3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Belen]

Rasyr kindly asked me to start a thread based on some comments on made in the thread about decline of RPGs. Feel free to discuss!

Originally Posted by Akrasia
My comment is somewhat tangential to the main topic of this thread, but I think that your comment here touches on one of the main reasons why I will not DM 3e anymore (having run two successful, year-long campaigns in the past).

While a plethora of options for players is a good thing for players, it places a great burden on the DM -- or at least those DMs who prefer to use all the options and rules available, as well as design their own adventures (as opposed to those DMs who wish to simply 'hand-wave' things during play, or are willing to rely exclusively on published adventures). Being a DM should not feel like a 'job', yet for myself (and many other DMs and ex-DMs that I know) prepping for 3e feels that way.

Designing a way to both: (a.) provide an adequate variety of options and variants for players; and (b.) accomplish (a.), while providing the DM with tools to minimize prep time (plus stat blocks, etc.) is important (IMO). WotC has focused on (a.), and done very little about (b.). Since DMs are essential to the success of table-top RPGs (no DMs = no games), more attention to (b.) would make sense.

It is all about the amount of work you are willing to put into the game. I used to feel the same way that you feel. I had a very hard time running a 3e game. I found that the real difficulty with the rules set came from the way that the "players" treated the rules and the game.

A player that intends to get the most bang out of the options will place great strain on the DM. This requires a DM to understand the rules and how the rules interact to a far greater degree than is required to actually run or play the game.

The real problem with 3e is NOT the rules or the number of options released for the rules set. The problem lies with the implied connotation that the DM cannot say no. Players have taken the increased options and inferred that they have the right to dictate certain aspects of the game that tread upon the territory of the DM.

The fault of WOTC has been in forgetting to support the DM or combat the notion that any and all rules released for the game are core. This had led to the "feeling" that DMs have lost basic control of the game.

This is not the case. The DM can specify the defaults. A simple "You may use the core options found in the Player's Handbook. Anything out side the PHB will require permission on a case by case basis" will solve a majority of the "DM empowerment" or lack thereof issues found in 3e.

The real problem with the rules lies in the plethora of temporary or conditional modifications and the inconsistency within the advanced combat options found in the game.
__________________
Joined the NC EnWorld Yahoo group yet? It is a must join group for EnWorlders in North Carolina!

 

[Akrasia]

Well, for the record, I don't have a problem with saying 'no' to players.

...The real problem with the rules lies in the plethora of temporary or conditional modifications and the inconsistency within the advanced combat options found in the game.

Yeah, this is another reason why I won't DM 3e anymore (I didn't mean to suggest that the reason I cited earlier was the only reason).

My general point was that for RPGs to be successful, more needs to be done to assist DMs/GMs. Not just premade adventures (though those certainly help), but tools that can assist the DM/GM in cutting down on prep time, make running sessions easier, etc.

Getting more people willing to GM/DM games is key to ensuring a healthy RPG community.

 

[Sundragon2012]

Rasyr kindly asked me to start a thread based on some comments on made in the thread about decline of RPGs. Feel free to discuss!

The real problem with 3e is NOT the rules or the number of options released for the rules set. The problem lies with the implied connotation that the DM cannot say no. Players have taken the increased options and inferred that they have the right to dictate certain aspects of the game that tread upon the territory of the DM.

DMs wake up......this was a marketing decision of behalf of WoTC to market more to players than DMs because there are more players than dungeon masters. The idea was to promote "player power" and present literally countless options and thereby make more money.

The only power that players have is the intrinsic freedom of character creation (feats, skills, etc). All other power is granted by the DM and should be adudicated fairly based upon a balanced view of the player's wants, the setting in question and the needs of the campaign as a whole.

The real problem with 3e in this case is that DMs forgot their testicles (metaphorical for the lady DMs) somewhere between 2e and 3.5. More options are OPTIONAL.....the rules themselves can be altered and tweaked and themselves are optional insofar as that can be altered by the DM as it suits his or her campaign. DMs who actually believe that players have any more control than they allow have bought the party line and have fallen for propoganda.

Your players want something that doesn't fit your setting? Say NO!
Your players want to use some unbalanced nightmare character concepts that works on Eberron or FR but not in your homebrew? Say NO!
Your Players want to dictate rules to you? Say NO! Then tell them why they are wrong.
You get the drift.

Say no where you need to but to be fair to the players do your best to know the rules and to change the rules in a fair manner so you don't appear arbitrary and power-mad. In DMing for about 19yrs I have lost control of my game when I was about 16yrs old, because I wouldn't veto some of the real crap my players wanted to do. Ever since that out of control nightmare I have firmly held the reigns of fair, non-arbitrary power.

