dm is Never Wrong. Basically the DM has the right, and perverse privaledge, to adjudicate any rule he/she wants. If a DM decides that the world has no air then everyone suffocates, the DM is the supreme overlord of their campaign and the world it is set in (Think of Ao in FR) and can do anything they feel like. Obviously there is a line that most DM's just stay behind to keep games in the norm, but a DM is always right because every descision they make becomes law in the game. They can make BAD descisions, but they can't make wrong ones.
2) Rule 0 means that the DM can change whatever he wants
Rule 0 refers to pg. 4 of the 3.0 PHB (the numbering has been removed in 3.5), wherein it states that the first step of character creation is to check with the DM to see what differing variants he is using in the campaign.
It is trivially true that whenever a group of people plays a game, they can by mutual consent alter said rules. That cannot be disputed, as there is no one forcing people to play Monopoly with the shoe piece - you can decide that in the interest of preventing infighting to get the piece, it will not be used. Or you can decide to give rent to Free Parking, or what have you.
The same applies to D&D, with the caveat that some of the reasonings behind certain rules changes will be kept as the sole providence of the DM. But the players in the game must agree with the DM, AHEAD of time, on any alterations to the rules set to comply with rule 0.
Ad hoc PC screwing in the middle of a camapaign does not fall under the providence of Rule 0, as Rule 0 only applies at the beginning of character creation. (and I think it's called Rule 0 in tribute to the 0th law of Thermodynamics)
Again, the DM's word is law. I have played with a DM that had only one stipulation that he held in every game, no gnomes. He felt that they were just a branch of dwarves that got a lot of support so he decided they did not exist, and in his games he had every right to do that. I don't know how many DMs have just excluded the Monk from their games because it just doesn't fit or they though it was overbalanced.
As for making those same alterations mid-campaign I see no reason why a DM can't do so. If that DM can give some reason why they did what they did then they have every right to do it. Obviously players will just get upset and leave if the DM decides mid-campign that the world they are playing in suddenly has no arcane magic and half the party is Bards and Wizards, but the DM can make rules on the fly and enforce them, they players may not like it but the DM can do it.
3) All classes are created equal, and are playable as written
Class design is a pickle for game designers, as they have to try to appease a vast audience who have a miriad of playing styles with about 10 canned classes. So in order to do so, they have to design all of the classes with an approximately equal amount of capabilities in each of the major playing styles. (hack-em and slash-em, no-dice in-depth, dice-based in-depth, with other styles being a combination of the above)
But even in that attempt, some classes clearly come out better than others in different playing styles - a dice-based in-depth human rogue will fare much better than a fighter due to the plethora of in-depth skills available to the player, whereas a rogue in an undead hunting hacker campaign will be at a severe disadvantage to the fighter.
I liken this to card design in recent Magic: The Gathering sets. When they design the card pool for a set, they design cards for all sorts of different formats. Some cards are meant to be played in Type II, others in draft, block, some are meant to rotate to Type I immediately (like getting banned in Type II before they are even released) and others are 1.5 material. Others still were never meant to see tournament play and were solely designed for fun play and/or combo decks.
One can see evidence of this design strategy in class design as well, which really relegates certain character class choices to certain games, and some classes are demonstrably weaker than other in differing formats. As such, certain classes require re-tooling when played in different formats.
Not much to argue with here, I agree with you. Certain classes fill certain roles for certain groups of certain people, I really don't think it would be possible to balance them when given the large array of completely different skills. How do you compare Sneak Attack to Wildshape in terms of balance, they are completely different. Classes are built so that they are good in different situations. When your group finds itself in a Gladiator Ring the Rogue might as well commit suicide while the Barbarians, Monks, and Fighters of the group just laugh.
4) All spells are created equal, and should be balanced against each other
As above, spells have differing uses. Some spells are campaigning spells, some are traveling spells, some are for nit-picky DMS who keep track of everything and others are for blast-em DMs who only care about raw damage output and always make their saves against Hold Monster ( ).
