3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[ThirdWizard]

#507 is a great post, ThirdWizard. But I'm curious. Do you believe that there's no arms race whatsoever in 3.x? I could see the case being made for prestige classes and templates, etc. But spells, IMO, clearly get more powerful with each successive splatbook...

There definately was before 3.5. I think they tried to reign it back in after that was released with the new books (I don't have a whole lot so I could be wrong) and we might see the Spell Compedium going back and toning down some of the more powerful spells. If we see that, then its definately diminished, if we see it reprinting some of those powerful spells without any change, then I'll agree that we've got a problem with an arms race in spells.

Good post. However, I was never advocating a relationship where I created rules and hid them from the players. I was saying that the players do not have the right to demand that certain rules be added to the game. Certain rules are "add-on" to the system, such as PrCs or feats. There should be no assumption of "yes" where these are concerned.

I wasn't saying you were hiding rules from the players. I was saying previous editions of the game were hiding rules from the players. The thread title starts with the "word" 3E. So, as opposed to previous editions. And, in previous editions, the rules were quite clearly hidden from the players.

Secondly, it's not about asumptions of yes. It's about a non-assumption of no. These arn't the same thing, though its a fine line, but a very important one.

I disagree here. This dynamic has not changed. The idea that all new options are balanced is part of the problem. All new options in 3e are not balanced against one another. Some options are clearly superior than others. If anything, the veneer of balance means that a DM has to be more wary about supplments these days, especially considering how additions can alter the complexity of the rules. The tight rules set works against itself in that it's base is almost like a house of cards.

Supplements are highly more balanced than they were during previous editions. Now we have things like LA to balance being a monster, for instance, whereas before we had roleplaying penalties. For all the flack that psionics gets in 3E it doesn't hold a candle to the brokenness of 2E Psionics Handbook. And don't go into Skills and Powers.

No. The vast majority of what is released nowadays is balanced with the core rules. We just don't hear about it on the boards because there's nothing to complain about or it isn't uber enough to go on about. I have so far allowed just about everything my Players have wanted to use so far in my games. Show me a WotC book that is even 50% overpowered material relased in 3.5. I don't think one exists. If you exclude BoVD and BoED I can't think of one for 3.0 either.

2e had the bladesinger. 3e has the Hulking Hurler.

2E had a lot more than the bladesinger. It had the Book of Elves. Or whatever. I can't remember the name exactly.

In 3e, there is no tool that allows a DM to readily evaluate new options. It requires a lot of work to test out new classes, feats, etc. You cannot just assume that the new options will even fit a generic game. And there are so many rules that even WOTC designers cannot see where a new rules will interact with all the others.

What tools in 2E did we have to determine balance that we don't have in 3E? Indeed, it is easier to determine balance in 3E than 2E. For example, classes. In 2E every class had not only different abilities, THAC0, etc, but they had different XP tables. You had to determine if a (made up numbers) 5th level Theif was equal to a 2nd level Paladin. Now, you can compare straight up the Hexblade, Warlock, and other new classes to see if they are balanced.

You can compare feats to existing feats. First tier to first tier. Second tier to second tier. Mid level to mid level. You can compare PrCs easily. There are no roleplaying disadvantages trying to balance out crunch. In 2E I had a guy make an insanely tweaked guy using several different books with cross referenced abilities that interacted with each other to make him a killing machine. That isn't something unique to 3E. It was easier in 2E.

So, in summary, in 2E, the guy who wanted to play the lycanthrope couldn't do it because he would be overpowered as compared to the rest of the party. In 3E we don't have to worry about such issues, and the DM is free to say yes if he wants instead of being basically forced to say no if he wants to run a balanced game, even if he likes the concept.

I'm still confused as to how people can say that the DM's ability to say no has been eroded in 3e.

The ability to say no hasn't been eroded. He can still say no. He can just more easily say yes.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The ability to say no hasn't been eroded. He can still say no. He can just more easily say yes.

Yes, this is what got me to reply to the thread in the first place. Since most books actually ARE balanced (or at least MOSTLY balanced) now, rather than in previous editions where you had to restrict 90% of the content to avoid going insane.

