3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Majoru Oakheart]

I've been using the model that nearly everything in every WOTC book is allowed unless I see a REALLY big balance problem with it just by looking at it or it has proven to be abusive in actual play for more than 1 session.

I know how fun it is as a player to look through options, to come up with interesting characters. I also know, I, and all my friends have a large desire to do so after playing 2nd Ed for so many years and playing "Generic longsword using fighter number 286" in nearly every session. So, if a prestige class comes out that has a flavour I enjoy, I really would appreciate my DM allowing it. It might make the difference betwen me enjoying my character and simply showing up out of dedication to the game.

I think the major problem seems to be that people keep trying to shoehorn plots and fantasy worlds into the D&D system, then complain that the D&D system is to blame for not allowing it. It isn't a generic fantasy RPG, it really has its own flavour and set of assumptions built into it.

It allows you to run games set in a fantasy world where characters from various cutures, countries, and backgrouns, who are quite a bit more powerful than normal people, who have powerful larger than life abilities kill enemies fairly close to their power level in order to amass gold, magic, and more powerful abilities so that they may defeat more powerful enemies.

It does this really well, and if you run your game in this style, you'll find you'll have almost no problems whatsoever with the system at all. It starts to have problems when you try to run it as a world without magic items or a world where anyone no matter how powerful can be killed by a single sword or the only ones who can jump over a 30 foot wide pit are magical creatures, or a world where all magic is restricted to an elite group of people that the PCs will never meet and rogues are all sought out by the law and humans are the only race...well, you get the point.

Each change you make from some of the D&D default assumptions requires more and more work to keep it as balanced as the original. Yes, it does require a good grasp of math in order to make "flavour" changes and still have a balanced game.

 

[Crothian]

My problem is that the more options that are out there....the less options players have and here's why:

It used to be you had only a few core options. The rest was then imagination. The players and dm started brainstorming how to make the character cool, add a little here, take a little there.

Now its about picking from a big list. Players aren't using their imaginations anymore, they are just flipping through books picking what looks good. In that sense, its no different from a video game.

The main benefit of paper rpg is that in the end there are no rules except what the dm and players agree upon. But I feel that we have lost that over the last several years.

Then you need to do it differently. Don't give the books to the players and tell them to pick from a list. Ask the players what they want and then give them the book that fits what they want.

 

[FireLance]

Good grief, people are talking about the loss of DM power like it's a bad thing . Like I said in der_kluge's epiphany thread:

I agree with der_kluge and ThirdWizard. There has been a subtle shift of power from DMs to players in 3rd edition. In my opinion, it is due to the following factors:

1. More consistent, better streamlined and unified rules. This leads to:
2. Players being able to know more rules and have a better grasp of them. Combine these two with:
3. More assistance and guidelines for inexperienced DMs in the form of character wealth guidelines, CRs for monsters, etc. and you get:
4. It is much easier for a player to become a decent, if not fantastic, DM if he needs to be. So what this means is:
5. The DM has become more of a "first among equals", DMing by the mutual consent of the group, rather than by default because he is the only one who knows all the rules and can run a fun game. So, to put it quite simply:
6. The DM has to keep his group happy or someone else will take over his job.

Vive la revolution!

And if the quote from Mike Mearls is correct, fewer players are leaving the game. You might not like the implication that giving the players more power means that more people want to be play the game, but I think almost everyone will agree that having more players around is a good thing.

The question, "Why swap D&D for something that gives the DM more power over you?" goes right to the heart of the issue. Authoritarian regimes can work well, and some may even work better than some democracies, but I think most people would rather live in a democracy anyway. The same goes for D&D. Authoritarian DMs can run fun games, but I think most players would rather stay away from them anyway.

So yes, the DM has the right to say no, but it is a right to be used responsibly, for the good of the gaming group as a whole. A DM who says no for his own selfish enjoyment or his own artistic vision of what the game should be will likely find himself out of players soon. A DM who lets his players bully him will likely burn out soon. As in all human relationships, there has to be some give and take between a DM and his players.

 

[The Shaman]

I know how fun it is as a player to look through options, to come up with interesting characters.

As a player I prefer to come up with a character before I look for options in a book, and I prefer to play with folks who do the same.

That's not meant as a criticism of your approach, Majoru Oakheart - it's just my personal preference. I have done it the other way 'round, to try out certain classes and feats, but I never get the same same satisfaction as a I do from a character that starts as with ambitions and personality and history, and then gets translated into game stats.

I think the major problem seems to be that people keep trying to shoehorn plots and fantasy worlds into the D&D system, then complain that the D&D system is to blame for not allowing it. It isn't a generic fantasy RPG, it really has its own flavour and set of assumptions built into it.

This is one of the reasons, along with many of the ideas shared in this thread, that I'm no longer a D&D player - I don't care for the default genre assumptions of the game anymore.

It allows you to run games set in a fantasy world where characters from various cutures, countries, and backgrouns, who are quite a bit more powerful than normal people, who have powerful larger than life abilities kill enemies fairly close to their power level in order to amass gold, magic, and more powerful abilities so that they may defeat more powerful enemies.

This sounds kinda like the game I enjoy, and yet at the same time so wildly, thoroughly not.

 

[Sundragon2012]

I never saw the DM as merely the guy who knows more rules, that's just a really pathetic definition of what the DM is. Since D&D 2e my players have had access to the DMs Guide and whatnot and never once has it caused some popular revolt to be DM.

I am dungeon master because I am the architect of the setting and the storyteller in the group who comes up with interesting cultures, good house rules, compelling atmosphere, etc. My players, at least one or two know the core rules as well as I if not better. Who cares about that nonsense? The trick of being a DM is much more than the rules and much more than some secretive coveting of power, it is the ability to keep the setting together, create great adventures with interesting plots and to arbitrate fairly amongst a group of foks who are their to play a part in a story of heroic fantasy and daring exploits.

