3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power
- Thread starter Belen
- Start date
The Shaman
First Post
It could be sacred learning specific to a deity and its adherents, it could be training offered by an order which the PCs cannot join, it could be the teaching of a specific master whom the PCs have not met, it could be that the feat, talent, or whatever was invented by the NPC and is unique to that being, it could be the result of wild magic...Testament said:
Testament
First Post
The Shaman said:
This isn't "flat out cannot access", this is limitations built into the setting. That is acceptable, assuming it isn't overused (note that if these sorts of guys are the plot villains, that exempts them from the overuse clause). Although I'd like to know why the PCs can't join said order.
This just smells like grudge-monstering to me though.
The Shaman
First Post
"Grudge-monstering"? That definitely needs to be added to the game lexicon (if it's not there already)!Testament said:
I think it's about giving an opponent a unique ability that separates it from the run-of-the-mill. I agree that any of these techniques are questionable if overused, but I don't think players should expect 100% quid pro quo - besides, it could be that some of the adventurers' abilities are unique in the game-world as well.
Primitive Screwhead
First Post
I have always run that anything the PC's use, the NPC's can use... and vice versa.
That does not mean that the NPC's cannot introduce a new Feat or ability to the game... every once in a while I find a new Feat that fits well, such as Spear Fighting.. surprising the living daylights out of my players and created a 'thats cool' moment.
Given the opportunity, those players could seek out that training and take the same Feat.
One comment I would like to add to the mix, I have had good experiences relying on my players to understand how thier characters abilities work. I don't need to know the nit-picky details.
What I do need to know, before it happens in my game, is how certain synergies can spin out of control. For that, I come here and ghost along the Rules forums. When I see something that will impact my game, such as the recent Entangle thread.. I see how other GM's are handling it and find a fair path to present to my players before it comes an issue.
The only time I have had a problem is one player whose comprehension level creates some confusion when he reads the rulebooks. Unfortunatly he also has some liguidatable cash and tends to buy said rulebooks
My other players don't even own the PHB. All my players concede to the flow of the game and I refuse to have indepth rules discussions mid combat.
I agree with a poster upthread who mentioned that DM fiat is sometimes the transparent effect of an unknown quality that the PC's face. An example from a recent game.. I had a Fey strike from within a waterfall at a monk who chased said Fey. The Fey got Sneak Attack damage depsite not flanking nor being completely invisible. Player got upset as it went against the rules as he knew them and could not grasp that *this* Fey had a special attack ability that allowed the action as an exception to how the rules usually worked.
{to put a bit of perspective on this.. said player complained about being 'taken out of the fight' as he was 'severely wounded'.. at half HPs, still more than the Mage who was engaging in melee combat with a dagger...the character retreated from combat and sucked down potions of healing for the rest of the combat.}
I think the whole power thing comes down to a matter of presentation.
Players have more power to affect how the game plays out, as thier choices must have impact on the style of the game for them to gain full benefit from thier choice {see 'Arrghh.. my rogue sucks!' thread...and others of its ilk}
DM's have more power by being able to shape these choices.. and thereby the style.. by allowing/veto's of material.
Roleplayers of all stripes have more power to provide thier own fluff on top of a relativley stable base of crunch..without recreating the days of 2e where you never wanted to join a new group because of the effort it took to learn all the new house rules.
In previous version, house rules were required to set the style of play. In 3X, fluff can set the style while still using the same D20 mechanics. The previous 'jump over a 4 foot wall' is a testament to that. 3 posters used the same basic mechanics.. yet described the action in 3 differing ways.
There are still loopholes and areas that are not addressed fully.. the reason I ghost at the House Rules forum as well! Much of the 'I need a HR to cover that' ends up being.. 'I will use mechanic X, as it is close to what I need but will call it Leaping Tumble over Wall check instead of a Jump check.'
Anyway.. I am starting to ramble.. and its only been 15 hours on the job. Time for me to go home
That does not mean that the NPC's cannot introduce a new Feat or ability to the game... every once in a while I find a new Feat that fits well, such as Spear Fighting.. surprising the living daylights out of my players and created a 'thats cool' moment.
Given the opportunity, those players could seek out that training and take the same Feat.
One comment I would like to add to the mix, I have had good experiences relying on my players to understand how thier characters abilities work. I don't need to know the nit-picky details.
What I do need to know, before it happens in my game, is how certain synergies can spin out of control. For that, I come here and ghost along the Rules forums. When I see something that will impact my game, such as the recent Entangle thread.. I see how other GM's are handling it and find a fair path to present to my players before it comes an issue.