I've found that a lot of DMs seem to come from 2nd Edition (or possibly other RPGs) where the system and splat books were not balanced. They are so used to banning everything that they do it without thinking now. The slightest reason means they'll change a rule they don't like or ban an entire book without trying them.

Then they'll complain that I DO allow them and I'm creating players that expect to use those books in their games. And that WOTC is a money grubbing company who serves only one purpose, to "undermine their authority".

Or it could be that they are trying to design an internally consistant game that allows those who don't want to make up house rules to not have to.

 

[Raven Crowking]

ThirdWizard,

Now that we have the bigger issue of the authority of the DM out of the way to almost everyone's satisfaction (DM has authority, but should not necessarily use it in some ways), we get down to the far more contentious "How should the DM self-limit his own authority" portion of the thread.

I think, in this case, that many of the tricks of poor DMs and good DMs are the same tricks. The difference lies in application and motivation. For instance:

I wasn't saying you were hiding rules from the players. I was saying previous editions of the game were hiding rules from the players. The thread title starts with the "word" 3E. So, as opposed to previous editions. And, in previous editions, the rules were quite clearly hidden from the players.

Do I hide rules from players? Yes. Guilty as charged. I said so far upthread, and I am reaffirming it here. I hide rules from players. The critical thing, I think, is "What sort of rules, and why?"

The rules I hide tend to be new monsters, prestige classes that their characters would not have accurate information about (i.e., they do not get to know the special class abilities of every evil cultist they meet), local-area feats or feats that have prerequisites they cannot meet (i.e., race-based, where the race is "troglodyte" and no PC can be a troglodyte), hidden ramifications of cosmology (including the specific nature of an alternate planar cosmology), and things of that nature.

Why do I do this? Because I believe that it adds to versimilitude, and ultimately to the enjoyment of all involved. Players like to know ahead of time what the creatures can do. However, players end up rehashing and bragging about the time they faced foes with unknown abilities and triumphed.

Players like to be surprised.

Secondly, it's not about asumptions of yes. It's about a non-assumption of no. These arn't the same thing, though its a fine line, but a very important one.

I know that sometimes these things sound like they are splitting hairs, but this is as valid as my distinction between a DM who makes changes because he wished to please the players, and a DM who is obligated to make changes. They are very different animals.

So, in other words, I agree with you here.

Let me also say this: prestige classes were one of the best tools 3.X gave us for versimilitude, in that DMs can create groups specific to place, species, and/or culture. The generic "this class is for everyone" idea, imho, is less compelling. Not only that, but if the choices players are allowed to make do not include some limitations imposed by those choices (i.e., if I am an elf I can never be a dwarven defender), it lessens the value of the ability to choose.

Players should get to choose between options that combine strength with weakness, rather than merely choosing how to further compound strength. Obviously, YMMV, but this is necessary in what I would see as an optimal game from either side of the screen.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Then they'll complain that I DO allow them and I'm creating players that expect to use those books in their games. And that WOTC is a money grubbing company who serves only one purpose, to "undermine their authority".

Whoever complained about what you allow in your campaign?

Every single DM on this thread, in all posts, who suggested that DMs have the ultimate authority to arbitrate within their games, has also either implicitly or explicitly said that the same holds true for you in your game.


RC

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

2e had the bladesinger. 3e has the Hulking Hurler.

Here's where we disagree. The two aren't related at all. We have a Hulking Hurler in our game, he's not overpowered. If anything, he's underpowered.

This is mainly because the DM used the existing rules and said "Hmm, a rock sized for you likely does about 3d6 damage given the sizing rules." And he became the guy who threw rocks as a role playing device rather than because it was overpowered.

I have yet to see an option as overpowered yet, except for a couple problems that occur when you combine at least 3 feats or PrCs that work in strange ways with each other or rely on a vague interpretation of the rules. We've always fixed these by simply ruling that the opposite interpretation of the rules in the correct one.

Recently, we've discussed Power Attack, the Orb Spells from CA, Mass Fire Shield, Wraithstrike, Frenzied Berzerker, and Persistant Spell as all being possible candidates for house rules. Each time I'm about to change one, I realize that it is only really useful in a specific circumstance and that it hasn't been especially useful in multiple sessions, so I allow it to stay as it is.