Good DMs have always worked with their players and their players appreciated having input. However, they also knew the amount of work and time goes into being not only a DM but a good DM and honestly I have met very few who want the job and very few who would screw with a nice, clear hierarchical structure that allows for fairness and order within the structure of the game.

As to the assumptions regarding DnD and the implied millieu....whatever....as DM I choose which assumptions fit my game and that is going to be how it is going to be. WoTC or whomever can choose to alter the assumptions now being accepted in the next version of the game or the version after that. It will be the DMs who stand for the integrity of their games who will hold to what has worked well for them for 10, 20, 30yrs and not sway in the breeze of the arbitrary decisions of corporate types or even designers who do not even play the game but make their choices based on profit and marketability.

OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, 5e+.....it doesn't matter, because as long as the game exists there will be DMs who understand that no ruling from the cosmic foo foo overrides the manner in which they run their game.



Chris

 

[LostSoul]

When I'm the DM, I'm interested in:

a. having the players play the characters they want (which means options), and

b. having fun (which means everyone having fun, generally).


When I'm a Player, I want:

a. to create the character I want to play (ie. more options).


I think 3.x helps me out here, both as a Player and DM.

 

[yipwyg]

CR/EL System

The only real thing that I have seen a problem with this system is, players seem to not have any fear at all when it comes to combat.

What do I mean? There seems to be a mentality among my D&D group that whenever an encounter is going to take place that it will be "balanced" to their level. Basically, most of the encounters would be at an EL equal to or lower to them, so the default reaction (if combat is going to happen) is the we can take it attitude.

Just recently I was playing in a game of D&D, we were 3rd level. Our characters stumbled upon a wrecked caravan train, dead bodies lying in the road. One of the caravan wagons looked like it was dragged off by 2 creatures. We did some exploring, and discovered a troll den, with a male, female, and two kids. In front of the cave, tied to a pole where two survivors. Our group decided that we should save the survivors, however our methods were different. I thought that we should get some reinforcements, the rest thought we should do it ourselves. So the fighter tried to sneak to a better position, got discovered and combat ensued. The only reason that we did not get totally spanked by the trolls is that the DM fudged the entire combat to the point that we could not lose.

Now the DM knew that this battle would be way to tough, and probably planned it that way. I haven't talked to him since then (labor day weekend camping trip). I do not think that he expected the party to go in with "guns" blazing. When the party did, he basically in his mind went oh crap, and altered the combat to favor the players. This is a DM's perogative and I do not mind it, it kinda lowers the excitement though knowing that it is virtually impossible to die though.

In my opinion, if the players do something totally insanely stupid, they should potentially die. I do not believe that everyting should be conformed to the players levels. I mean yes at low levels they will tend to be fighting less powerful creatures. However, the players should realize when they are over their head and know when they should cut and run. They should not automatically assume that the enounters should be equal to them.

For example take the movie Dragonslayer. Everyone in town knows there is an ancient dragon in a cave on the mountain. Every so often a person is sacraficed to it to keep it happy. If someone, or for that matter a party, enters the cave, and they are not prepared for it, they should expect to be possibly killed.

I use the CR/EL system as a guideline, however I also expect my players to determine how they handle the encounter. To me it is just as much their responsability as it is mine to determine if an encounter is to tough for them. If they think the encounter is too tough, avoid it, or find some other way to handle it besides full on attack.

 

[tetsujin28]

I'm sort of surprised that no one has mentioned computer DM aids yet.

For my part, it's because all such programs have been a lot more trouble than they're worth.

 

[LostSoul]

The only real thing that I have seen a problem with this system is, players seem to not have any fear at all when it comes to combat.

That's been a problem in all the RPGs I've ever played. It's not too much fun to run from everything and call in the SWAT team to clean up.

This is a DM's perogative and I do not mind it, it kinda lowers the excitement though knowing that it is virtually impossible to die though.

You gotta talk to him about it. If you don't let him know that he choked there, he'll do it again. Then again, it will mean your PC is going to die down the road some time...

I use the CR/EL system as a guideline, however I also expect my players to determine how they handle the encounter. To me it is just as much their responsability as it is mine to determine if an encounter is to tough for them.

I think that the CR/EL system works well the way you describe it. The only problem is when the DM doesn't give the players enough clues about the difficulty level of an encounter. If your 2nd level PCs go on a merry walk, guarding a caravan (like all 2nd level PCs seem to do at some point during their career), and run into a pissed-off Adult Green Dragon just out-of-the-blue... that's messed up.

But I see what you are saying and I totally agree. The world should be real and the PCs should be able to get in over their heads.

 

[mearls]

The problem with this model is that it's forgetting the one thing that separates D&D from traditional games: The DM. This model, taken to its extreme, destroys the position of Game Master. If MMORPG's are an example, it also hinders the idea of roleplaying itself, because it gets lost in power-play. If it degenerates into players running around requesting "buffs," looking for quests to "level", and how to start the best "monster trains" then it's transformed into something I haven't taken part in since I was 14 years old. It's fine if this is one form of play facilitated, but when this is the ONLY form facilitated, it's something I no longer want to take part in.

I actually agree completely. I think that it's easy to swing too far in one direction. 1e and 2e put all the power in the DM's hands. 3e veers in the opposite direction. Ideally, D&D should service both ends perfectly. I think that there are ways in which the current rules set can be improved. Ideally, the D&D rules should allow DMs to build the worlds and stories that they want to create.

It's definitely an issue I grapple with.