The only time I have had a problem is one player whose comprehension level creates some confusion when he reads the rulebooks. Unfortunatly he also has some liguidatable cash and tends to buy said rulebooks
My other players don't even own the PHB. All my players concede to the flow of the game and I refuse to have indepth rules discussions mid combat.
I agree with a poster upthread who mentioned that DM fiat is sometimes the transparent effect of an unknown quality that the PC's face. An example from a recent game.. I had a Fey strike from within a waterfall at a monk who chased said Fey. The Fey got Sneak Attack damage depsite not flanking nor being completely invisible. Player got upset as it went against the rules as he knew them and could not grasp that *this* Fey had a special attack ability that allowed the action as an exception to how the rules usually worked.
{to put a bit of perspective on this.. said player complained about being 'taken out of the fight' as he was 'severely wounded'.. at half HPs, still more than the Mage who was engaging in melee combat with a dagger...the character retreated from combat and sucked down potions of healing for the rest of the combat.}
I think the whole power thing comes down to a matter of presentation.
Players have more power to affect how the game plays out, as thier choices must have impact on the style of the game for them to gain full benefit from thier choice {see 'Arrghh.. my rogue sucks!' thread...and others of its ilk}
DM's have more power by being able to shape these choices.. and thereby the style.. by allowing/veto's of material.
Roleplayers of all stripes have more power to provide thier own fluff on top of a relativley stable base of crunch..without recreating the days of 2e where you never wanted to join a new group because of the effort it took to learn all the new house rules.
In previous version, house rules were required to set the style of play. In 3X, fluff can set the style while still using the same D20 mechanics. The previous 'jump over a 4 foot wall' is a testament to that. 3 posters used the same basic mechanics.. yet described the action in 3 differing ways.
There are still loopholes and areas that are not addressed fully.. the reason I ghost at the House Rules forum as well! Much of the 'I need a HR to cover that' ends up being.. 'I will use mechanic X, as it is close to what I need but will call it Leaping Tumble over Wall check instead of a Jump check.'
Anyway.. I am starting to ramble.. and its only been 15 hours on the job. Time for me to go home
Hussar
Legend
B.U. and others. I actually find that I agree with pretty much everything you're saying. I think there are far more similarities than differences in our approach. Just to back off a bit from the impartiality thing - It's my goal to be impartial, but, also, there is the realization that 100% impartiality is impossible. I will always lean one way or the other. However, I do seriously try to remain impartial. If a creature's act will result in the death of a PC and I feel that the action is warranted, then it's new character time. One missed die roll in my last session meant that instead of three unconcious PC's, had I hit, I would have had three dead PC's.
Just a point about the jumping thing. I'm not sure where the problem is. Of course you are going to have interpretations. That's a given. The point always has been that the starting point is exactly the same. At no point is anyone suggesting that a completely different skill or other roll should be made. That the DC is slightly different is simply a style difference. Again, to go with the Referee idea, different ref's will make different calls. Does that mean they are using different rules? Of course not. They are all starting from the same place.
On the arrow thing, I would likely do something similar. However, one thing I would not do is change, or announce new rules AFTER the action was taken and then not allow the player to change his action. That's a perfect example of what I mean by ad hoc DM'ing that should not be allowed. While the call may be perfectly realistic, by forcing the player to use new rules the DM has done wrong. The player announced his action with the understanding that the RAW would be used. Had he known that new rules would be in effect, he might have chosen a different act. Whether the call is realistic or not is irrelavent. It's just a case of the DM saying, "Aha, gotcha, yer screwed. Aren't I just a nasty boy?"
Like I said, access to feats or templates or whatever can be done outside of game. That's perfectly fine in my books. However, if I suddenly change established rules without warning, then I'm wrong. It's like the DM who suddenly ups the AC of his BBEG because the PC's are hitting too often. Or the DM who insists that such and such "just can't happen" because he doesn't like the result.
Here's another example. In a recent discussion with some other DM's we were talking about a situation in one of the games being run. The party faced off with a young red dragon. The dragon was kicking the party's butt when one of the players, a gnomish barbarian (ok that one's a little weird to me too) announced that he wanted to intimidate the dragon. In 3.5 rules, if successful, the dragon would have some penalties to attack in the next round. A number of DM's flat out said they would NEVER allow a PC to intimidate a dragon, regardless of the rules. When I asked why not, I was told that dragons can never be intimidated, because, well, they're dragons.