Still, even if I'm right and that is the list of "broken" rules items, that still means that 95% of all items put out are fine.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Whoever complained about what you allow in your campaign?

I assumed it. I figured that if players were expecting that ALL options were allowed in your game, and that the books themselves did not appear to encourage this, it is likely because there were too many game out there allowing them to be everything that they have begun to think this is the norm.

Or pehaps the "average" game is now closer to a RAW game with all splat books so it is considered the norm, so those DMs who are running games away from the RAW and disallowing a lot are getting frustrated?

 

[fusangite]

Yes, this is what got me to reply to the thread in the first place. Since most books actually ARE balanced (or at least MOSTLY balanced) now, rather than in previous editions where you had to restrict 90% of the content to avoid going insane.

I've found that a lot of DMs seem to come from 2nd Edition (or possibly other RPGs) where the system and splat books were not balanced. They are so used to banning everything that they do it without thinking now. The slightest reason means they'll change a rule they don't like or ban an entire book without trying them.

Balance is not the reason most of us exclude certain options; world coherence is. It is very hard to suspend disbelief when the contents of every single splatbook are simultaneously true. If you don't make your world aesthetically or culturally coherent, you are in danger of turning right back into a wargame.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Do I hide rules from players? Yes. Guilty as charged. I said so far upthread, and I am reaffirming it here. I hide rules from players. The critical thing, I think, is "What sort of rules, and why?"

Hiding certain rules is an important part of the game, and the decision on what to include and exclude is also one of the things that separates a good DM from a bad one. I hide things too.

That's not really what I was talking about, though.

This is hyperbole, but like all good satire it is based on truths.

I see a difference between hiding a rule so that the Players can experience more wonder toward the world and hiding rules because you don't want the Players to know how something works. There was a sense that part of the DM's control of the game hinged on the Players not being aware of certain things. This gave DMs more leeway in rulings because the Players don't know if the DM is actually following the rules.

I think that's a classic case of hiding rules for the wrong reason. Like you said, two DMs can make the same decision, but the reason behind the decision determines if it is a good one or a bad one. That will determine the pattern of how the DM behaves in that regard.

Players should always know the abilities of their own PCs, for example, IMO. A wizard should even know how suchandsuch spell behaves on an incorporeal creature, I think. They just might not know that this particular incorporeal creature is immune to fire. But, the basic workings should be known.

I know that sometimes these things sound like they are splitting hairs, but this is as valid as my distinction between a DM who makes changes because he wished to please the players, and a DM who is obligated to make changes. They are very different animals.

So, in other words, I agree with you here.

Yeah, I get you now.

Let me also say this: prestige classes were one of the best tools 3.X gave us for versimilitude, in that DMs can create groups specific to place, species, and/or culture. The generic "this class is for everyone" idea, imho, is less compelling. Not only that, but if the choices players are allowed to make do not include some limitations imposed by those choices (i.e., if I am an elf I can never be a dwarven defender), it lessens the value of the ability to choose.

I have very mixed feelings on the subject.

Balance is not the reason most of us exclude certain options; world coherence is. It is very hard to suspend disbelief when the contents of every single splatbook are simultaneously true. If you don't make your world aesthetically or culturally coherent, you are in danger of turning right back into a wargame.

I'd like to go on record as saying balance was the main reason I excluded certain things from my campaigns in 2E.

Looking through, as an example, Complete Warrior, however, there are very few things that would be more difficult to have in an existing setting than the stuff in Core. So, new material will possibly rarely have to be more altered than the Core books. Even PrCs as exotic as the Kensai and Knight of the Chalise could be put into small cloistures that wouldn't affect anything on a large scale.

However, for those who go into enough detail that, say, they can't see the monk class fitting in, then it might get more difficult.

 

[Hussar]

One other tool the "evil" game creators have given DM's is to change the format of PrC's. While the change is much maligned by some, it has two very important effects.