In fact, the most broken spells in the game are non-combat spells that don't even do any damage. (as is the case with MtG as well) As such, when performing spell design one must keep in mind the possibilities for abuse in more than just hack-em campaigns (which is something that even the game designers seem to have forgotten in places... )
Try telling this to a Wizard that casts Maximized Magic Missiles at level 9 (for 75 Force Damage) or the 10d6 Fireball at fifth level. Some spells are overbalanced in fact, and they are purposly made as such.
5) "No-dice gaming" is D&D
If you want to be a thespian, be my guest. But don't hamstring your characters with the d20 system which was designed for rolling dice. The "D" in D20 means dice. I honestly can't understand why "high" roleplayers even bother using a combat-intensive gaming system to emulate inter-personal interactions when they don't even use the d20 to resolve them.
Using the correct simulation tools is vital to accomplishing your goals. I wouldn't start using Fortran to program a graphical interface, nor would I use Visual Basic to do computationally intensive simulations; choosing the right simulator for the right problem/situation saves one a lot of hassle and misery. So if you want to ignore all of the mechanics of the d20 system while still using it for character/world creation, you're really causing yourself more trouble than is necessary and you're probably better off with some other gaming (simulation) system.
What is the point in spending all the time calculating skill points, ability bonuses/modifiers, to-hit modifiers, etc., etc., etc. if you're just going to wing it anyways and ignore what the numbers are telling you? Why bother building a character with skill points when you don't require the players to ever roll a dice for social interactions? Find some other gaming system and go to town - d20 is not fitting your needs at all.
I have actually played a game like this, fully RP. It was fun, but definatly not D&D. It was more like a play than anything, we felt like we were living out one of those decide as you go stories; iot was great, but not D&D. D&D isn't only about the Fantasy, but about how you can express it like a game. Obviously it is different than Monopoly where there is a clear winner and a clear looser (unless you bankrupt the Banker, :D ) but D&D IS A GAME, and as such must have limitations and rules, as well as an element of customization and randomness. I have no problems with people that have full RP games, but technically it isn't D&D unless the PHB is in there.
6) "role"-players don't min/max
Pure and utter poppycock, I say. By "role"-player in this context I am referring to people who claim that their character is solely story-based, and never took any skills/feats to optimise their character.
By definition, if you don't take skills to optimize the aspects of your character that you would consider to be attributes, then you are doing bad roleplaying and are just assembling a bunch of "flight of fancy" abilities. So good "role" players are in fact min/maxxers.
By definition every player is by some definition a min/maxer unless they make a completely random character (rolling dice to decide race, class, abilities, feats, and skills), but there is a degree here. By definitions everyone is a min/maxer at the purest definition of the word, but there is a middle ground. I have seen a build where a giant could throw for some 1000 damage each round (I am sorry I can't remember the number) and that would be min/maxing obviously, and unless it was a very rare case this would be done simply for the ability to do that much damage and not for an RP angle (although one would be though of seperatly). When you abuse the rules to get rediculous numbers (8 attacks at +33 BaB at Level 20?) then you aren't RPing, but there is a line between that and complete randomness where there is a happy medium.
7) "roll"playing is mutually exclusive with "role"playing
There is nothing in the usage of dice and combat that necessitates the exclusion of playing a role with your character, or character development. You can do both at the same time. While it is true that there are people who do one to the exclusion of the other, that is their preference and Gygax-given right; but it does not mean that you can't do both. It just means that some people prefer to do it one way or another.
Again, the balance factor. They can be blended together, just you need to add some self-control.
8) D&D doesn't need (much) magic
It still baffles me how/why people try to make low-magic D&D settings. The entire game was designed around the premise that magic is a present, common and pervasive force in the world. It is not rare. It is not common either, but (almost) every person in the D&D world must be at least basely aware of the presence of magic in order for any consistency.
If you don't believe me, count the number of monsters in the Monster Manual that don't have some form of magical ability/origin.
Then go and count the number of pages in the PHB devoted to spells.
Then go and count the number of core classes that don't get access to magic or some form of (Su) or (Sp) ability. (hint: two. Barbarian and Fighter; the other 9 all get inherently magical abilities or the ability to manipulate magic at some point)
Then go to the DMG and find out how many pages of magical items there are compared to the number of non-magical items in the PHB.
