3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Raven Crowking]

You told your character that he had to use Open Locks on a door without a lock? Or am I just missing it?

Perhaps it is just me, but I consider a bar across the door to be a form of lock. If you are the other side, you have to have some idea of the best way to remove the bar. Realistically, almost all such bars use braces that are designed to prevent someone from the other side merely raising the bar with a narrow tool. Most door locks, going back to ancient times, are forms of dead bolt or bars that prevent the door from opening.

EDIT: If you look at the lock on your front door, there is a good chance that it is some form of bolt that could be opened from the outside using a narrow tool. Many doors now have an edge which is designed to prevent this, or use a straight bolt. They can still be opened. Not so long ago, I had the opportunity to witness a fireman open a lock using the edge of his fireaxe to DELETED TO PREVENT ACCIDENTS. He tried to block what he was doing with his body so as not to give passersby any ranks in Open Locks. Were I to allow the PC action in this case, internal logic and consistancy would demand that I allow it in the case of most locked doors.

So, no, you are not missing anything.

And, no, it is not a door without a lock.


RC

 

[Jackelope King]

First off, let me commisserate with you on a run of truly bad luck. Unfortunate that you couldn't just (say) get your own DMG, or go read a book or something. I haven't been in a situation where I was forced to torture myself weekly in the name of friendship. (Daily, in the name of relationship, yes, but not in the D&D sense .)

Much obliged, RC.

I agree that the DM shouldn't live by the rule, "No unless I say otherwise" about PC actions. About PC racial choices, class choices, feat choices, etc., especially when culled from non-Core books, though....."No unless I say otherwise" is the only sane policy. Every campaign should have an approved "Yes" list, even if only part of the core RAW. No DM is ever required to allow anything off that "Yes" list without careful review and consideration beforehand.

I think, actually, that you and I would probably agree on that. This is no different than the DM introducing a complicated houserule mid-play. Bad form, you know, simply not done.

More or less. I prefer to tell my players that if they want to use a certain character option, all they need to do is talk to me about it. Nothing is allowed outside the core rules without my okay, but I stress that I am definitely open to outside suppliments if they want to make use of them. All I ask is that they work with me to find an appropriate way to work the option into the game.

The problem is actually somewhere in "I'll just do X, and if the DM says I can't, I'll ask why even though I have all the abilities I'd need to do it."

First off, let's imagine that X is taking a level in a specific prestige class. At the end of one session, the PCs gain enough XP to level. The PC in question decides to take a level in a prestige class from Sandstorm, which the DM does not have, and has not approved. He doesn't mention it right away. Halfway through the session, however, he does something that gives the DM pause and suddenly the DM learns that the PC has taken the prestige class.

Suddenly the entire group has to stop while either (a) the PC adjusts his character or (b) the DM reviews the prestige class. Of course, the DM can just keep going blind, and house rule anything that seems like it needs to be house ruled as it comes up. "You have what ability? No. It doesn't function. Should have talked to me first."

"I'll just do X...."

Now the PC is arguing. He should be able to do this thing. It's part of his class. How dare the DM introduce a rule mid-game that nerfs his ability. "...and if the DM says I can't, I'll ask why...."

The DM says that he hasn't had the opportunity to examine the prestige class, doesn't own the book it comes from, and hasn't approved it. The player points out that it is a WotC book, and that he meets all the prerequisites. He spent good money on the book, it's balanced because it's from WotC, and it's not so hard to look up the rules mid-play. "....even though I have all the abilities I'd need to do it."

No one would make this mistake in my game twice.

A fair enough reply. However, seriously, how many people will do something like take levels in a prestige class from a splatbook without at least asking first whether or not you'd aprove taking levels in that class?

And on a related note, RC, I'm curious: how would you describe your general reaction to requests from players to make use of options from suppliments? Would you say you generally disallow more requests than you allow, or do you allow most of the few requests you get?

Jackelope King.... you had a group of people looking for a game..and refer to that as a 'dry spell'?

Honestly, if I had the desire to, I would have to work really hard at finding any sympathy for your prediciment.

If I knew then what I do now, had access to the resources I have now, I'd agree with you. But back then, the people I played with went about as if there was some cult of DMs or something. If you hadn't read the DMG, then you weren't "in the club", so to speak, and I know we've all at least heard of stories from the old days of DMs getting angry at players for trying to sneak a peek at the DMG. During a break I did thumb through someone's 2E DMG, and I was immediately told that I couldn't do that, and that now my character was going to be punished for it.

