3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Geron Raveneye]

Very often I have the impression that it is less a matter of rules discrepancies or different common sense being the driving force behind the troubles, but how personally people take it when it happens.

As an example, the priest/alchemist/wizard sitting down to create heaps of Continual Flame carriers to sell them to the rich. The reasons for this can be numerous, and from different points of view, as can be the answers from the DM hosting that game. You could call it metagamey, or an ingenious application of the rules to further the character, a silly quirk or a dozen other things. The DM could answer by simply forbidding it (creating lots of frustration at the table), create adventure hooks that employ or undermine the idea, or simply let the character work to have nobody buy his stuff in the end because the church branded him a heretic, and everybody who buys his creations. The questions is always, how personal do people take it when their decision (or worldview of your campaign world) is nixed by the other side.

Here is where the percieved "empowerment" of the players can go wrong. If I'm accessible to good advertisement, and have a few bucks to spare, and want my character to be more special, and such I buy a supplement, I of course would love to see it used in the game by my DM. If I get told by the game's creators that the rules I just put $30 on the table for are perfectly balanced with the rest of the game, I might even be convinced that there is no real reason why they shouldn't be used in the game my character plays in. Now, depending on how I present my wish to my DM, he might react differently to it, but it might as well go like "nope, sorry, only the core books"...at which point I might as well point out that the new stuff is as good as core...which might annoy my DM a little, because he has less time than I browsing special rules for one character, or simply doesn't want/can't spend the money on the book, or feels like he plays second fiddle to a book...which might make him grumpy, which will make his denial more grumpy, which could easily convince me that he simply wants to take me down personally, etc etc etc..(to quote a famous siamese king ).

The whole point is that each side, players and DMs, only have as much power over the game as the other side allows them. The DM creates the adventures, sure, and fleshes out the background, the NPCs, the treasure...but the players ultimately provide the motivation for that. No players, no game...no DM, no game. That's where the "equality" sits. So as long as both parts of the game are working together, and can communicate and compromise on their opinions and wishes for the game, nothing should really be a problem.

 

[Raven Crowking]

3) House Rules DM: These DMs have read the rules and didn't like something about them. They didn't think that hit points were realistic enough so they removed the ability to gain more as you go up levels, they think being able to cast defensively is stupid, etc. They get really mad at me for pointing out that all the problems they've created due to changing the rules until they get angry enough, so I never open my mouth while at the table again.

I'm sure there is a 4th category:

4) People who changed only the bare minimum rules to fit their campaign worlds and thought all the way through their changes so they rebalanced all the classes to make up for power lost due to changes they made.

Majoru,

One of these two is me. I have certainly decided to change rules in the game, and am currently compiling a book of new rules so that the players & I will all be on the same page. I'm sure you'll be happy to know that the new rules are not in effect until the book is done and in everyone's hand....despite the fact that the players really, really like what they've seen of the new rules and are eager to incorporate them.

I've opened EnWorld threads on some of the new rules to solicit input prior to release. It's awlays good to have a second opinion, and to try to spot the problem areas ahead of time. Some of the input I've received here has caused me to go back and rewrite sections of the material I've produced.

Some of the material is taken from other supliments (WotC or third party), some nearly wholesale. Some I have tested through the time-honored method of NPC encounters. For example, prior to opening up the Arcana Unearthed classes for PC use, I tested the ones I was considering as NPCs to see if they overpowered the standard PC classes.

In my class rewrites, I find myself mostly adding things to the various classes in order to make them more distinct. Because I am using reduced XP, I have no problem with giving more per level, so most classes are beefed up somewhat. Because I am running a game where social interaction is more important than in the core assumptions, some classes gain specific social benefits (i.e., priests can use their level as a bonus on certain skill checks to influence members of their religion).

I wanted to require characters to interact with other people in the world, so I introduced rules to promote this. Which means, yes, that I added class abilities that require you to have help in order to use them. Which means, yes, that low- to mid-level characters have to seek out higher-level characters to aid them. It also means that, as characters grow to mid- and high-levels, they gain influence over lower-level characters of the same class.

Since I want to make combat more risky, I decided to adopt the vitality/wound point system from Unearthed Arcana (and Star Wars D20). Because I wanted to avoid the "golf bag of weapons" that the core assumptions lead to, I decided to make weapon skills, allowing the player to alter his chance to hit and/or damage on a round-by-round basis. Thus, you could use your 10 ranks of Axe Fighting to add +10 to your attack roll, +10 to your damage, or any combination thereof (announced prior to rolling). Base (unannounced) assumption is a 50/50 split, with any remainder favoring the attack roll. There are also some pre-set uses of the skills you can declare and precalculate, including an option to use your weapon ranks to defend.

