3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Mark CMG]

Anyone has the ability to give DMing a try and everyone should, at least a few times, just to get a feel for what it entails.

 

[Hussar]

KM makes some excellent points. One of the consequences of having players who know the rules, and having a ruleset that actually functions as a whole, means that there is a much better chance that the players can offer valid, constructive suggestions about the campaign. In a campaign where rules are created on the fly, it's much more difficult for the players to have any expectations, since the rules can and probably will, be changed frequently.

Just to go back a second about the idea of the DM dropping PC specific items. The answer I got was that a story could feature the PC finding that legendary lumpy metal thing, therefore specializing in a somewhat strange weapon is ok. I argued that this is very metagame and ruins verisimilitude. There's a reason I argued that. It's very unlikely that a single magic weapon will suffice for the character throughout the entire campaign. So, the DM is forced to drop legendary weapons three or four times throughout the campaign. How is this not metagaming above and beyond the call?

Also, as a player, if I know that I cannot buy a new weapon, why would I specialize in a weapon where I'm entirely held hostage by the DM for when I can get a new one? The DM is likely going to drop magical weapons of more common types long before he drops one for me, so, if the DM is going to meta game to that level, why is it bad for me? Never mind that I have to sit around and twiddle my thumbs until the DM condescends to gift me with a new version of my lumpy metal thing. Meanwhile the other fighter in the party has gone through three magic swords because the critters use magic swords much more often than bec du corbin.

As a DM, I don't feel right holding the players hostage when they want something. If they want it, it's up to them to get it. Go around my campaign world, find a finger wiggler willing to give up his time for a large chunk of cash and away you go. Now I give my players a reason for interacting with the campaign. They have to travel to a particular place, talk to people, talk to the person crafting, wait until the item is crafted and then get on with their lives. That's a wealth of rp opportunities. What else could I ask for as a DM? If I limit my PC's to easter eggs dropped at my whim, they have absolutely no reason to interact with my setting in this manner. Granted, there are other reasons to interact with the setting, but, why do I want to limit my choices and their's? Here's a built-to-spec roleplaying bonanza for every party I game with. I really can't understand why anyone would intentionally flush this one down the toilet.

The point of having solid rule-sets is to free up the DM from having to constantly tweak rules in order to game. I'd much rather spend time creating fluff for my campaigns than ponce about rebuilding the wheel. Given the choice between altering the RAW to fit my campaign or tweaking my campaign, I'll tweak my campaign most of the time. So long as the tweak does not conflict with established facts of my campaign - such as a Scarred Lands elf having a god - I have no real beefs changing my campaign to fit new ideas.

Things the players don't know about, they don't care about. If you have this vast plot going on in the background, but the players haven't had any contact with it and don't know about it, they don't care about it. Why should they? It doesn't affect them. That it might affect them ten levels down the road is fair enough, but, right now, until they have any knowledge of it, it doesn't matter to them. In my mind, it's much easier to tweak the plot to fit that new character concept than to bar character concepts. It leads to much happier players.

Granted, I do nowhere near the work that DM's like RC are talking about. I'm usually only a couple of weeks ahead of the disaster curve in my campaigns. I can't be asked to come up with more material than that, simply because I lack the time and energy. Plus, I find if I get farther ahead than that, I tend to start railroading because I don't want the work I did to go t waste. So, now I just don't bother. Sure, I might have some ideas percolating in the back of my head, but, as far as writing a hundred pages goes, that's not going to happen.

The really funny thing is, I started 3e with a bunch of house rules. As I've played 3e and now 3.5, my houserules keep getting pared down further and further. I find the RAW works so much easier than trying to reinvent the wheel. Take party wealth for example. I just created an 8th level fighter for a one shot game. Wealth for an 8th level character allowed me to buy a +2 lance, +1 suit of mithril fullplate, Gauntlets of ogre power, 5 potions and horseshoes of zephyr. That's it for an 8th level character. That's hardly overpowering. In my mind, compared to what I used to see in earlier editions, that's less magic than what I'd pull out of a single module. An 8th level character is pretty high level, yet, by using the RAW, I find that the RAW is a more effective limit on character wealth than what I would do myself. So, if the RAW works better than my own houserules, why wouldn't I go with the RAW? I've found exactly the same when dealing with many issues like demographics. If you stick to the RAW for demographics, you suddenly don't have magic shops because most centers cannot possibly support one.