Sure enough he chopped my ranger's hand off "for touching forbidden lore". Being thirteen at the time, I assumed that one of the rules of the game was that players couldn't read the DMG, because there was special information in there only for the DM (like there was in adventures). When I finally got my hands on an old 1E DMG, I saw that he really was being an unreasonable jerk. Had I been older and wiser at the time, I would've tried to just take over an existing group when it was imploding, or form my own group. When I finally did, I saw that this was what I should've done all along.

In all seriousness, I wish someone had come along and told me eight years ago what you're saying now, Screwhead, because it would've spared me a whole lot of garbage.

Implies to who?
To me it implies a DM who is confident in his/her rulings and is willing to step on mid-combat rules debates with a sledgehammer in order to keep the game going.
One who is capable of admitting their lack of knowledge and accepting input from the players.

And I'd call that a great DM. To me, "strong DM" is often a codeword for "DM who rules via fiat". I'll admit it to be nothing more than a quibble over terminology.

Appearances based on your posts look very like antagonistic attitude towards DM/player relationships. Players and DM's need not be 'compared' and rules should not be about 'DM Accountablity'
They should be cooperative in thier seperate roles of character actor and world creator.

And if you'll speak to people I've gamed with (since the early rocky days, anyways), I am a pretty cooperative player. For example, in a PBP game on another board that just started, my character is a scout/barbarian using the whirling frenzy variant from Unearthed Arcana. As the rule was written, my character was getting two skirmish attacks each round. However, my DM thought that this was too powerful, and sent me an email expressing this concern. I clarified that this is what the rule stated, but agreed that it seemed to be much more potent than I'd thought. The DM suggested ruling it to work like flury of blows, and I told him I'd have no problem with such a ruling.

However, away from the gaming table, I recognize that a large number of the problems I had early on could be at least partially attributed to the approach to the ruleset we took (though in large part I'd say that my DMs were suffering from jerkitus). I think that because the ruleset assumed the liberal use of judgement calls, it allowed for (and possibly even encouraged) a style of DMing that I had terrible experiences with. Now my point of view is that the ideal gaming system removes such a stumbling block and minimizes the disjunction between the world the players picture and the one the DM describes. The problem, as I see it, is one of perspective. If a ruleset can encourage a more similar perspective shared by all members of the group on the game being played, then the disjunction between players and DMs can be minimized. Most folks seem to agree that this is something worth aspiring to (if the methods for achieving it are different, obviously). Obviously a ruleset can't make a bad DM into a good one, but if it can encourage behavior that we recognize to be good DMing, then it can minimize experiences like mine.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And on a related note, RC, I'm curious: how would you describe your general reaction to requests from players to make use of options from suppliments? Would you say you generally disallow more requests than you allow, or do you allow most of the few requests you get?

Since you asked, thus far I have generally allowed just about every request that's been made, except when one player wanted to make a half-ogre and when another player wanted to make a dragon.

The player who wanted to make a half-ogre was allowed to make an anthropomorphic bear instead (his second choice), because the campaign world supported the idea of humanoid animals (part of the cosmology).

The player who wanted to make a dragon decided previously to give each of his characters a heretofore unknown draconic deity (one outside the campaign workbook, of his own design) who (among other things) the player claimed created the world. Hrm. I didn't disallow what the player thought, but worked it into the world. The campaign workbook brought racial restrictions on class back into the game. He wanted to play a vetoed race/class combination as his initial character. I allowed it (making him the first half-orc chosen by the Gods to be a paladin in the history of the world). His third character, a barbarian, ended up talking about yet another new dragon deity that had an anti-matter breath weapon. I had to remind that player that (a) there was no anti-matter within the context of the world (nor cellular biology, nor the germ theory of disease, etc) and (b) his barbarian was not a 21st Century physicist.

When the dragon request came, I pointed out (again) that within the context of the campaign world, dragons were considered to be the embodiement of evil and greed, much as they were in the Western Middle Ages. He still wanted to play a dragon. I pointed out that almost everyone he met would flee or try to kill him. He still wanted to play a dragon.

Eventually, the group got a polymorph wand. They used all of its few remaining charges....turning him into a dragon.

Thereafter, he was surprised to learn that almost everyone he met fled from him, and a few braver souls fired arrows. Somehow, in a world where the only dragons anyone had ever met were evil, individual, folkloric dragons, he thought everything would be fine when he became a dragon.

