3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Hussar]

Like I said earlier, I have no real beef with houserules. As was mentioned, all campaigns have them. If you play in a particular world, that particular world will have certain rule changes. I have no problem with that because those rule changes ARE KNOWN BEFOREHAND. My beef comes when the DM changes the rules midgame.

Here's an example from Scarred Lands, because it's a campaign world I know well. In SL, arcane casters heat up when they cast spells. As a bonus, this heat makes them less susceptable to cold for a period of time as per an endure elements spell. As a side effect, all spell failure chances due to armor are doubled.

Now, I have no problems with that. It's a cool idea and goes a long way to explaining scantily clad northern barbarian sorceresses. Anyone playing in a SL game knows that this exists and can plan accordingly.

If, on the other hand, I didn't use this SL rule until one of my players decided to take a level of fighter with their mage and I sprang it on them in the middle of a combat, then I would be a bad DM. Despite the fact that this is the same rule, the timing of the presentation of that rule changes me from a creator of an interesting campaign quirk to a butt head.

My main beef with homebrew rules is that IME, many, many are the result of poor understanding of the mechanics. Take another SL example. In Relics and Rituals, magic items were not given a gp or xp value for creation. The reason given in RR was that magic in SL is rarer and more difficult to create. That's fine as far as it goes, but, that homebrew rule interferes with a number of other mechanics. As a DM, if I don't know how much an item is worth, I have to guess as to whether the item is a realistic reward for an encounter. Also, considering they didn't change any of the item creation rules, the homerule made pretty much zero sense. If creating items has the exact same difficulty as other campaigns, then there is no real reason for items to be more rare.

In the end, SL errata'd the list and added xp and gp values to magic items in RR.

To me, this is a pretty good example of a homebrew rule that simply wasn't carried far enough. If you start changing rules, you can't just look at the rule itself. You also have to look at how that rule fits into the mechanics. IME, most DM's neglect that part and just change rules to suit their own sense of right or wrong. And frequently, again IME, these changes make less sense later than at first blush.

Sure, slavish attention to the RAW is not necessarily a good thing. But, half arsed rule changes are, IMO, far worse.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I would like to point out the DCs to intimidate a red dragon:

wyrmling: 1d20+7
very young: 1d20+11
young: 1d20+14
juvinile: 1d20+18
young adult: 1d20+21
adult: 1d20+26
mature adult: 1d20+29
old: 1d20+33
very old: 1d20+37
ancient: 1d20+41
wyrm: 1d20+44
great wyrm: 1d20+48

So,yeah. If a gnome can make an average DC 36 Intimidate check, I'll give the CR 15 dragon a -2 to some stuff for one round while he's a bit worried about the opposition. A 15h level character, after all, with a 20 charisma and maxed ranks and Skill Focus (Intimidate) will have a 50/50 chance, which isn't totally out of line here.

I think some people are overestimating the ease of which one can actually use the intimidate skill on a high Hit Die, high Wis opponent like a dragon. The difficulty is built in. There is no need for a DM to say it won't work. If there are circumstances that make it more difficult, the DM's best friend can come into play for a -2 to -4, but to just not allow it to work seems like a situation where the DM just doesn't like the idea so it doesn't work, which is what I think 3E tried to get away from.

 

[TheGM]

Simple facts.

- I don't know of a long-term game that kept out expansions, just like none of those DMs who told me "I'll never go to 3.5" are still playing 3.0.

- WoTC removed all direct references to "This is the GM's world and he makes all final decisions" out of the game.

- CR/EL and wealth guidelines, no matter how much you nitpick Rasyr's knowledge of them, are a further undermining of the GM's authority. A game designer who has never seen my world has absolutely no clue how much wealth the characters need. And since I run low-magic worlds, I would argue they failed on those guidelines completely.

Lucky for me, my players are cool, but I really don't like the "distance the control from the guy who does all the work" attitude, and I do believe it was done not in the interests of the game, but in the interests of selling more books.

 

[Hussar]

Simple facts.

- I don't know of a long-term game that kept out expansions, just like none of those DMs who told me "I'll never go to 3.5" are still playing 3.0.

- WoTC removed all direct references to "This is the GM's world and he makes all final decisions" out of the game.

- CR/EL and wealth guidelines, no matter how much you nitpick Rasyr's knowledge of them, are a further undermining of the GM's authority. A game designer who has never seen my world has absolutely no clue how much wealth the characters need. And since I run low-magic worlds, I would argue they failed on those guidelines completely.