In the end, you have to face the fact that D&D is not "low-magic", nor will it work as such without extensive modifications, at which point you aren't playing D&D anyways and instead have designed your own gaming system. (see point #5 about picking the right tool for the right job - find some other gaming system if you want to run low/non-magical campaigns)
D&D without magic is like Canada without Beavers, Cold Winters, Beer, and an ignorance to Americans; it takes out the essence of it. D&D is supposed to be magical, that is the whole point! Every class is influenced by magic (show me a Barb or Fighter who doesn't use magical items or build a character to fight magic and I will give you a cookie), it is how the game works. The whole premise for D&D was medievil people in a world of magic, that is why it was developed.
9) As long as you can make house rules, there are no inherent flaws in the game
This oft-lauded fallacy is in direct violation of many logical principles, the most important of which is that the test for self-consistency of a system cannot rely on the ability to change the rules of the system after the test of self-consistency has been made, which leads to bootstrapping infinite loops.
As was discussed above (in #2), it is trivially true that any group of people can decide to change the rules of whatever game they are playing as there is no external force enforcing a particular rules set upon them (except in the RPGA ), but that does not mean that the rules shouldn't be reasonably balanced and consistent beforehand. It is not the job of the players to make the game internally consistent and playable from the get-go, but rather it is their responsibility (and right) to tailor the rules to their desires once the basics have been taken care of for them by whatever company manufactures the game.
As such, I come here to figure out what it is that the gaming company messed up on before I get into trouble in a game, to try to figure out fixes/patches in the hopes that they (WOTC) will at least listen, and at the very least to hammer out a set of workable patches for DMs if WOTC refuses to listen (like they did with many of the problematic spells linked in my sig).
What about the flaw that D&D is a game yet you cannot win or loose? Being as complex as it is D&D will always have flaws, it is a game and is such prone to have problems. House rules can help smooth out some of the problems of the game, and even WotC updates are good but still cannot make the game perfect. The game has been around since '75, gone throuh 3 editions as well as dozens of branching games and yet none of them are perfect. I could go into the big long speech that humans are incapable of perfection but I will leave that to the borg, and basically just say that you can smooth out some of the crunchies but playing D&D requires a certain level of tolerance for flaws, it is a part of the game.
10) Literal wording is more important than intent
This is the same mistake that many amateurs make when trying to interpret legal documents. While it is true that judges usually take a more literal interpretation of legalise than the average person, it is also true that the interpretations that accompany their decisions in court are equally as important, if not more important, than the decisions themselves. The "interpretations" (which are seperate documents attached to the rulings) are used as precedent and guidelines for future interpretations of the laws laid down by legislators.
As it is impossible to take every situation into account when laying down a law the judicial system acts as interpreters of the will and intent of the legislators while still being bound by the literal reading of the law. The same applies here - the game designers have tried (in some cases ) to make the rules as clear as possible, but some eventualities arise which are not covered 100% by the written code and require interpretation, or are covered and lead to ludicrous results. Then it becomes the job of the enforcers of the law (i.e. the DMs) to come up with an interpretation that makes sense.
Now while not all DMs are really qualified to make such decisions and make bad decisions as a result, when we discuss things on the boards the hope is that we can try to be reasonable at points and interpret the letter of the law with the correct intent/spirit. (now of course there is the other danger that the players are left in a sea of confusion as to what the rules are because of inconsistent and irrational judgments, so a balance is required). But hyper-literal readings are just as erroneous as whimsical readings.
I am on the fence here. While getting the general idea of an aspect is important, how it is written is paramount to understand. If the Fireball Spell simply said "a ball of fire that causes fire damage" then there would be no end to the chaos. You need to specify that Fireball does 10d6 damage, not 6d10 or 1d60 or 60d1. While the intent is important in a game based on rules the wording has to be precise and literal, and in some cases more important than general idea (I don't care that it is a ball of fire, can I do 6,000,000,000 damage with it or not?).
11) D&D is/was a war game
While D&D started initially as a miniatures war game (before it was D&D), its first incarnation was nothing like that.
D&D has rules for tactical combat. It has an in-depth combat system. It has HP, AC, and many ways to do damage. So in that respect it is kind of like a war game.