To me, this is a gross violation of DM's powers. There is no reason to automatically rule failure. The barbarian's chances were pretty slim anyway (IIRC, he needed a 19 or a 20), but that's beside the point. It wouldn't matter to them if the chances were 100%, they would still rule that the PC had zero chance of success. Most of the justifications were what I would call, story based. I reject that. I do not feel it is the DM's role to automatically rule one way or the other. When the players take an action that has a chance of success, then let the dice decide. That it's "stupid" is not a reason for DM's fiat.
Just a point about the jumping thing. I'm not sure where the problem is. Of course you are going to have interpretations. That's a given. The point always has been that the starting point is exactly the same. At no point is anyone suggesting that a completely different skill or other roll should be made. That the DC is slightly different is simply a style difference. Again, to go with the Referee idea, different ref's will make different calls. Does that mean they are using different rules? Of course not. They are all starting from the same place.
On the arrow thing, I would likely do something similar. However, one thing I would not do is change, or announce new rules AFTER the action was taken and then not allow the player to change his action. That's a perfect example of what I mean by ad hoc DM'ing that should not be allowed. While the call may be perfectly realistic, by forcing the player to use new rules the DM has done wrong. The player announced his action with the understanding that the RAW would be used. Had he known that new rules would be in effect, he might have chosen a different act. Whether the call is realistic or not is irrelavent. It's just a case of the DM saying, "Aha, gotcha, yer screwed. Aren't I just a nasty boy?"
Like I said, access to feats or templates or whatever can be done outside of game. That's perfectly fine in my books. However, if I suddenly change established rules without warning, then I'm wrong. It's like the DM who suddenly ups the AC of his BBEG because the PC's are hitting too often. Or the DM who insists that such and such "just can't happen" because he doesn't like the result.
Here's another example. In a recent discussion with some other DM's we were talking about a situation in one of the games being run. The party faced off with a young red dragon. The dragon was kicking the party's butt when one of the players, a gnomish barbarian (ok that one's a little weird to me too) announced that he wanted to intimidate the dragon. In 3.5 rules, if successful, the dragon would have some penalties to attack in the next round. A number of DM's flat out said they would NEVER allow a PC to intimidate a dragon, regardless of the rules. When I asked why not, I was told that dragons can never be intimidated, because, well, they're dragons.
To me, this is a gross violation of DM's powers. There is no reason to automatically rule failure. The barbarian's chances were pretty slim anyway (IIRC, he needed a 19 or a 20), but that's beside the point. It wouldn't matter to them if the chances were 100%, they would still rule that the PC had zero chance of success. Most of the justifications were what I would call, story based. I reject that. I do not feel it is the DM's role to automatically rule one way or the other. When the players take an action that has a chance of success, then let the dice decide. That it's "stupid" is not a reason for DM's fiat.
Mishihari Lord
First Post
Hussar said:
To me, this is a perfect example of when a DM should use common sense to overrule the RAW. A gnome intimidate a dragon? That's just silly.
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
Hussar said:
If that's not a reason for the DM to rule out an action, I don't know what is? Of course, different DMs might have different POVs of what is stupid and what is not, and it's always a matter of DM and players being on roughly the same wavelength, but you need that for most games to turn out good anyway.
In this example, a player wanted to try something because "the skill works that way, I have it, and it isn't specified if it works on dragons or not". It's about a "fierce" gnome barbarian trying to intimidate a dragon who is busy mopping the floor with him and his companions. You could of course handle it by allowing him that roll, adding a few penalties for simply not being a threat at all, and listen to the player argue that those penalties are unfair and not in the rules. Or you let him roll, don't really care about the result but simply announce it didn't work without giving a real DC, and listen to the player trying to back-calculate any modifiers and the dragon's HD based on that table in the PHB. Or you flat-out tell him no, give him a shorthand of your reasons for it, and leave it at that. It's always up to the group's individual make-up which way works better, of course.
But that's one point for the original topic: with all them options being equally available to players and DMs alike, I've noticed an increase in players expecting, or even demanding to make this-and-that ability check, asked for or not, because it "says so in the rules that I can" and expect to get the results as written in the rules. The endless discussions from OD&D/2E IF some action is possible and how to handle it have been replaced by players trying to overrule the DM with the existing rules. One is as annoying as the other, but in the former case, the DM was still expected to have the last word in a rules decision.
To be honest, if a bunch of roleplayers who have been playing for 15 years and up suddenly get in your face about a rule decision, arguing that it will "unbalance the whole game" and "that you're trying to get something out of it that's simply not built into it", you're close to throwing the whole thing overboard as a DM. I'm not saying it's the standard in D&D players, but I can confirm that too many options, and a ruleset that tries to codify every possible action, stifles creative thinking on both sides of the screen, and leads to a lot of frustrating, number-crunching discussions. :\
Similar Threads