Lucky for me, my players are cool, but I really don't like the "distance the control from the guy who does all the work" attitude, and I do believe it was done not in the interests of the game, but in the interests of selling more books.

Actually, that's not true. It's not that the guidelines have failed, its simply that you have deviated radically from the core assumptions of those guidelines. The DMG assumes a particular style of gameplay - the style presented in the DMG. Where a particular creature of a particular CR will be an estimated threat to a given level of party based on the wealth structure assumed by the DMG. If you radically change those assumptions, then you cannot complain that the rules have failed you. If your world deviates radically from the standards presented in the DMG, then any game designer realy does have no clue what your characters need because he has no idea what assumptions you are working from.

This is true for many things. A game designer with know knowledge of the Iron Heroes system would have no idea how to create adventures for Iron Heroes. Does that mean that Iron Heroes is a failure? No, of course not. However, it IS a departure from the core assumptions.

Now, let's look a little more closely at a "low magic" DnD setting. To create a "low magic" setting, you would need to make, at a minimum, the following changes:

1) Complete rework of item creation feats from the ground up.
2) Complete rework of the item creation rules from the ground up.
3) Complete rework of many core spell casting classes - all permanent duration spells would need to be removed - requirements for becoming those classes would need to be greatly increased - at a minimum.
4) Massive rework of many creatures. Any creature which can be used as a mount, a guard animal, easily summoned, able to create items - would need to be either removed or changed.
5) Classes with supernatural powers such as the monk would need to be removed or reworked.
6) Races with innate magical abilities, such as gnomes, would need to be reworked.

That's what I can come up with out of my head in about thirty seconds of thinking on the topic. I'm quite sure there are very many more issues that need to be addressed. If any of the issues on that list are not addressed, then you don't have a low magic setting. You simply have a setting in which these issues are hand waved away and lacks internal logic. While that is fine for many DM's, I strongly question the assumption that this is somehow "better" than a logically consistent setting where these issues are taken into account.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

If any of the issues on that list are not addressed, then you don't have a low magic setting. You simply have a setting in which these issues are hand waved away and lacks internal logic.

Pardon me for asking, but what makes you so certain that your views of how a low-magic setting should be created is the be-all and end-all in D&D? Isn't that up to each DM's individual taste, style, preference and above all definition of the term "low-magic", which has already been trotted flat here on ENWorld? Which, as far as I checked, is not yet standardized in the SRD either? I apologize for maybe being a bit touchy on the subject, but that's exactly what a lot of DMs here are complaining about...somebody else coming in, telling them with some obscure voice of authority that they have to handle their game this or that way, demanding adherence to a set of rules that should be more a set of guidelines than hewn-in-stone commandmends, telling them it has to be done this way or it's not correct. If it's a game designer doing so in a book I bought, I can choose to ignore that. If my players suddenly start going that route, because they think I'm nothing but the number-crunching machine behind the DM's screen, there is a certain problem. If game designers and publishers actually encourage that kind of player behaviour through their supplements, it's starting to grow out of proportions.

There have been a few points in this thread that I agree to...house rules being known beforehand, the players and the DM working together to create an enjoyable game together, a ruleset that should be consistent enough throughout the game for both sides. But there's also the fact that the DM is the final arbiter of how the rules apply, and when they have to be bent to make the game more enjoyable for all. It should be clear that common sense should still prevail, even in a game that thrives on the fantastic, and that all parts of the game should be on the same wavelength about how that common sense is expressed by the rules...or if it isn't. In the latter case, the DM is there to fill in those gaps.

And here D&D goes way overboard by trying to present a set of rules that tries to cover all possible actions, eventualities and options, while at the same time having a very specific set of assumptions behind its rules. And I bet that more than 50% of the homebrewed or simply modified campaigns running out there are deviating from those assumptions, you only have to look at the threads here on ENWorld to get a small sample of that. Now I, as the DM of my campaign, KNOW where I deviate from it, I know how my world works (or ideally should ), and I don't see the sense in somebody pushing a rule on me that doesn't fit my style and taste of play, just because it's in a "WotC officially approved" D&D book. Or D20 book. Or website. Or whatever. I'm open to discussion, compromise, and I've bent the rules to my players' advantage as often as against them, to heighten the fun of the game. I make on-the-spot rulings, and if I have the choice of spending 5 minutes puzzling together a rules-conform decision from a handful of rulebooks or stitch together a rules-compatible decision on the fly, I usually go for the latter, except if it's a really deciding and important problem. What I won't tolerate is being reduced to a bean counter who is only there to add up numbers for the monsters and NPCs, and who is trumped by any obscure rules quote from some book, and is patched via printed updates every 3 or 4 years.