But where D&D splits off from traditional war gaming is in its execution outside of combat. It is entirely possible to play D&D without immersing yourself heavily in combat. Yes the system relies heavily on combat statistics and the use of combat to resolve issues, but the extent to which that applies is variable from group to group. In war games, the premise is that there is war, violence and bloodshed and you are supposed to resolve it somehow - usually through superiority in arms (combined with some diplomacheese of course).
In D&D, however, the primary objective is to play an individual character and explore/act out their lives and interaction with the outside world. When D&D split off from Chainmail, it was because the designers wanted to have special characters who had lives outside of just killing things on the field of war, and the idea of evolving their characters in a fantasy world was very appealing. As such the psychological method of role-enactment, or roleplaying, came into fruition with the advent of D&D and the war-gaming aspect was toned down to allow for heroic fantasy.
With the re-introduction of miniatures into the D&D scene the game is re-discovering some of its war gaming roots, but still remains heavily reliant on DM arbitration, player whims for plot line development (and plot lines for that matter), world interaction, fleshed out NPCs and non-combat skills - none of which are part of a traditional war game. 3e took a step back towards war-gaming with the introduction of many standardised aspects of the game to allow players more control over their characters (which some DMs and players still complain bitterly about, for no good reason IMO), but has still left in many "fuzzy" aspects of the game that the DM must arbitrate.
So while D&D still retains some aspects of Chainmail in its current (and past) incarnations, it is fundamentally different from a war game or one that is strictly based upon combat, and has moved into the realm of psychological mind-hump.
Slow down there Mr Stereotype! I have seen games go completely loco on the hack of D&D and pretty much abandon RP at all costs. When I was still a novice gamer I played with a group that barely talked during a game except to announce actions and roles. The whole point of the campaign was to defeat some anonymous enemy for no reason other than to kill. While this is not common for D&D games it is out there, so don't exlude it. D&D isn't meant to be a War Game, but the rules allow it so that it CAN be one.
12) D&D is an expensive hobby
I'm going to try to compare to a similar hobby here: computer games (which many D&Ders are rabid fans of), and which also has approximately the same time-scale as D&D with the 3.5 edition having just been released. (by this, I mean that upgrading D&D after 3 years from its initial release is about how long a computer stays "modern" or a gaming system "trendy" and still supported with new games. You will also get about the same amount of play time and re-usability if you are a "stay-modern" type of person)
Cost for the 3 core books, one package of dice and a pencil: $97 US (DMs only)
Cost for the PHB, some dice and a pencil: $37 US (players)
Cost for a new game cube, some fixings and 5 free games (from eBay): $180 US
Cost for a used Playstation, some fixings and a couple of games (from eBay): $160 US
Cost for a new-ish computer (1.5 GHz) with a monitor, some peripherals and a couple of games: $700 (on the very low end)
Cost for a racing car: > $1 million
Now the even better thing about D&D (even though it is already cheaper even if you upgrade every couple of years) is that your books never break or need fixing. They may need patches like all of the above, but you don't have to worry about paying a ton in servicing costs.
First off, very few long time gamers spend $37 US per year (or half decade) on D&D. I have been playing for 5 years, and this year (2003) 1 spend just North of $400CDN on D&D (which inclusdes a few manuals, maps, dice, miniatures, novels, and a new hard drive (I have A LOT of D&D/RP stuff on my computer). And that doesn't include presents for fellow gamers and the countless monies I have spend on gaming snacks (I just call the Pizza place and say my name, they know the address and order by heart), so don't tell me D&D isn't expensive! Now, that may be a little extreme, but you get the idea. Lets not forget some of the other hobbies that people engage in that cost a little less than $37US:
- Athletics/Sports/Fitness (Doesn't cost a whole lot to run 2km and do 50 sit ups every morning)
- Volunteering (You do not have to pay to gelp out at a soup kitchen or pick up garbage in the park)
- Spend Time With Family (I amazingly spend $12 for a Candy Land game and have played the same game for 3 years with my two neices, good investment)
- Education (High School costs me nothing but a little portion of my soul every day)
- Work (You do extra work and yet net more money, that is the best cost ever!)
- Enjoy Nature (Hugging a tree costs nothing)
Just wanted to clear this up, I have seen too many gamers think $20 would set them for a lifetime of D&D.
