3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[S'mon]

I think spells are a big problem - I remember letting a 1e/2e player persuade me his Wizard could have "Elminster's Evasion" *ugh*

My rule is that everything outside the PHB will be evaluated on a case by case basis, and disallowed if it conflicts with what I want in my campaign (which is gritty swords & sorcery feel). Stuff in the PHB, mostly spells, is subject to change if I find it causes a problem. This seems to work well. A player can buy player's option books for suitable ideas (fluff) but the crunch is always going to be looked at & changed.

 

[Sundragon2012]

There is cooperation between the player and DM in regards to character concepts and character development. The setting and arbitration of the rules and any alterations thereof are solely the province of the DM who has far more to concern him or herself with than one character.

The DM has to maintain tight reigns on what he allows into his game and to not fall into the trap that suggests that just because something is published on paper or PDF that it belongs in your game. You decide what's right for your game and if you are fair and consistant your players will love your game.


Chris

 

[Quasqueton]

DM's shouldn't have to say, "no". Telling a DM to say, "no", implies the default answer is, "yes", and the DM must stop Players from bringing things into his game.

The default answer, actually, is "no". It is a DM's perogative to say, "yes", to overrule the default. By default, the only book the Players have any business using is the PHB. Anything beyond that requires allowance by the DM.

In AD&D1, the default assumption was that every book put out by TSR was part of the core -- PHB, DMG, MM, D&DG, UA, DSG, WSG, etc. If TSR published it, it was to be added to your game; it was core by default.

In AD&D2 came the concept of maybe not *everything* was supposed to be used in every game. All those extra books beyond the core were optional and supplemental, not an extension of the core.

I think WotC kept the AD&D2 concept that they'll publish optional and supplemental stuff, but may players of the game kept the AD&D1 concept that if it's published, it is to be automatically included.


In my old AD&D1 games, Players used the PHB only, but eventually also UA.

In my short stints in AD&D2 game, Players used the PHB only.

In my current D&D3 games, Players use the PHB only.

Quasqueton

 

[S'mon]

Wow, I agree 100% with Quasqueton! Way to go, Q! Pity he'll not see this...

"The default answer, actually, is "no". It is a DM's perogative to say, "yes", to overrule the default. By default, the only book the Players have any business using is the PHB. Anything beyond that requires allowance by the DM."

Making this clear certainly prevents a lot of problems.

 

[Ry]

I DM extremely fast and loose - instead of worrying about getting every detail perfectly accurate, I use a chart that breaks down things like hps, attacks bonuses, skills, and saves for CRs 1 to 20. I then make sure I know the special abilities of a monster and I let my players run wild.

Then again, I like the kind of realism represented by the lower levels, so I put a level cap of 6 on the game, with certain exceptions. The players accept that this lets the game go on... so there are certainly ways to have the control you're looking for, even if you're letting players have access to feats from every official source they can get their grubby hands on.

 

[MonsterMash]

One thing I believe is missing in the 3.5 PHB, but is in the 3.0 PHB is rule 0 (as well as the you are not your character spiel) - which to me really needs to be that the DM's ruling is final. IMC I vet what is permitted to fit into the setting, mainly for feel, but also for power levels.

 

[Sundragon2012]

DM's shouldn't have to say, "no". Telling a DM to say, "no", implies the default answer is, "yes", and the DM must stop Players from bringing things into his game.

The default answer, actually, is "no". It is a DM's perogative to say, "yes", to overrule the default. By default, the only book the Players have any business using is the PHB. Anything beyond that requires allowance by the DM.

I hear an old time gospel choir going in the background and I am listening o' preacher man. Preach on brother!


Chris

 

[Henry]

The default answer, actually, is "no". It is a DM's perogative to say, "yes", to overrule the default. By default, the only book the Players have any business using is the PHB. Anything beyond that requires allowance by the DM.

...however, there is a strong undercurrent among many players I run into online that they must allow everything that WotC produces because it is somehow more balanced and okay than anything else out there. I see it every time someone bemoans that a certain book is released and how it has damaged their current game, and it bugs me that the default assumption seems to have changed. Some folks I've spoken with on other forums act surprised that I don't allow thus-and-such a book.

In AD&D1, the default assumption was that every book put out by TSR was part of the core...In AD&D2 came the concept of maybe not *everything* was supposed to be used in every game.

I did see this, but one thing about the older material was that not very many players' supplements were released except in Dragon Magazine; In AD&D2, I saw more players' supplements than I had ever seen in my life to that point! The UA, Parts of the Dungeoneer's and Wilderness Survival Guide, some Dragonlance and Greyhawk supplements, all this paled in comparison to the Complete Fighter's/ Thief's/ Wizard's/ Priest's/ Paladin's/ Ranger's/ Gnomes&Halfling's/ Dwarves/ Elves/ Druid's Handbooks, the Realms boxes, and the Player's Option stuff! However, still going on the assumptions laid forth from the first generation of players, most new players who joined were told that the DM had final authority on what was and was not permitted, explicitly.

Currently, there are more groups who started who've never heard a word from players of editions older than the current one; and there's no written or oral tradition with them that says, "the DM *permits*, the DM does not *deny.*" It's why there's two main ways of DM'ing now - the "DM as final authority" vs. "the rules as final authority."

 

[Jackelope King]

The problem is not that there is a misunderstanding that things are optional, but a misunderstanding that players and DMs can and should work together on creating characters which fit the game and the player's tastes. I've never seen a player say that he'll take PrC X... it's always that he'll ask the DM if he can take PrC X. If a player comes up to you and says that he'd like to take levels in the dervish PrC. You've already decided that there is no real "Arabia" area of your setting for a coven of whirling dervishes to come from.

Do you just tell the player no? Or do you talk it over to adapt the flavor to your game?

Too many players and DMs refuse to even consider the second option. The player wanted the mechanics of the dervish. Couldn't the player and the DM sit down and realize that while there are no Arabic areas of the setting, the flavor of the class would fit well for the hispanic area of the setting. Instead of being a whirling dervish, it's a class for warriors who blend flaminco into their fighting style. The flavor given in the books is optional, and many DMs and players either don't realize that the mechanics can exist independent of the given flavor or they don't care enough to make the adaptations themselves. As a DM, my default answer is, "Yes, but talk to me about how it'll fit into the game. If we can't fit it in, the answer is no, but we won't give up on it easily."

This makes for the most satisfying gaming experience for myself and my group: players have the options they want for their characters and the DM retains a sense of consistency throughout the game.

 

[Sundragon2012]

It's why there's two main ways of DM'ing now - the "DM as final authority" vs. "the rules as final authority."

I agree and its unfortunate. If I ever for a moment started to accept the latter option as reality, I would quit DMing the game. I have better things to do with my time than have someone who doesn't know the needs of my campaign and setting dictate the way things are supposed to be.


Chris