 

[Hussar]

Pardon me for asking, but what makes you so certain that your views of how a low-magic setting should be created is the be-all and end-all in D&D? Isn't that up to each DM's individual taste, style, preference and above all definition of the term "low-magic", which has already been trotted flat here on ENWorld? Which, as far as I checked, is not yet standardized in the SRD either? I apologize for maybe being a bit touchy on the subject, but that's exactly what a lot of DMs here are complaining about...somebody else coming in, telling them with some obscure voice of authority that they have to handle their game this or that way, demanding adherence to a set of rules that should be more a set of guidelines than hewn-in-stone commandmends, telling them it has to be done this way or it's not correct. If it's a game designer doing so in a book I bought, I can choose to ignore that. If my players suddenly start going that route, because they think I'm nothing but the number-crunching machine behind the DM's screen, there is a certain problem. If game designers and publishers actually encourage that kind of player behaviour through their supplements, it's starting to grow out of proportions.

Well, I would say that my views of a low magic setting come from the fact that you want to create a LOW magic setting - as in a setting without a great deal of magic. Otherwise, it's not usually called a low magic setting. I would have a problem calling a group comprised of a cleric, paladin, wizard and bard a low magic campaign. When three of the four PC's are spell casters and can possibly create magical items at 1st level while the fourth PC has magica immunities and abilities, calling that campaign low magic seems a little strange to me. If a DM wants to call his campaign low magic and have that statement actually be true, then my list is a pretty good start. It's not the only way, that's true, but, I'd say that you'd need to at least partially address those issues if you truly wish a low magic setting.

There have been a few points in this thread that I agree to...house rules being known beforehand, the players and the DM working together to create an enjoyable game together, a ruleset that should be consistent enough throughout the game for both sides. But there's also the fact that the DM is the final arbiter of how the rules apply, and when they have to be bent to make the game more enjoyable for all. It should be clear that common sense should still prevail, even in a game that thrives on the fantastic, and that all parts of the game should be on the same wavelength about how that common sense is expressed by the rules...or if it isn't. In the latter case, the DM is there to fill in those gaps.

I agree 100% with all of that and have done so all the way along. It's part and parcel with being a referee. A referee has to know the rules well enough to know when the rules can be ignored. Not every foul is called in a soccer game, because, to do so would result in a terrible game. However, a good referee knows when a foul should be called and when one should be ignored.

And here D&D goes way overboard by trying to present a set of rules that tries to cover all possible actions, eventualities and options, while at the same time having a very specific set of assumptions behind its rules.

I'm going to disagree with that. The ruleset does not try to cover all possible actions. What it does try to do is give robust enough rules that can be applied without massive modification to determine the outcome of actions where there is a chance of failure. That's close to what you said, but not exactly the same. The assumptions behind the rules varies greatly depending on which rules you are talking about. However, it is incombent for the DM to recognise those assumptions before altering the rules, otherwise, alterations tend to cause more problems than they solve. I illustrated that above with the Relics and Rituals example of not including gp and xp values for magic items because magic in SL is "incredibly rare and priceless" while not changing any of the core item creation rules. This creates an automatic conflict between the rules that needs to be addressed.

And I bet that more than 50% of the homebrewed or simply modified campaigns running out there are deviating from those assumptions, you only have to look at the threads here on ENWorld to get a small sample of that. Now I, as the DM of my campaign, KNOW where I deviate from it, I know how my world works (or ideally should ), and I don't see the sense in somebody pushing a rule on me that doesn't fit my style and taste of play, just because it's in a "WotC officially approved" D&D book. Or D20 book. Or website. Or whatever. I'm open to discussion, compromise, and I've bent the rules to my players' advantage as often as against them, to heighten the fun of the game. I make on-the-spot rulings, and if I have the choice of spending 5 minutes puzzling together a rules-conform decision from a handful of rulebooks or stitch together a rules-compatible decision on the fly, I usually go for the latter, except if it's a really deciding and important problem. What I won't tolerate is being reduced to a bean counter who is only there to add up numbers for the monsters and NPCs, and who is trumped by any obscure rules quote from some book, and is patched via printed updates every 3 or 4 years.

