3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[jmucchiello]

People only get XP for defeating enemies

No, in the RAW, characters (player and non-player) get XP for overcoming challenges. Monsters have challenge ratings. Traps have challenge ratings. Adventures in Dungeon often give role-playing encounters a challenge rating so you can reward role-playing that furthers the story. Presumably commoners and experts above 1st level got those levels by overcoming challenges. Surviving (and keeping your family alive) through winter is a likely challenge faced every year by commoners.

 

[ThirdWizard]

You've never played with the Free Parking variant of Monopoly? IME, most people don't play Monopoly by the RAW. Go look at the rules to Monopoly and tell me that you actually play using all the rules exactly as written. Monopoly has lots of common house rules that people use in varying degrees.

I cannot stand that <explative deleted> Free Parking rule. The first thing I do when I play Monopoly with people is to tell them that this is not a rule in the game, and that I would greatly appreciate it if they dropped it just this once.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The Eberron campaign setting book does not change midgame, and it most certainly doesn't say, "Use your common sense when your players want to do something you don't like."

What about "Use your common sense when your players want to do something."? Why tag on that "you don't like"?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Even with half gp, most 6th level characters could easily afford 1000 gp for a light source that never runs out.

BTW, why is it that you think "low magic" means "next to no magic" but "low wealth" means "1/2 gp"?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I knew I needed a natural 20 to hit the enemy. Actually, due to the minuses I had to hit, even if I rolled a 19 using your rules, I would have missed everyone and a natural 20 would have hit the enemy. It just happened that in this situation, I rolled a natural 20 and the DM didn't even ask me to roll to confirm, he decided it was a critical hit, against my friend, the burly dwarf who barely tolerated my presence as is, as he didn't like the fact that I cast magic.

Besides demonstrating that my rules are superior to your DM's rules (for your purposes anyway), your DM obviously suddenly house-ruled more than one rule. For example, the rule that says a natural 20 always hits, if it is possible to hit your target. For example, the rule that says criticals need to be confirmed.

If I was playing, and this was a typical ruling, I would find another game. Actually, I would just set up and run an alternative, because I have DMing in my blood. If it was an atypical ruling, though, I would probably voice a short objection, suck it up, and keep playing. Then, outside of the game, I would try to explain why I thought it was a poor ruling to the DM. If the DM agreed with me, fine. If not, also fine -- his game, his rules -- but at least I would be forewarned.

Then again, as a player, I don't typically worry too much about having curves thrown my way. What I worry about is DMs who won't let me face the consequences of my bad decisions (and I have been known to make some whoppers....too much curiosity!).

RC

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

So Wizards was wrong to create Eberron, right? It is not a Greyhawk-like world. Therefore, Eberron is not D&D and they should not use the logo for the setting books. Also, D&Donline (which uses Eberron) is not D&D either.

The basic D20 rules can be easily modified to fit other settings, yes.

However, the CORE assumptions stay the same in all the D&D campaigns in 3rd Ed. Eberron is Greyhawk-like in that both settings have wizards who create magic items according to the rules in the PHB, both settings have all of the races from the PHB, they both have all the spells in the PHB, they have a variety of cultures with difference fighting styles, magic styles. This leaves room for PCs to be anything for any of the books released. They both have ancient empires who had powerful magic and left ruins all over the place. They both have magic items for sale for the prices in the DMG. Both settings also follow the standard assumption that players will play semi-heroic characters who seek out treasure and power. The players will gain this treasure and power and be significantly more powerful than normal people.

You'll find that with these as the core assumptions, it leaves a lot of room to maneuver and make a lot of different worlds. Cutural changes, geographical changes, and a lot of other things can fit in without changing the rules. You need to change the rules only if you change the default level of gold or magic at each level or try to run a campaign where character's don't grow to be much more powerful than a normal person.

I insert these core assumptions into every game I play unless told otherwise. Greyhawk, previously, used to be more middle magic rather than a high magic world, but it changed with the 3rd Ed rules coming out to better fit D&D.

Eberron was written specifically to make a world where all of the rules were assumed, so that it fit the rules better than any other setting.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The only folks I commonly see complain that DMs shouldn't have creative control of their own games are players who do not DM and think that somehow they are getting somehow screwed if they are not granted access to anything and everything in the core books or WoTC sourcebooks or access to rules that would benefit their characters from those books.

Yup.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nobody's going to win this argument, by the way. How many pages long is it? I think we have a better chance of teaching rocks to sing.

Win? Argument? I thought we were having fun!

Seriously, anyone planning on DMing ought to read this thread. It's got everything. Stuff to try. Stuff to avoid. Examples of good DMing. Examples of bad DMing. Monopoly.

What more could you want?


RC

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

What strikes me as a bit odd is that those who defend RAW/core assumptions at all costs either must play on the world of Greyhawk or a homebrew exactly like Greyhawk. To play on other settings, even Eberron which has divergences from the standard D&D assumptions, is to break in one way or another with the core rules/core assumptions.

Midnight
FR
Dragonlance
Freeport
Darksun
Planescape
Spelljammer
Dawnforge
Arcana Unearthed
Arcana Evolved
etc.

You'll find that a lot of these are non WOTC settings, so I can't comment on exactly how they diverge. A bunch of them don't diverge at all.

Spelljammer uses all the same assumptions as D&D (it IS D&D), it just adds a couple of new magic items (ships that fly through space) and some new places to go (other planets).

Dragonlance is basically standard D&D with more dragons, except for certain time periods which seem to break a lot of the D&D core rules and seemed a little bit hacked together when I read the rules for them.

The Arcana books are changed a LOT from D&D, which is why they need their own PHB to explain the differences.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

What about "Use your common sense when your players want to do something."? Why tag on that "you don't like"?

Because I've never heard of a reactionary DM banning something he wanted to happen?