3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[MonsterMash]

Wow, I agree 100% with Quasqueton! Way to go, Q! Pity he'll not see this...

"The default answer, actually, is "no". It is a DM's perogative to say, "yes", to overrule the default. By default, the only book the Players have any business using is the PHB. Anything beyond that requires allowance by the DM."

Making this clear certainly prevents a lot of problems.

This sums up how I feel too.

 

[Thotas]

If a DM can't/doesn't limit what comes into his campaign world, how can he keep it consistent? If the latest supplement for playing Jungle-based adventures has a "Swing Through the Trees Like Tarzan" Feat that I don't want to allow because this campaign is supposed to feel like Newhon, it's not my world if my players can force this on me. And it is my world; that's the prize I get for sitting out on the glory and tragedy I get when I have a PC. I'm all for Jackalope King's co-operative approach; I'd love to create a campaign based on piecing together a bunch of my ideas with ones thrown at me by players; it tells me what kind of world they want to play in so I don't make the wrong one. But if we've established a world where something doesn't fit, no matter how cool it looks in the latest splat book, it doesn't come in. I can't comprehend doing it any differently.

 

[Crothian]

Let the players use what they want, I allow most things. I give extra feats. I'm still waiting for it to be a problem. But I trust the players to handle themselves and they seem to trust me, we have fun and that's what matters to me.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

It is all about the amount of work you are willing to put into the game. I used to feel the same way that you feel. I had a very hard time running a 3e game. I found that the real difficulty with the rules set came from the way that the "players" treated the rules and the game.

I think the Core rules (DMG, PHB, MM) are solid and very well balanced. Most additional monster books don't provide any new options for PCs, so they can be added to the game by the DM without any concerns about balance.

Optional add-ons, however, are more questionable. In those cases, the DM has to make a judgement on a case-by-case basis, and that's where it falls apart. I used to have a "no extensions" rule, but now I've relaxed somewhat since Complete Warrior impressed me enough to allow most Complete X extensions.

But in any case, DM support for me comes from several areas:

1. Pre-made NPCs (those pages in the DMG with pre-made NPCs are extremely frequently referenced whenever I DM on the fly)
2. Pre-published adventures. A subscription to Dungeon and occasional purchases of pre-made adventures have enabled me to run an entire game of D&D from 1st to 20th. I'm now running my second campaign entirely around the Banewarrens. I long for an pre-made campaign as tightly integrated and well-written as the Banewarrens. $200 would not be out of the question for such an adventure. If well-made enough and provided enough publicity, groups of players will pool together the money to buy that book. (Apparently that happened with WLD)
3. Electronic tools for the DM. This has been extremely spotty so far. I suspect that this will likely be the biggest source of improvement over the next 3-5 years.
4. Visual aids. Pre-painted minis are great. In addition, I'd love to see more adventures come with pull out illustration booklets, pre-made player handouts, etc.

There may be further game mechanical support tools for DMs that haven't been explored fully, but off the top of my head these are the tools that I am likely to find likely. Note that they are more prevalant for D&D than for any other game out there.

 

[Belen]

Let the players use what they want, I allow most things. I give extra feats. I'm still waiting for it to be a problem. But I trust the players to handle themselves and they seem to trust me, we have fun and that's what matters to me.

That's fine and dandy if you have the type of player who will not abuse it. However, my first 3e group, which had members from my old 2e group, really used the system. I had a monk in my 3e game that was virtually immune to every spell except Forgecage and Imprisonment. That was nuts! They made the game about winning rather than having fun.

I tend to be far more strict now and the results have made my gaming experience better.

 

[Belen]

My general point was that for RPGs to be successful, more needs to be done to assist DMs/GMs. Not just premade adventures (though those certainly help), but tools that can assist the DM/GM in cutting down on prep time, make running sessions easier, etc.

Getting more people willing to GM/DM games is key to ensuring a healthy RPG community.

Well, the tools do exist. Heroforge, e-tools, and the battlebox have made my life much easier. I no longer have to worry about extended prep time.

High level can still be a pain in the arse because of the conditional mods though. High level play breaks down around 12th level or so. I no longer even consider running campaigns past 12th.

 

[Umbran]

The fault of WOTC has been in forgetting to support the DM or combat the notion that any and all rules released for the game are core. This had led to the "feeling" that DMs have lost basic control of the game.

I haven't looked at the Complete books closely, but the original splatbooks all said, quite clearly, words to the effect that "This stuff is optional." The DMG prestige classes are likewise stated as optional, and much of the DMG is devoted to how the DM should build and tinker.

How many times does WotC have to say it before it counts as "support"?

 

[Rasyr]

Okay, am at home and on lunch, so her I go...

