DM's forfeit power

[Primitive Screwhead]

I prefer players to work on PC's plans the same way I do. I start with a general concept and figure out what classes fit the bill. Then, in play, the character may respond to circumstances by altering the plan somewhat.

One example of this is my first ever 3.x character. I wanted to play the first and only illiterate Arcane Archer. Many sessions later, and a sidetrack into Deepwood Sniper and Rogue, he is one level away from finally meeting the Arcane Archer prereqs.

A second example is my current character. The concept is a shadow mage who calls forth constructs to do his bidding. Turns out he is actually a Cleric/Rogue on paper so far, with a potential to go to Sacred Stalker later on.. a PrC the DM suggested for me. It will be interesting to see what other turns the character makes... there is a possible role-playing reason for him to take a level or two in Barbarian...


IMHO, the whole DM control/Player rights deal boil down to intra-group problems, not rule set problems. I have played in some of the most screwed up rulesets that exist and never had any issues with this.

 

[Blustar]

In a perfect game world, it would work like that. And if pre-reqs for prestige class were less strict, made more sense, allowed for substitutions.. It would work. As is, in too many cases you might as well ban them as to do that, since you'll get pretty much the same results.

Since it's "your" game you can allow substitutions and tweak them so they make more sense right? Voila! Prestige classes fixed! Why are DM's so reluctant to change the rules to fit their ideas? Make it your game and your players will thank you for it. Really, where does it say in the rulebooks that it must be done this way?


Blue

 

[rgard]

Monte Cook has commented in the past about how AU was intended to put more control back into the hands of the DM.

In a conversation with my friend last night we were reminiscing about some of our first edition games. A common theme that materialized from that discussion involved the vanilla character classes, elegant systems, and what I called organic character development. In 3rd edition and beyond, you can begin with the end in mind. You could say with a high degree of certainty exactly what your character would be like, and his abilities, at any level. In many of my 1st edition campaigns the characters were radically different than in the books using things like psionics, dual wielding, weapon mastery, rare powerful spells, and rare powerful items.

In our experience we looked back very fondly on those characters and those games.

Why did we give up that control?
Is it better for the pen & paper game?
Could all the excellent toys of 3rd edition be used to develop a more organic pen & paper game experience?

I honestly don't believe you can paint it as loss of control. There are more options (boatloads) for the players, but the DM - player relationship remains the same. The DM creates the world, populates it, sets up adventures and decides what is allowable as a class, race and character option. The players interact with the world within the limits (or lack there of) set by the DM.

I generally let my players play whatever they want from whatever source in the current campaign unless I think it is really unbalanced. Some of the players will write up new prestige classes or spells and run them by me for approval. Some get approved, some don't.

Right now, I'm working on a new campaign based on the Atlantis myth. It may be a human only campaign (though I may work in elves as fey or dwarves as neanderthal), but I will put limit on the allowable classes, feats and prestige classes.

In either case above (campaign without character restrictions or the one with many restrictions) it is up to individuals potentially playing to decide whether they want to play in the campaign developed by the DM. No restrictions and the DM may find it all overwelming or players may find it too open. Too many restrictions and the players may not want to participate.

This has always been the DM - Player dymanic. Back in ancient history (1979) my friends and I played in a campaign run by a guy named Pete. Pete's campaign had loads of detail, but we could only play stuff from the PHB and not use things from the Dragon Magazine or other (White Dwarf comes to mind) publications/game systems. On top of that Pete was incredibly stingy with magic items. We made it to about 5th level and had about .33 magic items per character. Eventually we grew tired of the restrictions and left the campaign. Pete still had a core of players who played every week so his campaign survived. We did hear that after we left Pete handed out a bunch of magic items to the characters.

It is really a case of give and take between the DM and the players. I haven't seen the dynamic change in almost 30 years of playing.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Faraer]

The problem with statements like this is that the DM's contribution is labeled as "creative input." You could write an equally correct statement as follows: "Any time a player can use the rules to veto the arbitrary and irrational whims of a DM, the gane benefits." The statement is loaded either way.

