3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Greg K]

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.

Lol. now I am confused. I thought that I saw him write exactly that. However, the only post I found was one where he wrote that, going *into* any DND game, he expected it to be Greyhawk like and RAW unless he was told otherwise.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

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.

I read this as 'I show up for a DnD game and find out half-way through the first session that we are playing Midnight, I would prefer the DM announce the game as a Midnight game'.

Personally I announce games as 'Ravenloft', 'Eberron', 'My World', or 'CP2020'.....
Use of a setting name that helps players undertand that thier is a major shift to different set of assumptions.

Regardless, with the exception of Henry's post that acknowledges that players of that sort do exist.. there has not been any poster on this thread pronoucing beleif in "the RAW is immutable and no deviation from it shall be tolerated"..which was what Greg K's post said. Everyone here, as far as I can tell, understand that every game deviates from the 'core assumptions' in various degrees. The isssue is how to handle players..such as Henry has encountered, and ensure that the DM's authority to house rule thier game..and to make off the cuff rulings when a rule is not readily available..is not infringed upon.


Raven Crowking.. agreed with the decision to not get into that debate.. I am sure someone would bring up the 2nd amendment ... but thats even farther derailed than we have gotten this thread...

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

That other poster would be me.

You are correct in saying that the DM therefore has pretty much complete control over magic in the game. Of course, "pretty much" allows for some wiggle room.

(1) You can still make magic items. Using power components can drop the XP and GP costs considerably. Just requires research and adventuring.

(2) Although I give less treasure overall, there are some pretty good hauls out there if you are clever enough to get them when you spot them. Some of them require a good bit of work to remove.

(3) Coming up, I am developing "legacy" rules that allow you to create new feats, spells, magic items, inventions, etc. (subject to DM input and approval, of course) that affect either your character or change the campaign world in some way. In other words, players will have some level of direct input on how the campaign world works.

(4) I also use swashbuckling cards! That has nothing to do with magic items, but they are cool, and they also allow PCs to do things NPCs cannot.


RC

 

[FireLance]

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."

I'm perfectly fine with this. After all, the rules don't cover every situation, and can sometimes be interpreted in different ways. In game, you sometimes need to make a ruling and move on.

What I consider to be a poor DM is one who:
1. Is not familiar with the rules.
2. Gets defensive when a player displays better knowledge of the rules than he does, usually by highlighting a rule that applies in the situation.
3. Doesn't bother to understand what the rule actually means or does.
4. Declares what he thinks "should" happen instead.

I'm pretty sure this type of DM was responsible for the "90% chance of hitting a friend" and the "a gnome can't intimidate a dragon" situations that were mentioned earlier.

I'm not saying that you need to know all the rules to be a DM. Rules knowledge is only one of the traits of a good DM (and some might say not even the most important one). I'm not saying that DMs can't make mistakes. We're all human, after all. I'm not saying a DM shouldn't make up rules or interpret them on the fly. You need to keep up the momentum of the game. I'm not saying a DM shouldn't create house rules. You might want a game with a different flavor from the core assumptions, and tweaking and making up new rules, feats, spells, prestige classes, etc. is part of the fun of being a DM.

I am saying that DMs should recognize their own limitations. If you aren't good at rules, don't feel threatened by a player who knows the rules better than you do, and don't punish him or try to put him in his place by changing the rule on the spot. Do understand the reasons for and effects of an existing rule, and try to anticipate how your proposed changes will affect the game before actually making them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Rules That Seldom Come Up

In some cases, when designing an adventure I find myself using rules that seldom come up. For example, rules for underwater combat. In these circumstances, I try to include a bulletin-point summary of the rules in my notes for the encounter in question. This makes it very easy to use the rules without having to flip through books at the table. In the case of underwater combat, I am using (as a house rule) material from the Legends & Lairs Seafarar's Handbook, so that would otherwise be additional material that I would have to flip through. Although my adventure notes are longer than average, they are easier to follow this way!

Earlier, I had mentioned that a PC's background being used as a plot hook might engender the creation of 100+ pages of material. Unfortunately (perhaps) this is not an exaggeration. For me, a story arc goes beyond a single adventure. Something that the PC comes up with may cause me to design a city, a village, a dungeon, a cave system, a ruined town, etc., etc.

One character's story arc affects different stories. It may even affect different groups playing in the same campaign world. For example, the events in my current PbP began as a result of two actions in my tabletop game. This, for me, is normal stuff.

I love DMing. I doubt I'll ever quit.