Then you are a person like the real world: if you have great strength and low intelligence, you will not become a wizard (as you will not become a rocket-scientist if you have trouble with physics). You will become an athlete. Someone who uses the benefits of his strength, and does not count on his intelligence.
And you should start playing as a level 1 character: they won’t be powerplayed: they get strong, but their feats and skills will be chosen because they are useful now, not because they will get a strong combo at level 20.
You can play a session of D&D where the dice don't come out. So be it, that in that session, very little should actually be accomplished, unless you're doing mundane things. To do anything significant, you'll have to roll dice, however.
In a normal session of D&D, there will be dice used. The rules REQUIRE dice. You have to roll when you make your character, or when you get into a battle, or when you use a skill. Often, you roll when you cast a spell. If you play a session, where you do these things, and don't roll dice, you stop playing D&D. You're telling a story with a group of people, in a D&D world. When I read a D&D novel, I'm READING about D&D, not playing D&D with the writer.
Also, Min/Maxing is not the same thing as Roll playing. I didn't Min/Max when I made my ditz illusionist with an 11 Int, who focused on slight of hand tricks to make people think she was better at casting. Heck, she wasn't even good at that.
As for low magic being antithetical to D&D ... not only no, but hell no! Just because 3 ed has made the magic very difficult to pry out does not mean that low magic campaigns don't have a place.
As has already been said, to recreate any good fantasy series you have to remove about 90% of the magic from D&D. If you don't you end up with something where you have to suspend your disbelief with a block and tackle.
I'd say it can go either way. Enough time, dedication, creativity, and memory space and you can play D&D with nothing but the dice.
However, I'm partially addicted to buying the books. I have seven hardbacks and several softcovers. Not to mention now I've subscribed to Dragon.
Role-playing can be cheaper than D&D. It costs time and perhaps snack money to freeform role-play.
There are the hidden costs in addition to the book costs. Snacks have already been mentioned. Time is required to play, time in which you could be doing other activities. You need a gaming group; if you wind up without one, you effectively can't consider that period of time one that the cost of the books can be split up amongst (unless perhaps you're a mechanics freak).
Originally posted by chonjurer
In the end, you have to face the fact that D&D is not "low-magic", nor will it work as such without extensive modifications, at which point you aren't playing D&D anyways and instead have designed your own gaming system. (see point #5 about picking the right tool for the right job - find some other gaming system if you want to run low/non-magical campaigns)
Well I'm sorry this "drives you nuts", but I run a low-magic setting in D&D, and I have absolutely no problems with it. I mean, just because there's a large number of monsters in the MM that use magic, and the PHB has a bunch of spells in it, and three core classes have no magic abilities (you forgot rogue), doesn't mean you have to make a setting where magic is all over the place.
Take d20 Modern for example, a huge portion of that book is all about magic, but only two classes can actually use it, and that's if you're using the proper campaign setting. Still, the material is there if you want to use it.
There is nothing wrong with low magic worlds. Several 2e books supported extremely low or not magic campaigns. Just as the DM can choose to say there are no gnomes in his world he could say there is no magic.
The best [b]role[b]-players are also min-maxers. The two activities are not exclusive and complement each other. A good min-maxer will build a character closer to character concept. A good role-player will create a more interesting concept to build towards.
Using die rolls for social interactions also the inarticulate to play glib characters, just as using rolls for combat allows the weak to play strong characters. Allowing glib characters to bypass the results of social interaction rolls is like allowing a martial artist to bypass combat rolls by demonstrating his skills.
Also, I don't buy into the whole "expensive” thing.
I managed to DM one of the most successful campaigns in my region for 1 and a half year without buying the core rulebooks. I borrowed them from the local library, or borrowed from my friends and took notes from them. GASP! I didn't have to pay a single dime to play and DM D&D! Perish the thought!
So I don't buy the whole "expensive" aspect. It will cost you if you buy everything in the store, but that isn't required to enjoy the game.
Originally posted by chonjurer
2) Rule 0 means that the DM can change whatever he wants
Rule 0 refers to pg. 4 of the 3.0 PHB (the numbering has been removed in 3.5), wherein it states that the first step of character creation is to check with the DM to see what differing variants he is using in the campaign.