We can perfectly well assume the DM is competent, because if not the game isn't worth playing, whatever rules are in place.

 

[rgard]

The ability for characters to develop into something of their own accord is only lost in 3.x if you allow yourself to be dominated by the system or the style of other players. If you allow the character to develop organically, taking the appropriate levels as you reach them, making decisions about feats only when they come up, then none of the '1st edition' feel need be lost.

As an example there's Indigo - a halfling paragon/ranger (archer-type) in my game. a couple of adventures back revolving around a demon and his half-fiend daughter Indigo got on the wrong side of the local authorities - who up until then he'd been friendly with. He went on a minor rampage trying to protect what he felt was an innocent girl (the half-fiend daughter), but eventually got it back under control.

Later we discussed what had happened and what the player wanted to do. The outcome is that Indigo has taken his first level of barbarian, and focusses a bit more on his great-axe than the bow (though he's still a crack shot). We've tied it in as a 'holy warrior' of his goddess (Fera goddess of fertility life and lust) who protects the innocent - to the point of rage.

Anyway - the point is that while 3.x allows you to plan out your character you don't need to surrender yourself to that part of it. If you want to let your character develop organically the system doesn't prevent it. Some will argue that it results in sub-optimal characters... who cares if you've got a better game as a result!

Agreed, I've started characters in 3.x and had no idea where the player was going to go (beyond the fact that most of my spell casters always take 2 levels of rogue). One time I did completely map out the career progression of one character: Fallen Paladin of Freedom 1, Wizard 9, Ur-Priest 2, Mystic Theurge 8. That isn't even firm...the character is 15th level now and I am seriously considering taking 1 level of Warlock (with the least invocation Hideous Blow), practiced spell caster feat - Warlock, so the character can deliver 3d6 extra damage through a martial weapon. Do I need this for the character? Nope, the character is going to be chopped liver in combat even with the Hideous Blow. Should I wrap up the original progression and get the 9th level arcane spell at 20th character level...probably yes, but I really really like the Eldritch Blast through the weapon (more versatile than that as I know I can do the 3d6 as a ranged touch any time I want.)

Goblyns, you hit it on the head.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[rgard]

Any time a player can use the rules to veto the creative input of the DM, the game potentially suffers.

Only if the lunatics are running the asylum.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Mark CMG]

Only if the lunatics are running the asylum.

Thanks,
Rich

They always have.

 

[rgard]

You know, I get enough of organic development and adapting and sub-optimization just by living life. Why on earth would I want to repeat the same experience in my games? I mean, if I can't even approach perfection in my fantasies, what's the point?

Too funny!!! Unless a player wants to play a character with one or more 8s for his/her stats, I let the player re-roll the 8 and tell them:

"Most of us are walking around with 8s in real life, this is an FRPG so there is no need to for you play a character with 8s."

Thanks,
Rich

 

[rgard]

They always have.

Yea, I'll give you that!


Rich

 

[Barak]

Since it's "your" game you can allow substitutions and tweak them so they make more sense right? Voila! Prestige classes fixed! Why are DM's so reluctant to change the rules to fit their ideas? Make it your game and your players will thank you for it. Really, where does it say in the rulebooks that it must be done this way?


Blue

That's all well and good if I'm the DM. But I like to play too!

And I'd be miffed if I have this dwarven fighter who learns about the Order of the Dwarven Guards, who are awesome at defending schtuff, and then learn that no, I can't join them because they magically know that I haven't taken the subpar Toughness feat. Even though my Constitution is higher than some members, and so I -do- have more hit points than they do..

And don't get me started on the "sure, you can join the order, but you'll still just take levels of fighters, and so not be able to do half the stuff they do".

And since most people who do that sort of thing do so usually for RP reasons.. How do you then convey in character that they need the toughness feat?

But yeah, allowing for substitutes can work.. But then some PrClasses uses sub-par choices as a balancing factor...