Now, you might see this as punishing him for getting what he wanted. I view it as a roadblock. Part of the DM's job, in my view, is to make sure that the PCs encounter believable roadblocks.

The PC decided to try to get the polymorph dispelled at a place called Rookhaven. Heading there, he flew over the (known) lair of a (known) villian who calls himself the Dragon. The PC was surprised when the villain took this as sort of a challenge.

Currently, he's still a dragon. With work, he might be able to get what he wants (acceptance in that form), but I am not going to hand it to him on a plate.

Every other request was accepted thus far.

Hope that answers your question.

If you hadn't read the DMG, then you weren't "in the club", so to speak, and I know we've all at least heard of stories from the old days of DMs getting angry at players for trying to sneak a peek at the DMG.

Did you know that that was actually brought up in the 1st Edition DMG? The PCs of players found reading the DMG were only worthy of a sudden death, or something like that. The current version is much better in that regard.

Heck, from a ruleset standpoint, or a game design standpoint, it is light years ahead of the old stuff (sorry, Diaglo). However, to create the type of game I personally prefer, it requires tinkering. Some of that tinkering is, admittedly, designed to restore elements from previous editions.


RC



EDIT: Forgot another request that I recently denied: essentially, "Can't we just say my dead character got out of death for good behaviour?"

 

[Dinkeldog]

Just as a quick reminder, be nice to one another. Try to think that another's purpose is only to relay their experiences rather than to mislead you.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Ah...you have never watched a player calculate the DCs and determine that they only have a 10% chance of succeeding, so why bother? I had one guy who cranked the numbers with every challenge and only made an attempt with a 50% chance of success.

He'd even use a tool to calculate CR (based on his limited knowledge of the creature) and would not participate in a fight unless he had a good chance of winning.

I find those attitudes pathetic.

That's a pretty harsh condemnation of what I feel would be a perfectly reasonable approach for any realistic character in a dangerous fantasy world.

Character knowledge is richer, more varied, and of more immediate use to the character than player knowledge. The player won't know from your description if the wall is climbable (nessecarily). The character would know by looking at the wall and judging from their past experiences if the wall would be climbable. A character with a +15 in Climb obviously knows the ins and outs of climbing stuff, just like a character with a +15 BAB obviously knows the ins and outs of hitting things.

While someone not taking a risk with a 10% chance of success is hardly heroic (and thus may not be the kind of character you'd like to encourage), it is a perfectly realistic and logical approach to a dangerous world, and would fit many semi-cowardly or cautious character types perfectly. It could also represent a normal kind of person who *has* to take that kind of wild and crazy risk, with enough character work.

Pathetic? Maybe not what you're looking for, but why insult those who aren't what you're looking for just because they aren't what you're looking for?

Now, you might see this as punishing him for getting what he wanted. I view it as a roadblock. Part of the DM's job, in my view, is to make sure that the PCs encounter believable roadblocks.

I think it's just a style thing, but this confuses me. IMHO, it's the DM's job first and foremost to make sure everyone at the table has fun. Encountering roadblocks, at least for my group, is only fun if there is a way around them. They are then challenges to overcome. They are not penalties for doing something you want to do.

If I wanted to forbid PC's from being dragons, I'd just *tell* them. Yes, it's arbitrary, yes it's against the RAW...As the DM, sometimes I will need to be arbitrary and weird about things just for my personal tastes, to make the game fun for me. If you *need* to be a dragon to have fun, and I don't like PC dragons, we won't mesh.

If I'm going to give the PC's a capability, I'm going to allow them to enjoy it and delight in it and use it to overcome more problems. For me, and for many of my players, it's not fun to get a wish spell you never want to use, or to have a goal for your character he will be forever denied of.

Allowing a PC to get their wish but "at a heavy price" (e.g.: with more trouble than it's worth) just isn't fun for me or my group. I'm reasonably willing to wager that most players (though certainly not all) feel similarly.

 

[Hussar]

First off, let's imagine that X is taking a level in a specific prestige class. At the end of one session, the PCs gain enough XP to level. The PC in question decides to take a level in a prestige class from Sandstorm, which the DM does not have, and has not approved. He doesn't mention it right away. Halfway through the session, however, he does something that gives the DM pause and suddenly the DM learns that the PC has taken the prestige class.