I found that the real difficulty with the rules set came from the way that the "players" treated the rules and the game.

That is because the rules took a more "player-oriented" approach and that is laced throughout everything.

The real problem with 3e is NOT the rules or the number of options released for the rules set. The problem lies with the implied connotation that the DM cannot say no. Players have taken the increased options and inferred that they have the right to dictate certain aspects of the game that tread upon the territory of the DM.

Yes, there may be an implied connotation of a GM not being able to say no, but I think that there are problems in other areas as well. Such as the implicit reliance on magical items, and that characters of certain levels SHOULD have xx amount of gold or xx number of magic items. That you only need this many combats against monsters of xx CR to reach the next level.

Over in the thread where this post originated, Mike Mearls made a side comment that very few game designers (i.e. authors) do not understand the CR system or use it properly (or something to that effect). This system (the CR system) is another of the examples of power being removed from the GM. The CR system says what the GH "should" be throwing against the party at a given level.

Overall, the rules have been reducing options for GMs while expanding them for players.

The fault of WOTC has been in forgetting to support the DM or combat the notion that any and all rules released for the game are core. This had led to the "feeling" that DMs have lost basic control of the game.

Actually, the rules have take a lot of control out of the hands of the GM by impliciting supporting and promoting a certain style of play. This control has not been permanently removed, but it has made it more difficult to play using other styles than the one explicitly supported by the rules themselves.

Personally I think the problem with 3rd edition has been the increasing number of options

So? D&D is the new Rolemaster? Seriously, RM got a bad reputation, in part, because of all the options available, and because many players treated them as requirements, not options, and becuase those options were not very well balanced (against one another, to say the very least). From the posts in this thread, it is apparent that some of the same mentality is present amongst some D&D players (and no, apparently not your players, Psion - you have the exceptions, all in one basket from the sounds of it).

It is also apparent that many GMs (at least those who responded here) have taken steps to counter, or reduce that perception. Good for them!

and the pushing of players in the direction of expecting to have them almost without regard to what the DM desires.

Yup! The ability for players to have choices and options is a good thing. However, those choices should be determined by the GM as to what is right for HIS game. I have seen plenty of posts where players want to take a certain PrC and are complaining because such a PrC is not allowed by the GM. This type of post comes about because of the GM trying to set the limits for what is allowable in his game, and yet players (and no, I am not saying ALL players, just some) have the perception that because it is there, they ought to be allowed it.

Prestige classes are a good example of this - originally a DM tool once they started appearing in the old splatbooks and player source material they became an expected addition to every game.

Exactly! Prestige Classes were originally meant as a method for GMs to customize their game settings, but instead, they have essentially turned into power-ups for players. I have other problems with PrCs, but those are not relevant to this discussion.

Additionally, there is a current expectation that new books SHOULD contain new Prestige Classes. That they are almost required to...

Actually, I disagree. Having more options for players to keep them interested and excited is a good thing. What's not present are a) evaluation guidelines for DMs who need them when looking at new material and b) time and experience to properly evaluate everything.

Options are good, yes. However, having players expect that all options are equally allowable is part of the problem.

The discussion here starts with an automatic assumption of an antagonistic relationship, perhaps fueled by the Gygaxian dictatorship of 1E presumptions. When viewed as a cooperative effort, with the player bringing new options to the DM (to save them time designing them) and understands that they'll be fairly evaluated, everyone benefits.

And what about those options that are not balanced well, or have game breakers in them? If the GM misses the potential problems, then it is of no benefit to everybody, it becomes a problem and then that will re-inforce the GM to wanting to curtail future options.

In short, the options themselves are not the problem. It is the expectation that the player should automatically be allowed any option he wants to use that is the problem.

DM's shouldn't have to say, "no". Telling a DM to say, "no", implies the default answer is, "yes", and the DM must stop Players from bringing things into his game.

The default answer, actually, is "no". It is a DM's perogative to say, "yes", to overrule the default. By default, the only book the Players have any business using is the PHB. Anything beyond that requires allowance by the DM.

Exactly! The current ruleset does not do this latter though, it implies that the former is the norm.

 

[Crothian]

That's fine and dandy if you have the type of player who will not abuse it. However, my first 3e group, which had members from my old 2e group, really used the system. I had a monk in my 3e game that was virtually immune to every spell except Forgecage and Imprisonment. That was nuts! They made the game about winning rather than having fun.

I tend to be far more strict now and the results have made my gaming experience better.

Then don't play with those kinds of players. When the players restirct whatr you as a DM does, then you need new players. I'd perfer to not play, then play with a group that limits my fun as a DM.

 

[tetsujin28]

Actually, I disagree. Having more options for players to keep them interested and excited is a good thing.

Yep. Our experience has been more options = mo better.