Again, I agree with this 100%. You are the DM. What rules are used are up to you to approve. That approval should be made prior to gameplay, and, IME, usually is. Most DM's now advertise their campaigns with the caveat that this or that ruleset is in effect. This has always been true. If I played a 2e Forgotten Realms campaign, then certain rules would be in effect - particular gods and effects for example. If I played a Known World campaign, there would be a completely different set of rules (although mostly the same for basic actions) from a Dragonlance or Ravenloft game. And certainly, in the interests of time, making snap decisions is perfectly acceptable with one corollary. If the snap decision is being made because no one knows exactly what the RAW says and you want to keep the game moving, that's fine. However, if a DM simply disagrees with the RAW because it offends his or her sense of theatrics, then that's not cool. The players are playing with the assumption that the RAW exists for a reason and should be followed. They are certainly constrained to follow the RAW to the letter. No one would argue that the players should be allowed to play fast and loose with the RAW to satisfy their sense of theatrics. The DM should operate under, if not the same restrictions, then at least in the same ballpark as the players.

Like I said a while ago, I believe we agree more than we disagree.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

- CR/EL and wealth guidelines, ...., are a further undermining of the GM's authority

EH? Thats like saying that the sample DC's in the skill section are a further undermining of the GM's authority.

Main Entry: guide·line
Pronunciation: 'gId-"lIn
Function: noun
: a line by which one is guided :
a : a cord or rope to aid a passer over a difficult point or to permit retracing a course
b : an indication or outline of policy or conduct

CR is provided to provide an indication of how lethal that creature could be... under the standard assuptions of the game. And it does that. CR needs to be re-evaluated for your purposes if your game deviates from these standard assumptions.
Ever been in a game that didn't deviate? CR is not hard rules of 'you must throw X character against a party of Y level.

El.. same same.

Wealth.. an indication of what sort of $$=power the player should have in order for the CR/EL assumptions to be met.

These three items work in concert to provide the GM with the ability to tailor his/her deviated game with a relatively easy reference for designing encounters. How in the world does this undermine any authority?

I use the RAW to make my prep time easier and shorter. I deviate greatly from the Wealth guidelines.. yet still manage to run challenging and entertaining adventures. This is because I see the RAW as a framework to hang my story on.. not a set of directives that need to be bowed down before.

Its been said a couple times in this thread.. and no response has come from the other half od the discussion. "The GM should know the rules better than thier players"
If this is true, then the players cannot use 'obscure rulings' as the DM will have already either announces the obscure ruling doesn't apply or is willing to use it as is.

The rules provide the players a better understanding of what should happen in the standard setting. The DM provides the players with the style specific changes to that standard.

In no way do these rules {or players} trump the DM...unless the DM allows them to.
Does recent comments from WOTC prove they are after player money? Yup. This does not mean they are empowering a player revolt agasint the DMs.. just that the DM has a bit more work deciding what to allow and what to deny.

Side note.. it seems most of this debate is split down the middle, with DM's who allow pretty much anything and use the RAW to back up thier rulings.. and DM's who restict alot and use DM Fiat to back up thier rulings.
This.. of course.. is a large generalization and not intended as an insult to anyone of their gaming style.

Anyway.. here I go rambling again. I really should not have forgotten my EoM project at home...

 

[Raven Crowking]

Now, let's look a little more closely at a "low magic" DnD setting. To create a "low magic" setting, you would need to make, at a minimum, the following changes:

1) Complete rework of item creation feats from the ground up.
2) Complete rework of the item creation rules from the ground up.

Not really. One merely has to rework the XP rules to effect changes in the frequency of magic items. If the PCs are only getting, say, 1/2 the XP that the DMG recommends, they will be far more careful about using those XP on magic items rather than character levels.

3) Complete rework of many core spell casting classes - all permanent duration spells would need to be removed - requirements for becoming those classes would need to be greatly increased - at a minimum.
4) Massive rework of many creatures. Any creature which can be used as a mount, a guard animal, easily summoned, able to create items - would need to be either removed or changed.
5) Classes with supernatural powers such as the monk would need to be removed or reworked.
6) Races with innate magical abilities, such as gnomes, would need to be reworked.

Of course, now we are getting into "What do you mean by low-magic?" The assumption that the innate magical abilities of gnomes don't work in such a setting, for example, doesn't necessarily wash. I am using a setting that, by WotC standards, is definately low-magic and low-wealth. However, the only changes I have been forced to make are changing the XP system and varying the amount of treasure I give out from the assumptions in the DMG.

Of course, I am using my own definition of "low-magic" here. There are fewer high-level characters than the DMG would suggest (again, 1/2 XP). I make fewer NPC spellcasters. Some spellcasters in the past have caused problems that cause people to look down upon them. There are magic items to be found, but no magic item shops. You cannot even buy a sunrod.