 

[S'mon]

Just to go back a second about the idea of the DM dropping PC specific items. The answer I got was that a story could feature the PC finding that legendary lumpy metal thing, therefore specializing in a somewhat strange weapon is ok. I argued that this is very metagame and ruins verisimilitude. There's a reason I argued that. It's very unlikely that a single magic weapon will suffice for the character throughout the entire campaign. So, the DM is forced to drop legendary weapons three or four times throughout the campaign. How is this not metagaming above and beyond the call?

The standard 3e approach per the RAW is that the PC pays to power up the weapon, so they stick with the same weapon throughout the game. An alternative approach would be for the weapon to spontaneously develop new powers as the PC levels up. Either works fine.

 

[Hussar]

The standard 3e approach per the RAW is that the PC pays to power up the weapon, so they stick with the same weapon throughout the game. An alternative approach would be for the weapon to spontaneously develop new powers as the PC levels up. Either works fine.

Ok, now I'm confused. It's a bad thing to go out and find a finger wiggler to MAKE me a lumpy metal thing +1, but it's perfectly fine to go find a finger wiggler to UPGRADE a magic weapon. Am I the only one seeing that as a bit of a conflict? It's apparently bad to go find someone to make me a magic item, but, its okay for the item to grow entirely on its own.

It sounds more like the DM doesn't trust his players to make decisions and wants to remain in complete control, rather than simply allowing his players to control their own characters.

 

[Raven Crowking]

BU, RC, I've gotta ask this, I think I just hit on something:

What's your campaign structure? Do you have a continuing storyline, or do you do what I do, which is say to the players "here's the world, do what thou wilt"?

"Here's the world, do what thou wilt."

And also:


"Here are several dozen plot hooks, follow what thou wilt."


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

KM makes some excellent points.

<shudder>


Sorry, but no. KM presents "fun" as the be-all and end-all of gaming, but also as a moving target whose definition is whatever is convenient at the moment.

According the KM, the DM's primary concern is to ensure that everyone at the table is having "fun" and will have "fun" in the future. If one person's idea of "fun" is to play the Tarrasque, the DM should just have to deal with that. If another person's idea of fun is to play a serial murderer/rapist, then the DM should just have to deal with that. If Player A wants to kill Player C's character, then the DM should just have to deal with that.

Unless, perhaps, what the player wants will not serve the purpose of "fun" .... He's "talking about the DM serving the player's needs."

When can the DM say "No"? When he feels it's appropriate? After taking a democratic vote? When the players tell him it's okay? Or does it not really matter because the potential failures are so insignificant that it makes no difference what the PCs are, or what anyone chooses to do anyway?

In KM's philosophy, there is no way for the DM to win. He "serves the player's needs" and is forbidden from putting "his own pleasures in the game first, ahead of the player's, rather than equal to them." In other words, the DM serves the players by doing 90% or more of the work involved in the game, does not get to experience the game as a player, and if more than half the players say one day "It would be fun if magic items started raining from the sky...and we mean real, long-term fun" the DM is supposed to shrug and start dropping +2 swords.

This isn't an interesting point.

This is a desire to have the DM's work somehow subservient to the player's efforts at rolling up characters.

