3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Berandor]

Between sessions.

Not "in the middle of the session, as the player is attempting an action."

Well, I can say that if necessary, I will make up a rule on the fly and review it later on. For example, if a player wants to get an NPC drunk without succumbing to the alcohol himself, I'll have to do something since it's not covered by RAW.

So I might say, "Make a Fortitude save this time, DC 10+number of beers, wine counts double, schnapps triple, whoever fails first is drunk. I'll think about something better till next session."

I'd say that's better than "Sorry, that's not in the rules."

 

[S'mon]

Take S'mon's money post from a while back. XP awards in the game are based on the challenge rating of the creature. The CR is calculated based on the assumption of a certain level of wealth in the party. A party that lacks particular items, such as magic weapons, has a much more difficult time defeating creatures than a party which has them. Therefore, the poorer party should receive more xp for each encounter.

Now, you don't have to do this, but this is one example of how changing rules can have larger implications.

Actually the game balance doesn't require a monetary economy at all, what it does require is a certain amount of combat-related magic items in the possession of the PCs. There's no need for magc items to be purchasable or sellable for gold. So a 10th level PC group could have 8gp between them and never purchased a magic item, but if they possess a suitable amount of useful magic items for 10th level they'll be balanced vs CR 10 foes.

 

[Hussar]

Actually the game balance doesn't require a monetary economy at all, what it does require is a certain amount of combat-related magic items in the possession of the PCs. There's no need for magc items to be purchasable or sellable for gold. So a 10th level PC group could have 8gp between them and never purchased a magic item, but if they possess a suitable amount of useful magic items for 10th level they'll be balanced vs CR 10 foes.

Now, back up a second there. There is absolutely nothing in the RAW that states that a PC's equipment must be purchased. The wealth by level table says nothing about it actually being cash at any point in time. The wealth by level table is simply a guideline for how much wealth a character should have at a given time in a baseline game.

If your party possesses X amount of equipment equal to the amount of money in the PC wealth by level table, then you haven't deviated at all from the RAW. However, in your first post, you mentioned how a party couldn't have the resources to purchase a 1000 gp Continual Light stick at 5th level. Granted, they may not have straight up cash, but, then again, they could sell part of their equipnment for the cash or trade equipment of equal value. Whether or not its actual coin is not all that important. Your previous posts led me to believe that your party was considerably more poor than the guidelines suggested in the RAW. I know that the other poster (whose name escapes me at the moment) flat out stated that his campaign features a great deal less treasure.

There is one point though about stripping all the cash away from the players. This results in the DM having pretty much complete control over magic in the game. If the only way you can get magic items is to take them from other people, then, well, the DM controls everything. This leads to the old 2e problem where every fighter winds up taking the exact same weapons because the odds of finding a magic bec du corbin are zero to none. And, if you actually do find one, it's pretty obvious that the DM dropped it there for you. On a personal level, I dislike the DM being this visible in the game.

 

[Belen]

There is one point though about stripping all the cash away from the players. This results in the DM having pretty much complete control over magic in the game. If the only way you can get magic items is to take them from other people, then, well, the DM controls everything. This leads to the old 2e problem where every fighter winds up taking the exact same weapons because the odds of finding a magic bec du corbin are zero to none. And, if you actually do find one, it's pretty obvious that the DM dropped it there for you. On a personal level, I dislike the DM being this visible in the game.

Not necessarily. The player can tell the DM that he wants to find a magical bec du corbin and then do the research to find it. It is one way for a player to help direct the events of the campaign. He asks the party to help him find a legendary weapon.

 

[Belen]

Okay.. jsut a bit confused. I know 8 pages is alot of posts, but did anyone else see a poster slightly suggest that the RAW is immutable and no deviation from it shall be tolerated lest ye have the wrath of Rules Laywers upon thine head?

Majoru said this. He said that it is not D&D unless you use all of the "core assumptions" of the game and play in a Greyhawk-like world.

 

[Mallus]

This leads to the old 2e problem where every fighter winds up taking the exact same weapons because the odds of finding a magic bec du corbin are zero to none. And, if you actually do find one, it's pretty obvious that the DM dropped it there for you. On a personal level, I dislike the DM being this visible in the game.

Are you saying that it feels contrived to find a super-rare magic weapon but it doesn't feel contrived to find a marketplace that'll sell you a super-rare magic weapon?

Is this what they mean by voodoo economics?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Why do you need to add the word "reactionary"? Has anyone, anywhere ever banned anything they wanted to happen?


Sorry, but the argument that

a) Some people abuse right X, therefore
b) Right X should be abolished​

is a little too...convenient...for me. And now I will abandon this line of reasoning, because it is impossible to both meet the EnWorld board guidelines and pursue it.

In any event, no matter what the ruleset says, and no matter what any player argues, the game always has and always will rest in the domain of the DM as final arbiter. Not unlike (though I shudder to say it) the programmers are the final arbiters in a PlayStation game. Could you imagine having this argument about Silent Hill? "I didn't know that would happen if I attacked the monster! What's up with this arbitrary cut scene? This game totally blows!"

So far as I know, no one has ever been chained to a particular DM's table. Not having fun? Get up and go. Having enough fun that you want to keep playing, but still not getting everything you want? Grow up. You don't always get everything you want, even if it is written in a book. Or start your own game. There are always more players than DMs, and I am sure someone out there is willing to give you a chance. Players who bemoan every setback, regardless of its cause, can easily be replaced. Having a great time? Then, lucky you, you've got (or are) an excellent DM. I'll bet dollars to donuts he's not afraid to rule based on the common sense of his campaign world.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

1) The core assumptions allow you to have a lot of wiggle room

<snip>

5) I choose not to worry about where gold comes from, gods can create it or there can be an elemental plane of gold, or there is just a LOT of it on the planet. Either way, it is inconcequential to the game. Also, I assume that most NPC don't get much of any XP at all. Guards who actually get into fights might get to level 10 in their entire lifetimes. Commoners rarely, if ever get to above 5th level. Adventurers get high level quickly due to their profession, that's it.

In other words, one can easily have a low magic, low wealth game without making all of the changes to the RAW that you suggested were "logically" necessary.

Thank you.

RC

 

[Henry]

Okay.. jsut a bit confused. I know 8 pages is alot of posts, but did anyone else see a poster slightly suggest that the RAW is immutable and no deviation from it shall be tolerated lest ye have the wrath of Rules Laywers upon thine head?

Actually, I did when I noted about 6 or 7 pages back the attitudes I've seen being engendered in players whose only FRP experience is Online RPG's and Computer RPG's before they came to tabletop games.

The biggest difference is that unlike a lot of the posters who have replied, I've seen situations (far more often than 1 time in 100) where a DM has to rule on something not explicitly covered in the rules, and come up with a DC for doing so. However, I've also seen players challenge the DM's decision on the DC needed to do something, too, because they disagreed with what circumstances applied and what didn't. That's why I feel DM's need their "final arbiter" status reinforced instead of undermined.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Okay.. jsut a bit confused. I know 8 pages is alot of posts, but did anyone else see a poster slightly suggest that the RAW is immutable and no deviation from it shall be tolerated lest ye have the wrath of Rules Laywers upon thine head?

Although I haven't played Midnight, it sounds like it has enough rules changes to be called Midnight the RPG rather than a campaign setting for D&D.

'Nuff said.


RC