3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Majoru Oakheart]

There could be a number of reasons for it - here are a couple of examples that I would consider for a game that I'm running:Or because the wall is crumbling from age, or because the wall is rigged to fall, or because the wall is actually a variety of earth elemental that the players haven't encountered before...

The point is almost every type of modifier can be seen by the player. They can see that the wall is crumbling, or if its deceptive, you can just apply the modifier and say "The wall crumbles in your hands as you attempt to climb it".

Even magical effect should be somewhat noticeable after they effect you. "The rock seems to become steeper, the longer you climb, you have no idea why."

But there should be a reason for it. So, a player can say "Alright, I look at the wall, does it look harder to climb that usual? Yes...hmm..maybe I won't try." Either that or "I failed even though I made it? What happen that made it harder?"

EDIT: Damn, you beat me to it

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

There could be a number of reasons for it - here are a couple of examples that I would consider for a game that I'm running:

Or because the wall is crumbling from age, or because the wall is rigged to fall, or because the wall is actually a variety of earth elemental that the players haven't encountered before...

I guess my point is that, of these, one (crumbling from age) should be immediately apparent to the character, one (rigged) seems like it should be a trap rather than a climb check modifier, and the other (elemental) could be discovered through other means (Spot check, perhaps? Knowledge (The Planes)?).

 

[Hussar]

"How people get super-rare items to begin with" is a product of the setting, and how a given DM runs that setting.

My point was --and it still holds perfectly well-- that its equally contrived for a fighter to encounter a way to buy outright or commission a rare magic weapon than to find one in an opponents stock of treasure.

Unless crafty, crafting wizards are dime and dozen, and always willing to take time off from their study of How the Whole of Creation Works in order to invest a tomato-slicer with some of their precious lifeforce/mana/mojo in exchange for coinage, or a little fair trade...

In either case, the oppourtunity for Player X to acquire the item is a contrivance...

I disagree that it is equally contrived. That it is contrived goes without saying since everything in a game is ultimately contrived by the DM. However, since the RAW supports the idea that magic items can be created by spellcasters, then, it is not a really long jump to think that someone, somewhere is going to try to make a buck from it.

Now, the more powerful the item, the more difficult it will be to find someone who can make it for you. Finding a wizzie to craft a +1 sword shouldn't be all that difficult in a city or even a very large town. It only requires a 5th level caster. This might take a bit of searching, some gather information checks and whatnot, but, it really shouldn't be all that difficult. Finding that 20th level caster to craft that +5 Vorpal thingie, is a major quest considering casters of that level aren't even included in the suggested demographics in the DMG.

I'll agree that the magic shop idea, other than for maybe potions, scrolls and alchemical items, is silly. No one is going to spend that much cash on spec on an item with such a low number of buyers. Thats silly. Equally silly is finding a bec du corbin in that hydra's treasure hold that just happens to be of an enhancement suitable to my level. However, in a fairly large urban center, it isn't so unrealistic that I could saunter over to the local War Gawd's temple, make a whoppingly huge donation and ask them to fashion a lumpy metal thing +2 for me.

It's not voodoo economics when you start to apply the basic assumptions in the RAW to the campaign setting.

Personally, I've gone the other way from others here. I started with a number of house rules - combat rules, character generation, supplemental books etc - and, over the years, have pared down to a bare minimum. Instead of trying to shoehorn the rules into my campaign to generate a particular "feel", now I tweak my campaign a bit to follow the raw and still maintain that particular "feel". If I want a campaign with very little magic, put the setting where there aren't any large urban centers to support high level casters. Make travel difficult for one reason or another. Or, and this one works the best, actually insist on creation times for crafting a masterwork item plus crafting the magic itself. It's amazing how many players will plunk down thousands of gp on an item but will flat out reject the idea of having to wait three months while that suit of armor is made and then enchanted.

In my own experience, I've found that actually simply using the RAW is a much more effective limitation on PC's than any house rule I could come up with.

 

[S'mon]

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.

That's exactly what I said. :\

 

[S'mon]

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.

1. I said I couldn't imagine the party spending 1000gp on an item that just makes light - compare the cost of the "emits light" rings in Neverwinter Nights to the cost of items that actually do stuff. Last session IMC the party found a large treasure stash and the 5th level Ranger-type later paid 1300gp to buy a +1 shield.
PCs IMC generally have wealth somewhere between the NPC & PC wealth-by-level tables. I also boost non-spellcaster power in various ways to help even them up with the spellcasters.

2. As GM or player I am happy for the GM to determine what magic items (or spells) are available in the campaign. As player I don't want my warrior PC overshadowed by the spellcaster PCs, which is a big risk in an item-poor setting, but I don't expect to be able to buy whatever I want unless it's a very high-magic setting. The GM should always be "visible in the game" IMO, the GM's function necessitates such. Otherwise it's barely an RPG at all and I might as well play NWN.

 

[The Shaman]

TheShaman..Patryn's point.. and mine.. is that the climbing player can have one of two responses....based on how the GM has ruled on things in the past.

A> This is strange, I should be able to climb this wall.. but something about it is making it difficult. We should investigate to discover the reason I cannot easily climb this!

B> Damn. DM doesn't want me on the roof. Guess I will have to go along and get ambushed by his story.

Obviously, option A is preferable. This option is more likely when you have established that the rules work they way they are expected to under normal circumstances... expected *by the player*. Most of the reasons you mention would be easily detectable by touch or by look.
As a player, I would be annoyed if you told me after I failed a climb check that the wall was a higher difficulty because it is made of old, crumbly sandstone.

The point is almost every type of modifier can be seen by the player. They can see that the wall is crumbling, or if its deceptive, you can just apply the modifier and say "The wall crumbles in your hands as you attempt to climb it".