Now this is grounds for a flogging with a dead fish IMO. Players don't get to pick and choose resources for the DM's campaign. I've never run across anything like this before. It's always been understood that the DM has control over resources. While there's nothing wrong with asking, if player came to the table with something I hadn't approved for the game, I'd be pretty annoyed.

Again, and I hate harping on this, but, that's not limited to any particular DMing style. Just like a soccer ref isn't going to let you bring a different ball onto the field, a Referee DM won't let you bring in rules that aren't prior approved. And, really, since the DM does have control over what is brought to the table, there's nothing wrong with bringing in new rules per se. Whether they be house rules or published, I see no major problems with that.

Where the disconnect occurs is when the rules CHANGE midgame, without any prior notice. If the DM is going to change ESTABLISHED rules, it's only fair that he gives notice to the players. If a rule hasn't been established, then there's no conflict. For example, when runnign a naval campaign, I had to rework an entire set of naval combat rules. However, since there are no naval combat rules in the RAW, there's nothing stopping me from doing so. So long as the players like the rules I'm using, there's no problem. However, if I suddenly, without warning, change the DC's for climbing a wall, FOR NO REASON, then I'm in the wrong. Granted, the PC's sometimes have to be content with, "There's a reason, you're character just doesn't know it." But, if I'm changing the rules just because Bloggins ate the last slice of pizza, then I'm a dink. (great word btw - thanks RC)

Is there a sense that all printed material should be available to all players? Maybe. Then again, that's always been true. The Complete books for 2e were marketted to players as well as DM's. Lots of players certainly came to me asking about using material from the latest Dragon or whatever TSR happened to crank out that month. I haven't noticed any real increase or decrease in whining when I disallow this or that.

But, as the saying goes, YMMV.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think it's just a style thing, but this confuses me. IMHO, it's the DM's job first and foremost to make sure everyone at the table has fun.

I absolutely, positively disagree with the above statement.

Ensuring that the game is fun is, generally, the job of everybody at the table. Although the weight of that job falls mainly on the DM ("With great power comes great responsibility" - Spidey's Uncle Ben), the DM has, quite frankly, bigger fish to fry. The DM has to think in larger terms than "what would be fun for player X right now?" if he is going to have a campaign that lasts.

Having your character die? Not fun. However, the possibility of death makes accomplishment more sweet.

Encountering roadblocks to what you want? Not fun. However, it is impossible to overcome roadblocks that you do not encounter, and overcoming roadblocks is a great deal of fun.

Saying that the DM's primary job is to make sure everyone is having fun right now is equivilent, imho, to saying that the DM should give the players what they want. Again, imho, the DM should consider the long-term effects on the campaign world as being the foremost consideration (if he intends long-term play). He should consider foremost what style of play he enjoys (as the single person at the table who put in the most work, and as the single person at the table upon whom the game depends). Then, and only then, he should consider what the players want.

Harsh? Sure. And ymmv, as always, but the DM does not "owe" the players anything. They are always free to go find another game, or start their own.


EDIT: After suggesting, again and again, that no player should stay in a game they are not enjoying -- even if no other game is available, no one could possibly imagine that I would suggest that the DM has a responsibility to do so. Clearly, the DM has to be enjoying the game for there to be a game. Clearly, the DM has done more work than all of the players combined (in most gaming groups) and is more important than any single player at the table in terms of there being a game at all. If either the DM or Player X has to go, who do you boot? Saying "it's the DM's job first and foremost to make sure everyone at the table has fun" sounds good, I'll grant you, but is it realistic?

Allowing a PC to get their wish but "at a heavy price" (e.g.: with more trouble than it's worth) just isn't fun for me or my group. I'm reasonably willing to wager that most players (though certainly not all) feel similarly.

Every player I have ever encountered would agree with you to say it. Almost every player I have ever encountered, when actually engaged in the game, has ultimately appreciated the double-edged benefits I sometimes present.

I imagine that you don't use cursed magic items in your world?



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Kamikaze,

Look again at the sequence of events here:

When the dragon request came, I pointed out (again) that within the context of the campaign world, dragons were considered to be the embodiement of evil and greed, much as they were in the Western Middle Ages. He still wanted to play a dragon. I pointed out that almost everyone he met would flee or try to kill him. He still wanted to play a dragon.

In the post, above, I was describing something where I had said denied a request. I told the player that he could not make a dragon PC. The player took this as a roadblock to get around somehow, rather than as a prohibition, and eventually he got around it.

Eventually, the group got a polymorph wand. They used all of its few remaining charges....turning him into a dragon.

