mearls said:
Sometimes, I wonder if the problems that people have with running D&D 3e are due to the rough transition from DMing 2e to 3e. Back in 2000, I was really disappointed that the DMG didn't come with an appendix that basically went, "So you've been running 2e/1e for 10 or more years? OK, here's what you need to re-learn to adjust to 3e..."
All I had to relearn were rules. No core assumptions changed save in the assumptions of the folks who designed the new system. The assumptions of a given DM's table are unique to the DM and unique to the group. While certain similarities will exist because we all all playing the same game, the manner in which arbitration is carried out and the way adventures are crafted, paced and run is individual based on the DM and players involved.
The core assumptions of the core rules are for vanilla campaigns. Running Dragonlance, FR, Eberron, my Homebrew or IH are very different things and require a DM to know the setting and atmosphere conveyed. The setting determines the assumptions. Once a set of core assumptions determine the way settings work, then you have all settings being the same.
I was a 2e skills and powers DM so I was quite familiar with empowering players with greater options. I very much remember character kits and allowed them when they suited the setting
IME, a lot of DMs (myself included) went through a year or so of trial and error experimentation with the game before they finally got a good handle on how things worked. I was using ELs, XP awards, and the treasure by level system incorrectly or simply not using them for quite a long time.
I use a XP system like that present in the UA while cutting the rapidity of advancement by about 1/3 to 1/2. There is no such thing in my world as treasure by level as IMO this is just too computer gamey. For 25yrs D&D adventures had treasure based on the adventure and the type of game the DM was running. Some DMs had beholders with jewels in their gullets while others had treasure based not on encounter levels but on whether or not a creature would actually have treasure and the amount of loot in his or her setting. Things worked fine for years.
CRs are a decent guideline but because this isn't a computer game, if you wander into the liches tomb at 5th level because you lack good sense, the tomb determines what is encountered and not the level of the players. In my estimation, there is something a bit cheesy about things being so formulaic. Sometimes the PCs will bump into critters far weaker than themselves if the surrounding area is dominated by less powerful creatures ie. the goblin hills are still occupied largely by goblin tribed whether the PCs are 1st or 20th level. In other regions the PCs may be hard pressed t survive if below a certain level because the threats living in that area are determined by the setting and not the level of the guys who are wandering through it. Its an art form really.
Personally, I think RPGs are at their best when the DM and players all have an equal stake in the fun and an equal voice at the table. I like it when my players take charge of the story and make stuff happen. I also like sharing the rules load. If one of my players knows the grapple rules inside and out, I don't mind at all deferring to him. But I can see how that runs counter to how 1e worked, and when I've run 1e or OD&D in the past 5 years I've noticed that my DMing style is much different. When you have to make a ruling to cover a situation, you can't just ask the players what the rule is or should be.
I agree. I think that all have equal stake in the fun but to my experience no matter who is in charge everyone wants to have a good time. Having said that, having an equal stake in the fun in no way translates into equal dominion over the events, backdrop, and nature of the setting and equal arbitration of the rules. No, the DM has that power. There is no reason to believe that most groups work better when there is a commitee of co-equal DMs. It has never worked this way amongst 99% of the groups I have encountered. The players deal with their one character and attempt to have a good time with a very, very limited workload and focus. The DM has a much more labor intensive job and 20X more things to concern himself with. It is the DM who maintains the setting's integrity. It is the DMs job to arbitrate and to adjudicate above and beyond what the books say when necessary.
I enjoy players who know the rules as well as I, but I make the final call. The joy of dealing with rules lawyers died within me about 20yrs ago and never returned.
Think of it this way....an example of good DMing are the many OGL created products on the market which are, for all intents and purposes, DMs being DMs and hammering away at the game to make it their own and then selling their home brew ideas and systems on RPGnow.com and other outlets.
The DM is still the power in the game and though all have equal stake in the fun, all have different focuses. Players focus on their characters and hopefully the unfolding story and the DM focuses and controls everything else. The players have control over the game only insofar as their characters impact events in the game through their actions. In a metagame sense they have little to no control over the game or setting as a whole.
Chris
. And that's the whole point, isn't it?