Now, some here might classify my setting as high-magic, but the RAW certainly would not. And, I would argue that my setting is as internally consistent as any setting that follows the RAW. Of course, YMMV, but the RAW hand-waves things like commoners and experts gaining XP and levels, IMHO.


RC

 

[Rasyr]

"Core assumptions" is being bandied about a lot now. Just remember what happens when you "assume".

The problem as I see it is not the rules themselves, but the fact that these "core assumptions" are worked so deeply into the rules that it is nigh impossible to change those assumptions without having to do a whole lot of work and practically rewriting the game in some respects.

A good game should not have to make assumptions, it should provide the GM with a toolkit to use in creating his own game. Because of these "core assumptions", you are not playing YOUR game, you are playing WOTC's game.

Caveat - some games, such as Star Wars, or Buffy, or Angel, or even Arcana Evolved all come with a specific setting. Those that do have a setting are EXPECTED to have "core assumptions" based on the setting. Yes, "core assumptions" should be based upon the setting of the game, NOT upon the core rules of the game.

This is where D&D fails. It is making many "core assumptions" and codifying them into the core rules, rather than the setting, yet trying to present itself as generic set of rules usable for any setting.

Almost every instance of GM Fiat being described here can most likely be attributed to using a setting that does not match the "core assumptions" of the rules.

Now there are two different kinds of GM Fiat being discussed as well. The first is where the GM is using a setting different from the one indicated by the "core assumptions", and the GM has to make decisions based upon the setting. Now it is highly probable that the players will not know everything about the setting in such cases and something that the GM makes a decision on may seem like whim when it actually isn't, but is based on something that the GM does not want to explain (as he feels that it would ruin aspects of the game for players if he told them rather than them finding out in the course of the game).

The second type of GM Fiat is where the GM makes decisions based upon whims. This is something that I am totally against.

Another major issue of D&D is that the rules are written in such a way that it encourages players to expect certain "core assumptions", no matter what the setting. This includes allowing any "official" PrC or Feat, certain Wealth levels, certain level of encounters at certain levels, etc..

Encounters - I view an encounter as a sighting, either the PCs sight the object of the encounter (or traces of it such as tracks) or the object of the encounter sights the PCs. Anything after that should depend upon the nature of the object of the encounter and/or the actions of the PCs themselves. An Encounter does NOT, to me, mean combat automatically.

The 1st level PCs spotting an ancient dragon (35th level or higher) flying overhead is an encounter in my book. If the PCs are stupid enough to want to try and fight it, that is their own fault (though I will attempt to warn them off without giving them any information about its stats).

Well, enough of my ramblings for one day......

 

[Hussar]

Just as a question, what is your reason for cutting xp in half?

On a side note, I would argue that your setting is low magic item, not low magic. Like I said, if your party (not that it does, but if) consists of three spellcasters and a fighter, I would say that that's not low magic. Sure, I can't buy a sunrod, but, then again, I can make one if I'm a spellcaster and spend some ranks on craft alchemy. Now, since no one else is making sunrods, why wouldn't I stop for a year and crank out sunrods at 1000% profit? A year out of my life is not going to end my adventuring career and I can set myself up pretty well in mundane equipment simply by exploiting my own abilities.

Heck, the third level cleric should be sitting on his duff cranking out continual flames for a year and make a mint. As the only source for never ending, perfectly safe lights, I could charge a thousand gold each and people would still buy. What's the incentive to adventure when I can simply take advantage of my own abilities to make huge profits without any risk or cost?

That's what I've been talking about with logical consistency. To have a truly low magic setting, there's no way around nerfing much of the spell list. If a PC cleric could spend a year and make thousands of gold simply by casting continual flame on a stick, what's preventing other NPC clerics from doing the same? Since, as you say, there are absolutely no magic shops, there's no competition. I have a monopoly on a commodity that everyone would want.

This is a point I've been trying to make time and again in this thread. Low magic settings can be an absolute riot. I've played in them, I've DM'd them and I've enjoyed them. However, 3.5 DnD mechanics really don't support that very well. And, to make 3.5 mechanics support it, you have to strip away a great deal. Otherwise, you wind up with situations like I just outlined.

Realistically, the cleric doesn't even have to take time off from adventuring. Just take a week or two off, crank out light sticks, sell them to the highest bidder, and move on. Easy cash. And a lot of cash considering he's got no competition. And it's hardly limited to just Continual Flame. In the second level spell range you get things like Magic Mouth (how much would a noble pay for a perfect alarm system?), Cure spells, Lesser Restoration (great for that guy who just suffered a touch of bubonic plague), just to name a few.