KM has a point about risk vs. reward ratios. If the risk is too great, and the reward too little, no one will accept the risk. Well, duh. But in a world in which death can occur, it is up to the players to determine what risks are acceptable. If they think that the reward is worth risking death, so be it. If not, also so be it. KM's idea that the risks shouldn't be that great (no death possible), but the rewards should be (DM serving player's fun), is a pure and unadulterated example of Monty Haulism from the 1st Edition DMG. It is, in fact, a style that I imagine many of us played when we first started gaming, and eventually quit because all reward and no risk is ultimately as boring as all risk and no reward.

In KM's example of a bad DM, the DM sets up a campaign setting in which all of the character types are human and no one can play a wizard. One player wants to play a fey-type character and another a wizard, and the DM says no to both. (Apart from deciding to make the DM sound rude when saying no, that's essentially it. Oh, sure, he has the DM seem to suggest that there are multiple races available, and if that's where this DM is supposed to be "bad" so be it. That, at least, makes more sense than KM's suggestion that limitations on racial type make one a bad DM.) There is some idea here that the DM envisions a campaign setting based off of Arthurian mythology and literature.

And why, exactly, is he a bad DM?

Certain character types do not fit the setting. The DM tells them prior to character generation that these types will not be allowed. So, presumably nothing hidden here.

KM agrees that the "whole ride" trumps "instant gratification" (though he still seems to believe that it is the DM's holy duty to ensure that every player's wish is eventually granted, even if mutually contradictory). Here we have an example where the DM rules that setting excludes certain choices. Like many DM's, this DM probably believes that a coherent setting is a large contributor to the "fun" everyone is supposed to experience, and the primary contributor to the "fun" of world creation (about 80% of the 90% work that a good DM has to do, on his own, away from the table).

If this is, as KM suggests, an example of a bad DM, then these people are also bad DMs:

* Person who will not let me play Q in a Star Trek game.
* Person who will not let me play a klingon in a Star Trek game taking place during the Original Series aboard the USS Enterprise.
* Person who will not let me play a kender.
* Person who will not let me play a spellcaster in D&D using the rules in suppliment X.
* Person who will not let me play a new class from suppliment Y.
* Person who will not let me play a warforged in a campaign taking place in Medieval Japan.
* Person who will not let me play a series of characters, all of whom are designed to not fit into the campaign world as it is presented.

Either the DM can limit racial choices, and still be considered a good DM, or he can't.

Either the DM can limit class choices, and still be considered a good DM, or he can't.

The DM saying that D&D magic is too powerful for a particular setting is, imho, perfectly fair. Perhaps he intends to introduce Call of Cthulhu magic. Maybe he is really planning a Call of Cthulhu game with D&D characters, and has decided that the players learning this in game is part of the effect that he deems will be fun for everyone.

KM's says he's not talking about instant gratification. I call bull-hooey.

A player's desire to play Character Type B can always be accomodated by that player in some campaign somewhere. It does not have to be accomodated in this campaign now. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the DM does, in fact, owe the player some form of instant gratification.

"The DM exists for the fun of the players" is not an "excellent point". It is, rather, a restrictive and self-indulgent view of the game.


RC

 

[Hussar]

Ok, I gotta say RC, you've taken KM's comments completely differently than I did.

The whole ride is more important than instant gratification, but I'm not talking about instant gratification -- I'm talking about the DM serving the player's needs. And that does mean some gratification. Maybe not instant, maybe in the proper context, but gratification nonetheless. And a codified ruleset is an aid to that gratification, because it tells you in which instance and in which context that it can be used. To use the ride analogy, a good ruleset tells a DM where to turn right and where to turn left and where to go faster and where to go slower to make sure that all the people who want to go left, right, slower, and faster all get what they need. It also tells the players that while they might not be able to expect going left right when they want to, that they can expect it to go left at some point, and they can expect it to be everything they want out of a left turn.

At no point is he advocating that the DM is entirely subservient to the player's wishes. Actually, he advocates that the DM's wishes and the players wishes should be given equal airplay. I just don't see what you're reading into what he's saying.