Now, Kamikaze, I know that you aren't advocating that I change the rules about how magic works mid-game. I know that you aren't advocating that I houserule mid-game that the PC simply cannot do this. And I feel pretty certain (?) that you are not advocating that I alter the known qualities of the campaign world to accomodate a PC action that, in light of direct warning, the player should reasonably have known the consequences of.

Thereafter, he was surprised to learn that almost everyone he met fled from him, and a few braver souls fired arrows. Somehow, in a world where the only dragons anyone had ever met were evil, individual, folkloric dragons, he thought everything would be fine when he became a dragon.

After all, if I did any of those things, then either (a) I'd be a "bad DM" for changing how the world works (i.e., rules, house rules, implied rules) mid-game, or (b) I would foster a player belief that, no matter what they did, I would alter things so that everything would be all right in the end.

Curiosity compels me to ask outright, what exactly do you think I should have done when he decided to be polymorphed into a dragon?


RC

 

[Belen]

Pathetic? Maybe not what you're looking for, but why insult those who aren't what you're looking for just because they aren't what you're looking for?

Do you know how annoying it is to have someone sit in front of a laptop, running calculations, and using those to not participate? How about having them calculate CR after every encounter and then annouce to everyone how much XP they just received?

Now, I no longer game with the guy, but the first time he started handing out XP, I almost strangled him. Of course, after that one particular encounter, I allowed everyone to keep the XP that he called out, except him. He got to take that as a negative number.

 

[Testament]

Ensuring that the game is fun is, generally, the job of everybody at the table. Although the weight of that job falls mainly on the DM ("With great power comes great responsibility" - Spidey's Uncle Ben), the DM has, quite frankly, bigger fish to fry. The DM has to think in larger terms than "what would be fun for player X right now?" if he is going to have a campaign that lasts.

At what point did KM say that the GM's responsibility is to make sure that their fun is immediate? I can't speak for KM, but AFAIC, the GM's responsibility (and I use the word deliberately) is to provide fun in the long term, in line with all their other responsibilities.

Having your character die? Not fun. However, the possibility of death makes accomplishment more sweet.

No argument here. My theory is Total Party Kill = Bad, Total Party Trauma = Holy frickin' grail of combat.

Saying that the DM's primary job is to make sure everyone is having fun right now is equivilent, imho, to saying that the DM should give the players what they want. Again, imho, the DM should consider the long-term effects on the campaign world as being the foremost consideration (if he intends long-term play). He should consider foremost what style of play he enjoys (as the single person at the table who put in the most work, and as the single person at the table upon whom the game depends). Then, and only then, he should consider what the players want.

EDIT: After suggesting, again and again, that no player should stay in a game they are not enjoying -- even if no other game is available, no one could possibly imagine that I would suggest that the DM has a responsibility to do so. Clearly, the DM has to be enjoying the game for there to be a game. Clearly, the DM has done more work than all of the players combined (in most gaming groups) and is more important than any single player at the table in terms of there being a game at all. If either the DM or Player X has to go, who do you boot? Saying "it's the DM's job first and foremost to make sure everyone at the table has fun" sounds good, I'll grant you, but is it realistic?

<Red highlighted for emphasis>

I've been biting my proverbial tongue on the following line for a while observing this thread, but now I'm gonna explode and say it.

A whole bunch of DM's here need to get down off their FRELLING CROSSES, BECAUSE SOMEONE NEEDS THE WOOD!

Yes, the DM does a sporkload of work. Yes, the game can't run without them. YAY, GOOD FOR US. Now, your mileage may vary, and RC and BU's mileage I know does, but last time I checked, a DM with no players isn't gonna being doing much DMing. Work with your players to find a frickin' compromise on disagreements people, democracy does in fact work. We put in the most work of any player, but I don't think that gives us the right to say "my way or the highway!" to the other players! You've got a PC who wants to be able to use the latest splatbook, then work with them, try and find a way to make something work in your game, at least PRETEND to make an effort before saying no. People here are talking about a default yes answer being a bad thing, and yet no-one, as far as I can see, has offered a reason why that's the case.

I imagine that you don't use cursed magic items in your world?

Can't speak for KM, but I know I don't. Can't see a reason for them existing, who's gonna waste XP making something that screws its user? Dust of Sneezing and Choking, BTW, isn't a cursed item!

I apologise in advance if I've offended everyone. Great topic, BTW!

Testament