Even magical effect should be somewhat noticeable after they effect you. "The rock seems to become steeper, the longer you climb, you have no idea why."

But there should be a reason for it. So, a player can say "Alright, I look at the wall, does it look harder to climb that usual? Yes...hmm..maybe I won't try." Either that or "I failed even though I made it? What happen that made it harder?"

Well, duh.

I'm talking about changes made based on features of the game-world, yet you both seem to think I'm advocating changes for the sake of making changes or to thwart effective player tactics. That there are GMs out there that do the latter is regrettable, but I don't think any ruleset can compensate for bad GMing. I think the idea that if we just have enough rules we won't have bad GMs is terribly naive.

I guess my point is that, of these, one (crumbling from age) should be immediately apparent to the character...

Really? Based on what, exactly? Common sense, perhaps?

In cases where I've used features like this, a Spot check with skill synergy for Climb ranks was permitted to detect loose rock and other hazards that would affect an attempt to scale the wall or cliff. If the character climbs on and misses a check, I describe the reason why the check failed. To expect the character to somehow notice that something's not right out-of-hand is asking a bit much.

...one (rigged) seems like it should be a trap rather than a climb check modifier...

Could be both, actually - if the character fails a Cimb check and decides to do a Search check, it might be detectable as such, and Disarm Device attempt could reduce the Climb DC.

...and the other (elemental) could be discovered through other means (Spot check, perhaps? Knowledge (The Planes)?).

Perhaps, but even if the Living Wall (a monster I HB'd for a 1e campaign many years ago) remains undetected, the Climb DC will still be higher if the elemental doesn't want you to climb.

I'll leave you with a final thought: in the core rules (3.0 - I don't have the 3.5 books handy) the highest DC shown for a Disable Device check on a "wicked" complex mechanical trap is 25 - does this mean that the rules prohibit non-magical traps with a higher DC to disable, say a 27 or 28?

 

[S'mon]

D&D encourages entire role playing sessions to be resolved by a single die roll and each 6 seconds of combat to take 30 minutes of time in real life. If you want a role playing heavy game, you will likely have to create a lot of house rules.

Hm, no - you can (1) play out the character interaction and (2) handwave the combat. Doesn't actually require any rules.

 

[S'mon]

One thing I take from Majoru's comments is that it's a good idea for the GM to tell the player what the difficulty (DC etc) of an action will be before they attempt that action, especially if the GM is using a houserule. The exception would be if an unknown force is affecting the difficulty.

The problem with the "firing through four friends to hit enemy" example IMO is that the WoTC games designers never considered that a player would expect to be able to do such. There's a reasonable rule for firing past 1 ally - cover bonus +4 AC - but allowing every PC in a 5' wide corridor to fire missile attacks at the foe fighting the lead PC seems like a very bad idea to me. OTOH this only arose because Majoru was playing a spellcaster in a world where he couldn't risk casting any spells!

 

[Hussar]

*snip*

2. As GM or player I am happy for the GM to determine what magic items (or spells) are available in the campaign. As player I don't want my warrior PC overshadowed by the spellcaster PCs, which is a big risk in an item-poor setting, but I don't expect to be able to buy whatever I want unless it's a very high-magic setting. The GM should always be "visible in the game" IMO, the GM's function necessitates such. Otherwise it's barely an RPG at all and I might as well play NWN.

Now, as a GM or a player I am not happy to determine what magic items are available in the camp. I don't want to constantly be bothered with dropping that easter egg specifically for the ranger. I'd much rather have the bad guy use whatever items I think are coolest for the bad guy and then let the party sell those items (or keep them) and have new items created to suit their own tastes. It's their characters, I say let them customize them the way they want to, not how I think they should be. I agree that you shouldn't be able to buy off the shelf, but, then again, I never said that. The RAW includes item creation feats. The RAW gives a value for those items. Those items are useful to many people. Therefore, to me, by the RAW, it's not a huge stretch of imagination that someone, somewhere is going to agree to fashion an item for enough cash.

Now, on the second point about DM visibility. Again, this gets back to the idea of DM as Referee. A good ref should not be very noticeable in the game. His calls and actions should be as much in the background as possible. Of course the DM is visible as he plays various NPC's. But, then again, it's not the DM that's visible, but the NPCs. When the DM has to blatantly act, such as dropping that magic bec du corbin for the fighter, then he's way too visible in the game. I would much rather the players drive the game than have me lead them all the way along. For the players to be in the drivers seat, that means that I have to take a back seat. I lay the road, I put up some of the roadsigns, but, ultimately, they're driving. Whether or not they make the destination is beside the point IMO. It's the drive that's important.

 

[Belen]

I agree that in principle, making judgement calls is fine. I also don't think the solution is to simply shovel more rules into the game. I do think, however, that the ideal system should minimize the amout of judgement calls a GM has to make, because for every GM making great, consistent calls, there's another half-dozen GMs running the worst sort of GM Fiat games, where the object of a challenge is to, "Figure out how the GM wants this to end."

I call bull here. While bad DMs do exist, the idea that for every good DM, six horrible DMs exist is farsical. I think that the idea that has been promoted over the last few years that promotes the RAW as final arbiter has led to an urban legend regarding DMs who make judgement calls or create house rules.

As a player, you want the rules to be final arbiter. It grants the player power and control over the game. The problem is that this attitude leads to an adversarial relationship between player and DM and causes arguments over the rules. Let's face it, the rules are fairly vague and sometimes a decision has to be made. A player and a DM can interpret things differently and then cause massive problems, unless the player accepts the DM as arbiter.

For all of you who see the DM as a referee, you are discounting the prevailing attitude that the player tries to argue the rules in their favor because they "know" the rules. The problem here is that players no longer even see a DM as a referee these days. They see the rules as the referee and that is where things are beginning to break down.