In the example of the bad DM, if you care to read it closely, the DM states that the players can take any ECL+1 race on the list and then proceeds to hand out a list that has NO ECL+1 RACES! I believe that's the point he's trying to make. A bad DM is one that changes the rules to suit his own whims rather than a DM who takes a balanced approach. It's not about the list you mentioned. The fact that the DM actually LIES to the players would make him a bad DM in my books. Never mind that the ECL rules actually work most of the time, never mind that the DM is actually stating that he's allowing them, only to provide a list which includes none.

Here we have an example where the DM rules that setting excludes certain choices.

NO THEY DON'T. The DM's rules specifically INCLUDE these choices, but he then turns around and changes the rules.

Excluding certain choices is of course perfectly acceptable for a DM to do. But, not when he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.

In your examples, you've gone far beyond what the DM presumably would allow. And, your choices are not even remotely supported by the RAW. The entire point of this thread is that the RAW is not supporting DM's. Yet, IN EVERY EXAMPLE you just gave, the DM is being supported by the RAW. Playing Q would be virtually impossible because of ECL. Playing a Klingon would be impossible due to setting constraints. As would the Warforged idea.

Essentially, you're arguing that the RAW supports DM's. Which is what I've been saying all the way along. There is no need for the DM to go beyond the RAW 99% of the time to say no. The RAW sides with the DM almost always. The times that the RAW doesn't support the DM is when the DM decides to ignore the RAW and make his own rules. Well, if you decide to make your own rules, don't complain when the RULES AS WRITTEN don't support you. The players want it to rain +2 swords? Sorry, RAW blocks that. Player wants to play the Tarrasque? Sorry, point to the RAW and say no.

What more could you ask from the RAW?

 

[Belen]

KM makes some excellent points. One of the consequences of having players who know the rules, and having a ruleset that actually functions as a whole, means that there is a much better chance that the players can offer valid, constructive suggestions about the campaign.

No he doesn't it. He basically says that a DM's primary purpose is to service the players and their needs above all else. In his view, the DM is not even equal to the players. The DM is a servant. Not only that, but his argument goes back to the intended purpose of this thread in that a DM is allowed to say "No." In his view, a DM is not allowed to say no. The DM must find a way to accomadate the players desires unless it would seriously affect the fun of the other players! Whether the player's concept fits the world or the campaign does not matter.

Just to go back a second about the idea of the DM dropping PC specific items. The answer I got was that a story could feature the PC finding that legendary lumpy metal thing, therefore specializing in a somewhat strange weapon is ok. I argued that this is very metagame and ruins verisimilitude. There's a reason I argued that. It's very unlikely that a single magic weapon will suffice for the character throughout the entire campaign. So, the DM is forced to drop legendary weapons three or four times throughout the campaign. How is this not metagaming above and beyond the call?

You keep harping on this. Do you only allow players to buy magic items in your game? You completely discount the possibility that a player may quest to find any item of value. Just because someone uses a bec du corbin does not mean that no one ever had a magical one created. It does not strain belief that a player could go quest for an item rather than pick it up at the local magic mart.

I agree that the option to find a caster to create the item should exist, although I rarely would allow the PCs to get away with simplely paying for an item. Usually, the players will have to agree to grant some form of service to the caster or quest for the materials he needs to create the item. I call that flavor.

Also, you imply that any PC should be able to have the specific items they desire. So, if you want a flaming, thundering mithril bec du corbin of speed and one does not exist in the world, then the player should have the opportunity to have that specific weapon because just any magical bec du corbin will not do.

Sorry, but while the player may be able to get what he wants, the rest of the players better agree to all of the questing time that will be needed to fund one's players item desire.

Also, as a player, if I know that I cannot buy a new weapon, why would I specialize in a weapon where I'm entirely held hostage by the DM for when I can get a new one? The DM is likely going to drop magical weapons of more common types long before he drops one for me, so, if the DM is going to meta game to that level, why is it bad for me? Never mind that I have to sit around and twiddle my thumbs until the DM condescends to gift me with a new version of my lumpy metal thing. Meanwhile the other fighter in the party has gone through three magic swords because the critters use magic swords much more often than bec du corbin.