While often quick-referenced with "Rule 0" from the PHB, it actually states that the rules are the demesne of the DM and that he can change them at whim in the DMG.
5) "No-dice gaming" is D&D
If you want to be a thespian, be my guest. But don't hamstring your characters with the d20 system which was designed for rolling dice. The "D" in D20 means dice.
D&D is more than the d20 system. And just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it wrong.
9) As long as you can make house rules, there are no inherent flaws in the game
This oft-lauded fallacy is in direct violation of many logical principles, the most important of which is that the test for self-consistency of a system cannot rely on the ability to change the rules of the system after the test of self-consistency has been made, which leads to bootstrapping infinite loops.
The only problem here is trying to apply plain logic to a largely subjective system. The only logical consistency is that you try to succeed by achieving a target number by rolling a d20 and adding appropriate modifiers. Those modifiers, the "balance" between classes and races, and most other factors may be considered "broken" by one person and "balanced" by another because they are subjective in nature. So, any subjective-by-nature flaw that you can fix isn't really a flaw at all.
12) D&D is an expensive hobby
And it IS, too. Sure, there are MORE expensive hobbies - but their existence doesn't mean D&D is an inexpensive hobby.
Originally posted by chonjurer
1) The DM is always right
When questioned about their motives and capabilities as a DM to make good decisions, most gamers are incapable of accepting that they might make mistakes and bad decisions. Instead, they hide behind the canned response that has become in our day and age: "The DM is always right".
8) D&D doesn't need (much) magic
It still baffles me how/why people try to make low-magic D&D settings. The entire game was designed around the premise that magic is a present, common and pervasive force in the world. It is not rare. It is not common either, but (almost) every person in the D&D world must be at least basely aware of the presence of magic in order for any consistency.
In the end, you have to face the fact that D&D is not "low-magic", nor will it work as such without extensive modifications, at which point you aren't playing D&D anyways and instead have designed your own gaming system. (see point #5 about picking the right tool for the right job - find some other gaming system if you want to run low/non-magical campaigns)
For example- there are rules in the DMG regarding DM conduct. Allowing the DM to ignore those at will is to subvert the entire reasoning behind printing them. For example- the DMG tells DM's to NOT penalize players exp points- (but one can reduce a bonus, of course). If a DM does so- he is "cheating". That rule exists solely to control a bad or control-freak DM.
Nine times out of ten- a DM running a "low magic" campaign is actually running either a "cheap*ss campaign" or is a super control freak.
I don't know if you are trying to make a point here or I am just understanding the statement differently, but the Dm is Never Wrong. Basically the DM has the right, and perverse privaledge, to adjudicate any rule he/she wants. If a DM decides that the world has no air then everyone suffocates, the DM is the supreme overlord of their campaign and the world it is set in (Think of Ao in FR) and can do anything they feel like. Obviously there is a line that most DM's just stay behind to keep games in the norm, but a DM is always right because every descision they make becomes law in the game. They can make BAD descisions, but they can't make wrong ones.
Sorry but you don't understand. Your claim about how Chonj is wrong actually proves him right. Can't you see how you have supported his claims? When the DM declares he is Never Wrong he is already wrong. The idea that the DM can do no wrong, and that he is In Control of All is a total fallacy. This was never the intention nor is this stated anywhere within ANY DMG ever published by TSR/Wizards. And yet soooo many people swear it is the truth.
The DM creates worlds, settings, scenarios, etc; the DM runs NPCs and other non-player roles, and the DM resolves actions. The DM does not control the rules, nor is everything he spouts a rule. When the books states that rules may be changed, it never states that this is the providence of the DM and the DM alone. Anyone may suggest rule changes, and like all social activities a consensus should be mandatory for changes made to the game itself. In all the millions of different games played worldwide, I can think of none in which it is acceptable for anyone to make changes to the rules in mid-game. Why should D&D be any different? When a DM assumes his judgment is somehow better than his players, or even worse, infallible; he is abusing the players and the trust they have placed in him to run a fair game. What makes this even more despicable is that so often the players are the DM's friends.
- No supernatural abilities.
- No ancient artifacts with mystical powers.