One, it gives a pretty decent tool to new dm's to include a new PrC into a campaign. While there is rarely anything earth shatteringly unique about most of the PrC's, the fact that there is so much backstory to them certainly gives DM's a wealth of information for including the PrC's into a campaign.

The second effect adds to DM's power. No longer is qualifying for a PrC a simple matter of fufilling mechanical pre-req's. Now, with so much background material, the fluff has become just as important as the crunch. Granted, not every DM is going to bother, but, then again, that's their choice. If a DM wants to limit a particular PrC in his campaign, the fact that there is so much fluff makes that a fairly easy thing to do.

For example, the Dervish PrC. In a campaign without a nomadic desert people, a DM can simply rule that the Dervish doesn't exist. There's so much fluff there that it's pretty easy to say to the player, "Look, yeah, the idea's cool, but can your really see this fitting into the campaign?" In my own case, in a naval campaign when a player approached me with this PrC, my answer was, "Well, your character comes from the dockstreets of Mithril, you've never so much as seen a desert, and you have a small castle. How exactly do you qualify for this PrC?" It wasn't that I disliked the PrC, it was that the PrC as written simply didn't fit with the campaign or with this character.

It's become a standing rule in my campaigns that if you wish to take a PrC, you better fit the fluff as well as the crunch. And the fluff is equally important. Players who want a particular PrC are encouraged to start behaving like that PrC about two or three levels (at a minimum) before they take it. If you want to be a Knight of the Holy Whoopee Cushion, you better be getting your jester on a long time before you actually qualify for the PrC.

Isn't this precisely what rules SHOULD do? I mean, again, what else can a DM ask for? Rules that support the DM, and support role play, hrmm, no, that's not what we want.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I assumed it. I figured that if players were expecting that ALL options were allowed in your game, and that the books themselves did not appear to encourage this, it is likely because there were too many game out there allowing them to be everything that they have begun to think this is the norm.

Or pehaps the "average" game is now closer to a RAW game with all splat books so it is considered the norm, so those DMs who are running games away from the RAW and disallowing a lot are getting frustrated?

I wouldn't say that is a fair assumption, overall, although it might be in your neck of the woods. My working assumption is that each DM's preferences, combined with the preferences of the people that DM games with and the flexibility of everyone involved, gives the DM some idea of what sort of campaign world the players would best like. Again, this is within the framework of the DM being interested in it enough to actually do the work and run the games.

The plethora of options available (WotC, homebrewed, and third party) means that nearly any sort of campaign setup can be devised. Often, much of the setup is rules selection instead of rules creation. I think that, in many cases (mine included) we are beginning to see "campaign workbooks" put together that spell out options. Some of these are as carefully thought out and as detailed as published campaign worlds.

Personally, I think the "throw all the spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks" philosophy of world design results in a world that is inherently less interesting and meaningful than a world that follows through on a limited set of initial premises.

Back in the days of 2E, I produced a mere 155 page campaign book, detailing gods in the same format as the excellent Forgotten Realms deity suppliment, explaining which of the Players' and DMs' Options were in use, and determining which kits were allowed to characters of various backgrounds. This stuff allowed the world to seem a lot more real.

IMHO, prestige classes and feats with a regional/cultural prerequisite do the same thing, only better. I admit freely that the d20 System provided a better framework for the creation of campaign worlds than did 2E. However, I do not always agree with the generic setting that they hung over that framework in the core ruleset.

I think that the problem is not that you are playing the game in a certain way, or that even the preponderance of games (especially pick-up games) are played in a certain way. I think that the problem is simply that WotC is marketting control of the setting to the players. Then, rather than having players who ask to play a certain PrC, you have players who forget that there is a social contract in place, and demanding that the DM do specific types of work as some form of obligation.

Is this the majority of players? No. In a thread devoted to the topic, there is only one individual who claimed that this was the correct philosophy for a D&D game. So, not really a huge problem just yet.


RC


P.S.: Re: Splatbooks and game balance. I recently ran World's Largest Dungeon as a break, and opened the floodgates wide as to what kind of characters the players could make. Are there unbalancing combinations out there? Oh, yes! But, I think that is likely to be true in any game system, and what is unbalancing in one game may fit perfectly into another.