Why should a DM "drop" magical equipment? Most of the enemies in my games are not that well outfitted.

Of course, we can turn this around. Why should a DM be held hostage by the player who wants to use such a unique weapon? Obviously, the player chose a rare weapon knowing that it would be more difficult to find or commission. If the player has to wait longer for the DM to fit a player choice into the game, then that is the player's fault. The DM should not be required to stop everything because one person needs to buy a rare item to satisfy their desires on the spot.

As a DM, I don't feel right holding the players hostage when they want something. If they want it, it's up to them to get it.

Agreed. Again, they better hope that every other player wants to stop what they are doing and agree to go chase down something for the one guy who needed something out of the ordinary. I do love it when someone wants to add flavor to a game, but they are not the only player and if he wants that magic bec du corbin, then he better convince the others that it is a good thing for him to have it.

Granted, I do nowhere near the work that DM's like RC are talking about. I'm usually only a couple of weeks ahead of the disaster curve in my campaigns. I can't be asked to come up with more material than that, simply because I lack the time and energy. Plus, I find if I get farther ahead than that, I tend to start railroading because I don't want the work I did to go t waste. So, now I just don't bother. Sure, I might have some ideas percolating in the back of my head, but, as far as writing a hundred pages goes, that's not going to happen.

Uh...I work on adventures in the short term. The heavy work comes with world creation. I can have 100 pages of world material while only a few pages of session adventure material.

World creation is not railroading.

The really funny thing is, I started 3e with a bunch of house rules. As I've played 3e and now 3.5, my houserules keep getting pared down further and further. I find the RAW works so much easier than trying to reinvent the wheel.

No, the really funny thing is that people equated the DMs ability to say "no" as a house rules discussion.

 

[Belen]

Essentially, you're arguing that the RAW supports DM's. Which is what I've been saying all the way along. There is no need for the DM to go beyond the RAW 99% of the time to say no. The RAW sides with the DM almost always. The times that the RAW doesn't support the DM is when the DM decides to ignore the RAW and make his own rules. Well, if you decide to make your own rules, don't complain when the RULES AS WRITTEN don't support you.

Yet most of us are not talking about the RAW. We're talking about the perception of the RAW among 3e players and how the RAW is being marketed.

Also, saying "no elves" does not violate the RAW. "No elves" is simplely a restriction of a racial option. Violation of the RAW would be changing the underlying rules of the game, such as removing AoOs.

Then again, I have no trouble restricting options on behalf of the players. I do create rules, such as new races, feats, spells, and classes, but creating things such as this does not violate the RAW.

My "house rules" take the forms of adding or restricting options. In very few instances do I change the way things work with the game. When I do change things, it always benefits the player, such as not losing a level if you are raise. My rule is that the raised or ressurected character gains a negative level.

And I think that most die hard advocates of the RAW seem to be saying that only published rules are viable when there is no difference between a feat in the complete warrior and a feat created by a DM. They are both optional rules added to the system after the fact.

 

[Belen]

BU, RC, I've gotta ask this, I think I just hit on something:

What's your campaign structure? Do you have a continuing storyline, or do you do what I do, which is say to the players "here's the world, do what thou wilt"?

Both. I used the character histories provided by my players and crafted adventures that they would be interested in. They are free to do what they will, although their actions are fueling the story. I do not have a "story" arc planned out. However, the players are following a story.

They are like reporters. They keep trying to undercover a plot that it largely influenced by their in-game decisions and personal histories. I have added things like a "prophecy" that seems to pertain to them to enhance their experience and support the direction they seemed to be going.

I also have the world and the "core assumptions" found therein. A lot of the player driven plot has been fueled by their interaction with the world, so it is a symbiotic relationship. My world reacts to them and they react the events in the world. It seems to be a fairly dynamic relationship, yet hard to describe in words.