For myself, and other DMs like me, the game is a labour of love. We put in long hours. We do way more work than any player in her right mind would do. The campaign world is ours, and we are the final arbiters thereof. After all, we control the gods.

Unlike some here, the longer I play 3.X, the more I find that I need to tinker with it to get it to do what I want it to do. Again, the engine is fantastic. It's just the window dressing (how do you use a gnomish pick, anyway?) that needs serious reworking.

(For me, though, the window dressing is all the races, all the classes, some of the feats [mostly, I need to add some world-specific ones], and some of the spells [not folkloric enough, too video-game-y].)


RC

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well, I can say that if necessary, I will make up a rule on the fly and review it later on.

I was going to respond in more detail to this, but Firelance covered it pretty well here: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2572338&postcount=314

To expand, that's not the kind of house rule I'm talking about. That's expanding the rules to cover situations that aren't actually covered.

Now, if, instead, you'd announced up front that you'd be using the Alcohol and Drinking rules from, say, Fairs and Taverns, and then changed your mind in-game, we might have a problem.

[Hypothetical example follows, as I don't have F&T.] Succinctly, I decided, as a player, that it was possible for my character to drink the scrawny guy under the table because the drinking rules in F&T says that each drink has a an Alcohol DC, which you must beat with a Con check. If you beat it, nothing bad happens. If you fail, then you get 1 Drunkness point. When you have Drunkness points >= 1/2 your Con score, you're tipsy (small penalty to Dex and Wisdom), and at Con score or greater, you're drunk (large penalty to Dex and Wis). At 2x Con score or greater, you pass out. I've looked at my Con score, looked at the Alcohol DCs for beers, and figure my character knows he can go for about 8-10 beers before he starts having issues. (He may have issues sooner if someone starts spiking drinks - which is what *I*'d try to do in a drinking contest. )

However, you've gone and changed the rules on me. Now I've got less of an idea than before of how many beers my character can drink, on average, before he starts feeling the effects. My character's knowledge of "The Way the World Works" is no longer applicable.

I know that, generally speaking, normal human Patrick can have two or three beers in a row before he starts feeling tingly, and should probably stop before he hits five or six over the course of a long meal.

My character should have similar self-knowledge. Announcing the rules up-front (when you know them) allows this to happen. Changing the rules midgame - not merely coming up with an applicable rule for an unforseen situation - prevents this from happening.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

No - but then, that's not the kind of house rules we're dealing with, here. We're - or, at least, I'm - referring to the numerous examples brought up in this thread and others whereby a DM has decided to pull the proverbial rug out from underneath the characters and the players.

"Yes, I know that there's no chance for you to hit your allies according to what the rules say, and I know that you wouldn't have taken the shot with your bow if you'd known that the only thing you'd be able to hit is your friend, but I've decided that it 'makes more sense' that this happen. Come on - you should've known this would happen - it's common sense!"

That's the kind of ad hoc house rule that I have problems with.

 

[Storm Raven]

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?

Yes. Because if there is a marketplace, I can commission someone to make me the super-rare magic item. Which is generally how people get super-rare items to begin with.

 

[The Shaman]

"Yes, I know that there's no chance for you to hit your allies according to what the rules say, and I know that you wouldn't have taken the shot with your bow if you'd known that the only thing you'd be able to hit is your friend, but I've decided that it 'makes more sense' that this happen. Come on - you should've known this would happen - it's common sense!"

That's the kind of ad hoc house rule that I have problems with.

Once again we have house rules being confused with poor GMing.

Telling a player after the shot is made that there is a chance of hitting the other characters is a bad call - a better GM in this circumstance would say to the player, "If you take the shot and miss, there is a chance of hitting one of your friends instead. Do you still want to take that action?"

The GM is empowered by the rules to make those sorts of judgement calls, to bend and twist and break the rules if it serves the style of game the GM wants to run. A prudent GM offers the player options when something like this arises, rather than making a ruling post hoc as described here.

(By the way, in this specific example, the door can definitely swing both ways - in a 1e game that I ran many years ago, an orcish archer took out three of his comrades and wounded two others while trying to shoot the party wizard, and was then slain by one of his injured allies. )

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's the kind of ad hoc house rule that I have problems with.

Which is fair enough. But it is a far cry from the sort of things that this thread started out discussing: The idea held by some players that, because it's in the book(s), the DM must use it, and the idea that the DM is not the final arbitrator of the games they are running.

I think we all agree: finding yourself in the game of a bad DM is an unpleasant experience. Luckily for most of us, though, we aren't chained to the table.


RC