- No magical creatures with cool magical abilities (including dragons).
A no magic campaign could still be fun, but it wouldn't be the same game flavor-wise as D&D.
Low magic campaigns, however, are a perfectly valid way of interpreting the D&D world. Making magic rare can make it more powerful, mysterious, and important. Having heroes search for a powerful magic item or fight a magical foe could be much more exciting if magic is in short supply.
10) Literal wording is more important than intent
Yes it is.
And trivially proven too...
We have rule foo.
You find the literal wording of rule foo not to your liking, for one reason or another.
You look to the intent of rule foo.
What is the intent of rule foo?
Noone knows.
The literal wording is all we have to go on.
As soon as you have to "assume", "interpret" or divine designer "intent" you don't have an argument.
At least my books hold far more names than one and I seriously doubt that even the people behind those names could agree on what the "intent" behind a single rule is.
When we argue about a rule here on these boards we argue about the literal interpretation, anything else is just a matter of opinion and thus a waste of time.
It can be played that way, but as a DM, you will have to make changes to the rules and tables, and these changes will become more and more important as time goes on. It's crucial that any DM who wants to play low-magic D&D realise that you can't do so straight out of the book without seeing entire parties get decimated the first time they run into damage resistant monsters, to use a simple example.
The "DM is always right" rule is spot on, as is the "Rule 0". Even when I run into a situation where I need to change the rules post-character creation I won't do it in the middle of an encounter, or even in the middle of a session. It simply goes down as a note, I discuss it with my players afterward and it isn't a problem anymore.
I recently had a campaign that progressed into epic levels, all of the rules and exceptions to the rules had been established long ago. Over the course of the campaign I started seeing Power Attack getting out of hand, I didn't change the feat on the spot or even in session. However, after the session I discussed it with the players and showed them the numbers and how the feat had trivialized what would otherwise have been a challenging encounter. I explained the changes I was considering, got feedback from them, made the changes for the next session and went forward.
The DM can be "always right" but it's smart if he's also "always considerate" of his players, since he would be rolling dice by himself without them. I prefer not to liken it to a judge (although it is certainly a relevant analogy), but to a CEO, yeah, he is going to make the decisions, and ultimately will decide the direction of the company, but if he doesn't listen to the stockholders they'll be dumping stock and buying into another company.
As for those responding, for the most part you fail to relate to the subject presented from an objective standpoint.
You want low magic: D20 modern - designed to do exactly what you want to do. It's much easier to take it from high tech to low tech with the classes available there than it is to try to make the round peg known as D&D fit into the square hole called "your opinion".
You want role-play focus: Almost ANY White Wolf game handles this better than ANY D20 system. That being said, you can always play Call of Cthulhu where it doesn't matter what your stats are or what you roll, you always lose in the end. So play it diceless, hell, play it in the woods around a campfire, you might actually capture the intended ambience.
You want a wargame: Game Workshop and WOTC both have fairly well developed mass combat war game systems. GW is only for the financially secure though.
You want a game that does everything: It doesn't exist, accept and move on.
Depending upon many books you buy, it can be quite expensive. You know that you will eventually want to play something other than what is in the PHB.
The DM is never wrong, and it is his job to also make sure that nothing GOES wrong. The DM has to make sure that every route that a PC can take with a certain situation is covered. Even still, he may rule incorrectly. Be it with the covering of the routes, or the adjudication when he fails to cover the route that the PC took.
I believe that roll playing and roleplaying are symbiotic in D&D. If there is no roll playing, then you will never have a character because you need the dice to create your character. Now, I understand that you can put scores in the blocks, but who puts an 8 or 9 into an important stat. Yes, all stats are important, but certain classes require certain stats... you know what I mean. How can you decide combat without rolling dice. You cant. If you don’t have combat in your campaign, then you are not playing D&D. you also need the dice when you are roleplaying. You cant have the diplomat in the party talk to the king and know who has triumphed in the discussion without dice. Again, you can, but how fair is that. I mean, if the DM is in charge of the game.......