As a DM you are the one with your setting's best interests at heart, not the game designers who make books full of PrCs and Feats. They don't know what will fit in your game and its unfair to ask them to be psychic. YOU have the job of allowing or disallowing anything that violated the letter and spirit of your campaign and setting. Anyone who can't deal with a DM acting like a DM can go find a game elsewhere.


Chris

 

[DragonLancer]

The real problem with 3e is NOT the rules or the number of options released for the rules set. The problem lies with the implied connotation that the DM cannot say no. Players have taken the increased options and inferred that they have the right to dictate certain aspects of the game that tread upon the territory of the DM.

Personally I think the problem with 3rd edition has been the increasing number of options and the pushing of players in the direction of expecting to have them almost without regard to what the DM desires. Prestige classes are a good example of this - originally a DM tool once they started appearing in the old splatbooks and player source material they became an expected addition to every game.

Its always been my view with any roleplaying game that the GM/DM always has the final say, but the way that D20 is going theres far too many options to allow them all or even half. But then if you don't allow a sizeable chunk then it can feel that you wasted money on the book (been there and done that). Also, as you say, players have come to expect to use almost anything that appears in print rather than the DM laying out a list of acceptable options.

In my games I try and severly limit feats, PrC's and especially spells. My reasoning being that with the more options added to the game my job as DM becomes harder as I have to keep a track of everything that the players have at their disposal so that I can keep the game interesting and not one sided. This adds to the time needed to write/read and prepare scenarios.

I'm open to a player asking about the use of a certain option and will consider it but ultimately the continued addition of more and more options that players feel are available to them is detrimental. Sadly this is a trend that started with the release of 3rd ed and has just grown.

 

[Rasyr]

I will most definitely read this thread and make my own comments (likely at lunch time, since I am at work now and the boss has me busy)... hehe

 

[WayneLigon]

I guess it's never been a problem with us. Normally when any of us start a campaign, everyone gets a sheet saying what books are in use, and what out of those books is in use. And that's that. Everyone knows what to expect. Other things might be considered but it's unlikely. Feats are about the only thing that might be accepted and only if it's somthing near and dear to the character concept.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

The problem lies with the implied connotation that the DM cannot say no. Players have taken the increased options and inferred that they have the right to dictate certain aspects of the game that tread upon the territory of the DM.

Actually, I disagree. Having more options for players to keep them interested and excited is a good thing. What's not present are a) evaluation guidelines for DMs who need them when looking at new material and b) time and experience to properly evaluate everything.

The discussion here starts with an automatic assumption of an antagonistic relationship, perhaps fueled by the Gygaxian dictatorship of 1E presumptions. When viewed as a cooperative effort, with the player bringing new options to the DM (to save them time designing them) and understands that they'll be fairly evaluated, everyone benefits.

 

[Thotas]

Perhaps that's where my old age is a blessing. I'm running a game now with an old friend as a player ... along with his daughter, and her boyfriend. The yung'uns know that it's all ultimately up to the DM 'cause that's the way we taught them.

 

[Psion]

You know, I almost wish I had the problem of the players wanting to use more options.

I have one player who BRAGS about the fact that "nobody plays a straight up fighter anymore" (despite that this is the first game I have run with more than one PrC character) and another player makes suboptimal choices because she likes "teh shiny" ragardless of how well it works, so I have to tone down the combats to make up for the fact that my players and not the most efficient builders in the world.

Kick some of these option-hungry power gamers you all are claiming are such a scourge my direction, wouldya?

 

[Henry]

The discussion here starts with an automatic assumption of an antagonistic relationship, perhaps fueled by the Gygaxian dictatorship of 1E presumptions. When viewed as a cooperative effort, with the player bringing new options to the DM (to save them time designing them) and understands that they'll be fairly evaluated, everyone benefits.

When the players are willing and able to do this, great. However, over the past ten years or so, I've seen an upsurge of people who DON'T play with friends, but more with "acquaintences" or "associates." When players don't know one another, a more adversarial relationship may result, and in 3E and 3.5, the body of ALL rules favor the players more than the DM, the same way that having access to ALL Magic the Gathering sets generates more loopholes than merely access to the last two sets.

It doesn't take away that RPGs must be cooperative to be successful; but it does hinder that success if the DM has to be an expert in ALL rules interactions to avoid player abuse.

I do think that more options are a good thing; but the unstood implication that the DM is final arbiter of all rules used and final arbiter of rules disputes is something that needs to be reinforced for the sake of harmony while playing the game.