I have changed races to better reflect the campaign cosmology. Dwarves become giants. Elves and gnomes become fey. Half-orcs and half-elves use templates. There are several new races generally available, including humanoid animals, awakened animals, giants (from AU, modified for my world), and human sub-types. Every race and/or subrace can take up to three racial levels (again, per AU).

The Profession and Craft skills are somewhat nerfed, so that you cannot be a master craftsman at 1st level (there is a "best you can do" limitation based on skill ranks). On the other hand, a really good craftsman can produce better than masterwork items (ala Advanced Gamemaster's and the Medieval Player's Handbook).

I could go on, but I feel certain that you get the point. Lots of changes. Each one is a change that I feel is necessary, and the players are pretty keen on the stuff they've seen so far. The players all get a copy of the changes and a chance to study them before they go into effect. We are, in fact, devoting an entire play session, one week after the players get the new rules, to going over the rules and how they will affect characters in the game.

Beyond a doubt, some problems will arise due to the rules transition, and holes that require plugging because we failed to see them ahead of time. But also, beyond a doubt, we'll have a ruleset that strongly matches the campaign world.

Now, my questions to you are these:

1) What exactly is "bare minimum"? Does this qualify? If so, why? If not, why not?

2) When you say you spend time at games "pointing out that all the problems they've created [are] due to changing the rules until they get angry enough," do you mean you offer constructive advice, or that you nitpick the rules? Are these problems that the DM is experiencing, or are these problems created due to the way the rules interact with what you want? What is "angry enough"? What is your motive in your finger-pointing?

Like I said at the beginning of the post, I'm either (3) or (4) of your choices. I imagine that the difference is largely subjective.

I can tell you this, though:

If you were trying to offer constructive advice that would tighten rules problems while maintaining the campaign feel and structure, your advice would be welcome. If you were nattering and nitpicking to the detriment of the game, you wouldn't have to worry about me getting "angry enough" for you to "never open [your] mouth while at the table again". Long, long before things got to that point, you'd be looking for a new DM. I'd be letting in one of the people who keep asking me to let them know if a spot opens up. Then we'd both be happy.


RC

 

[S'mon]

Why is the DM required to meta game? Well, of course, to a certain extent that's true. The DM should ensure that challenges are not too difficult or too easy in the campaign and things like that. That's true. But, this is beyond the pale though. Dropping treasure tailor made for your PC's is extremely blatant metagaming. There are limits.

I don't see any difference at all between these two examples of metagaming. Both are done to create a good play experience.

Edit: If you prefer: Fate/the gods/Destiny/Chance marks the PCs out as potential heroes, ergo the challenges they face are tough but survivable, and the bardiche-focussed Fighter is destined to find the lost magic bardiche of diddlyumpumpum....

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The implication upthread was that the PC should know the pitfalls before the attempt, which I think is unreasonable. Some pitfalls, like it rained recently etc, are detectable early, true, but not all DCs or pitfalls can be determined before making an attempt.

Now who's straw-manning?

I never said that *all* DCs or pitfalls can be determined before making the attempt, but some of them (if not most of them) sure as hell can.

Or is a wall that's falling apart that hard to distinguish from one that's well-maintained? Or one that's covered in slippery moss and mold?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Agreed. There should be a reason for it, but that reason does not have to be transparent to the players. Since when do players get to evaluate every challenge by the numbers to see if they will attempt it?

I find it funny in 3e. A lot of the players who know the DCs will not even try to do things. That is sad.

Agreed.

Personally, I tell the players what the PCs can see (using Spot, Search, or no skill at all because it's so bloody obvious). I tell them what they can hear, smell, and taste. I tell them what they can know due to various skills such as Knowledge and Profession. I do not tell them the DC. In most cases, the PCs roll the dice, so they can reasonably tell whether the check failed due to poor rolls or a high DC. Then they can either examine the situation further, give up, or try again.

I also don't tell the players the CRs, ACs, HP, etc., of the creatures they face. I tell them what the thing looks, smells, and acts like. Sometimes, tastes like. Let them figure it out from there.

In my mind, the DM being expected to tell the PCs the DC is equivilent to the DM being expected to tell the PCs a monster's AC prior to combat.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I never said that *all* DCs or pitfalls can be determined before making the attempt, but some of them (if not most of them) sure as hell can.

Or is a wall that's falling apart that hard to distinguish from one that's well-maintained? Or one that's covered in slippery moss and mold?

Agreed.

If a wall is crumbling, the players certainly would know. If it was seriously crumbling, that fact would probably be part of the initial description of the area. If it was only sorta crumbling, when the PC guaged the wall to climb it, she ought to be told.

Then she can think, "Hmmm....probably harder than an ordinary brick wall." Then she can say, "how badly is it crumbling?" and the DM can say "Not too badly" (in which case she estimates the DC modifier as +2) or "Pretty badly in places" (maybe DC mod +2 to +4) or "It breaks apart in your fingers" (pretty serious modifier). While she doesn't know the exact DC, she knows enough to proceed.