In order not to min/max, you need to completely randomize the character. If you want your character to be the diplomat, you take all of the feats, skills, abilities, etc. that allow you to be the best diplomat of the game. Otherwise, there is no point in being the diplomat. Everyone forgets to think of the non-combat characters as min/maxers. They always assume that they are the players that roleplay. What about the player that wants to roleplay the uberkickazzer. That takes more skill. It's like my dad always says, "It takes a smart man to play dumb." It is true. A dumb man can’t play smart, that is why we have dice, and stats!
The truth is though, most of your contentions seem to reflect a purist view of the rules. For years now, indeed since the early days of gaming, people were not only allowed but encouraged to change rules to suit specific situations. That is why you have rules variants. Diceless is as valid a rules variant as any. Ultimately everyone involved in the game must decide what elements they want, weather it is strict adherence to the rules, or if it is new rules, world, stats for monsters, what have you. A good group needs to trust their dm at times to be the final arbiter in rules calls cause it keeps the game from getting bogged down in arguments.
It was interesting to see your view point though.
Well you can always make a new game with the intent of doing that. Most of the games out today are the way they are because people were dissatisfied with the games they had and decided to make something new.
Excellent comparison with the CEO there, and oh so true, basically there is a balance between the DM and the players. It all comes down to how the different people interact with each other, and noone wants to roll dice alone (well very few people at least).
Now if this is looked after and kept in line, rule changes are all good as they can adjust for some of the biggest problems in the game.
Is a char even min/maxed when the player is just making a normal char??? I mean, every telepath (or sorcerer) will have charisma as his highest stat.
Corsair
Originally posted by Norad
You want a game that does everything: It doesn't exist, accept and move on.
D&D is quite capable of doing most everything you want it to, but you may have to actually be a DM and look beyond the limits of the rules as written to get what you want out of it.
Originally posted by Tenzhi
D&D is quite capable of doing most everything you want it to, but you may have to actually be a DM and look beyond the limits of the rules as written to get what you want out of it.
You can modify any game to do anything, but will it not stop being the original game at a certain point? If you take D&D and play it with Whitewolf rules, is it still D&D?
He is referring to playing a game without reconstructing its very core principles.
As I said though, I disagree with his comment of giving up, if you really want a game to do something, and one isn’t available, then make one.
Originally posted by taltamir
You can modify any game to do anything, but will it not stop being the original game at a certain point? If you take D&D and play it with Whitewolf rules, is it still D&D?
That's a question that can only be answered on a personal level. If you take D&D and play it with d20 rules, is it still D&D? Some answer that question with a resounding no. D&D is what you make of it.
But moving beyond the abstract philosophy . . . What I'm saying is that the d20 rules are remarkably flexible, and a creative person willing to bend the mechanics to their will can get a lot out of them.
Originally posted by Calamity
...three core classes have no magic abilities (you forgot rogue)...
Actually, the Rogue does get "the ability to manipulate magic," with Use Magic Device as a class skill.
Originally posted by chonjurer
Now the even better thing about D&D (even though it is already cheaper even if you upgrade every couple of years) is that your books never break or need fixing.
On the contrary, quite a few of my rulebooks have broken bindings, pages torn, etc.
Personal? either you play the game or you play something else, besides if you change so much, then you might be changing any other game, at that point it doesn’t matter what your "base" game is anymore.
I once knew a DM who had his campaign planned out for the next year in advance. He knew what was going to happen to the PCs in a session a couple of months from now. He took away all of their equipment, gave them powerful artifacts that would gain abilities as they leveled (and he knew the abilities it would get 15 levels from now, and what quests the players would have to go on to activate the abilities). He changed all of their races one session (permanently) and made them all into slaves.
I talked to some of his players who said they really were thinking about quitting the game because the DM felt the game was his own personal playground that he could do with as he wanted. They couldn't develop their own characters, because the DM had decided how they were going to develop without asking them. But, hey, it was his game, and the DM is always right. They couldn't choose to go a different way than the DM had designed the plot to go, because the DM would force them back onto it (he one day pulled a "the enemies throw sleep potions at you making a gas that there is no save against, you all fall asleep for 2 days and wake up in a cell").
Majoru Oakheart
Since Good DMs can't be good DMs without Rule 0 and bad DMs are bad DMs anyway, I'd say that Good DMing is facilitated by Rule 0 and that bad DMs are neither facilitated nor held back by it.