In another example, the character is climbing a simple wall when she encounters a patch of slimy mold. Now, this slimy mold isn't obvious, and is effectively a trap, so the DM requires a Spot check. If the slimy mold is a reasonably common climbing hazard (probably the case), the DM might allow a +2 synergy bonus to Spot if the PC has 5 or more ranks in Climb.

In this particular case, no Disable Device is required; if the PC spots the slime, the DM tells her, and she simply goes around it and continues up the wall. If she does not spot the slime, she undergoes the effects of the hazard (probably a Climb check of some DC), and the DM tells her that her grip slipped due to some slippery mold....whether or not she succeeeds in the check.

If she succeeds, great. Her skill at climbing prevented the unexpected hazard from being critical. If she fails, also great. The DM is neither giggling nor crying. Things happen in the game, for good or ill, and it is not the DM's job to either fudge in order to make the PCs' plans work or fail.


RC

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Darnit, RC, stop being reasonable and agreeable.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Darnit, RC, stop being reasonable and agreeable.

Obviously, you failed to note where I (a) insist on my right as DM to be final arbiter at my table, (b) make house rules that seem appropriate to me, and (c) apologize for neither.

If despite these things I can still seem reasonable, then perhaps there is hope, eh?


RC

 

[Jackelope King]

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.

So you can make sweeping generalizations that players "these days" try to undermine the DM, while my own experiences with poor DMs are "BS"? Have you ever played with the Psycho Dwarf who quite literally told his players that it's well within the DM's rights to kill off a character he decides he doesn't like without warning, or Steve whose insurance against players getting the advantage in combat was to make them lose their attacks for the round because he said so? I'm glad you never had such experiences, as these put me off D&D altogether until 3E came out and I decided to give it one last shot, but don't tell me that it's "BS" to give an example of what actually happened to me in actual games I've played in and then tell us out the other side of your mouth that 3E has spawned a generation of <insert derogative here>.

I would argue that, not only is there not a problem with "ruling to [make the game] feel how I feel the game should be," but that this is by necessity the operating procedure of every DM out there. Even following the RAW religiously is ruling to make the game feel how you feel it should be. When players make characters, they are making that character to make the game feel the way they feel the game should be.

Why "restore a certain feeling of gameplay" if it isn't how you "feel the game should be"?

There isn't a fine line here; there is no line at all.

The only questions are, are you the kind of person who can pull off making the game feel how you feel it should be?, and, are other people interested in the same sort of feel?

There is a fine line between the DM helping the game achieve a playstyle that the group wants and is eager to try and the DM arbitrarily deciding that the tastes and views of the players on gameplay style is unimportant. This is part of the disconnect I've been refering to.

Jackelope….But the player has seen Casino and Goodfellas and he knows not to judge someone based on their size, because there's a very good possibility that the shrimp is a psychopath who will pop your eyeball out in a vice given half a chance. Ohh goody the old, I saw on Tv, so my pc must be able to do to. Works in your intimidate example but what if player been watching Power Rangers or Chinese Hong Kong Fu Saturday karate movies?

There's a reason I intenionally picked a reasonable example instead of some slippery slope. I never suggested that a level 3 fighter should be able to summon a dinozord for no good reason (unless he was playing in Dragonmech, but that's another story), but I did suggest that a DM's "common sense" shouldn't trump the group's when there's a clear disconnect between what each party believes is "common sense". The rules should serve to minimize such conflicts.

 

[Belen]

So you can make sweeping generalizations that players "these days" try to undermine the DM, while my own experiences with poor DMs are "BS"? Have you ever played with the Psycho Dwarf who quite literally told his players that it's well within the DM's rights to kill off a character he decides he doesn't like without warning, or Steve whose insurance against players getting the advantage in combat was to make them lose their attacks for the round because he said so? I'm glad you never had such experiences, as these put me off D&D altogether until 3E came out and I decided to give it one last shot, but don't tell me that it's "BS" to give an example of what actually happened to me in actual games I've played in and then tell us out the other side of your mouth that 3E has spawned a generation of <insert derogative here>.

Nope...you said that for every good DM, 6 bad DMs exist. Then you only provide 2 examples of bad DMs. Honestly, if you hated those guys, then you should have either quit the groups or offered to run the game yourself. I called BS on your statement and not your experience. 2 bad DMs do not equal a half dozen. You're statement is flawed in that respect.

Also, thise thread started with the idea that a DM can say "no" to a player and not violate any sort of unwritten rule. 3e players tend to expect that the answer to anything is "yes." I have seen this countless times and seems to be the prevailing attitude with design staff as well.