3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Majoru Oakheart]

Why? What gives a player the ability to see modifiers? What if you're climbing a wall with slippery mold in the cracks? I'd give the player a chance to spot the mold, but a climb score will not tell them that it exists.

You are right. However, most modifiers CAN be spotted, even if they may be difficult. Yes, some things are hidden. Basically, I see that there are visible modifiers and invisible modifiers. Most modifiers are visible and the player will know about them in advance. Sometimes there are thing hidden or things that change after you start climbing. This is acceptable.

On the other hand, just making a wall that has a -20 circumstance penalty to climb it because "it's a living wall and doesn't want to be climbed" is kinda silly unless the player after he tries to climb has a good idea that something is horribly wrong. i.e. "You start climbing the ordinary looking wall, then suddenly, it shifts beneath you, all hand holds vanishing and becoming slick. You fall to the ground." No problem with this. I have a problem when this same situation plays out as "You try to climb. You fail." "But, I made a 30 on my climb check and it's an ordinary wall!" "You don't know why, you just can't climb it."

One method confuses the player, makes them think you are just using DM fiat to prevent them from getting to where they want to go, or worse yet, have no idea how the rules work so are making thing up off the top of their heads. I know I personally hate it when a DM says "well, it should be hard to climb...he can make DC 30 on a 10...that seems too easy, I'll make it 35."

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?

They should be able to do it the same way we can do it in real life. See a hill, you probably know about the chance of you getting over it in your car or whether or not you are too out of shape to walk to the other side of it. I know there are things I can't climb and likely won't try. Sometimes things are deceptive in how difficult they are, but we can make a close estimate.

The point is, if a wall should be DC 15 to climb in the PHB, there should be a darn good reason for it to be harder than DC 20.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You're removing one key element from my argument every time you represent it, and BU is doing the same thing: the DM should be having fun, too.

I really do not mean to take away a key element of your agument. I just don't see where your key element fits into any of the examples that either of us has put forth (either in your initial examples, or in your responses to my examples).

Are you then saying that the DM can say "No" if not doing so will impede the DM's fun? Is this a reasonable justification?

Have I ever said otherwise? The DM in the (admittedly rather poor) example is selfish because he is not open to conversation about what the setting can be. It doesn't matter to him what his players want, even if what his players want fit the setting (no Merlin in an Arthurian world? No fey?), even when the rules give guidelines on how to do it. He's selfish: What I want is more important than what you want.

Might it not be equally fair to say that the DM is saying, "I have created what I think will be a fun setting. It took me more than three weeks of solid effort to possess. I am presenting this to you for free, because I really think this'll be fun for everyone willing to try it. Would you like to try it?"

Follow it with:

Player 1: "Can I play an elf?"
DM: "Sorry, no. I'm going for a really tight Arthurian thing with very, very low magic and an elf would break the feel I am trying to present."
Player 1: "Oh. Well, I really only like to play elves. So, I think I'll pass."
DM: "That's cool. I think Bob might be running a more core-assumption game."​

Suddenly, no one is being selfish.

Follow it with:

Player 1: "Can I play an elf?"
DM: "Sorry, no. I'm going for a really tight Arthurian thing with very, very low magic and an elf would break the feel I am trying to present."
Player 1: "Stop being so lazy. I'm sure you can fit an elf in there somehow."​

Suddenly, the player is being selfish.

Follow it with:

Player 1: "Can I play an elf?"
DM: "Sorry, no. I don't like you well enough."​

Suddenly, the DM is a dink. (Not 100% sure that selfish covers this example well enough.)

Follow it with:

Player 1: "Can I play an elf?"
DM: "Sorry, no. There are no elves in this setting."​

And....what? Three weeks of work, the DM's enjoyment of the setting, and (perhaps) something hidden about the setting are put up against one player's idea of what would be fun. Is the DM allowed to say no? Is the DM required to rethink his setting? Going back to your "key element" does "the DM should be having fun, too" justify his saying no? Is anyone actually being selfish in this example (I would argue they are not)?

Continuing with that example, what if the DM didn't care that no one in his group had ever really had much to do with King Arthur?

Back up a second here. What made these particular players "his group"? Why does he have any obligation to them?

Certainly, if this DM wants these players to play in his game, then he can only get what he wants by presenting something they are interested in. Conversely, if a player wants to play in a game run by this DM, then that player has to play in a game that this DM is running. There is no obligation on either side.

It is only when an obligation is imposed that selfishness enters the equation.

In other words, if I bake chocolate chip cookies, and I offer one to you, I am not selfish because you don't like chocolate chip cookies. If I bake chocolate chip cookies, and I know you don't like them, so I offer them to someone else, I am still not selfish. If you, however, demand that I consult you prior to baking cookies, you are selfish.

Perhaps I am missing some way in which the cookie example does not apply?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I didn't bother answering it because its such a loaded and rhetorical question that it isn't worth it. Any answer I give is pretty much rendered meaningless by the level of strawman in the question. Ask a less leading question and I'll answer it.

Hussar,

I submit that KM's answer clearly shows that my questions were not a straw man:

The DM can say "No" whenever the players let him.


This is very, very different from your reply:

As to which RAW, I would answer simply - the RAW FOR THAT SETTING. I would think that that's obvious. If I'm playing an Eberron game, then Eberron material is likely to be included. Anything else is purely at the DM's discretion. Actually, anything is at the DM's discretion, but, at least Eberron material is more likely to be included.

Maybe I've been lucky. I've never seen players try anything remotely like this. In fact, every game I see these days specifies material at the outset. This would mean to me that the RAW for each particular campaign is set by the DM. Certainly a player can ask, but, then again, there's nothing wrong with saying no. Particularly if the RAW for that setting supports that answer.

I think there's a couple of definitions of RAW going on here and that's where the problem lies. To me, RAW is defined by setting. That a particlar book has been written does not make it apply to a particular campaign.​

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

You are right. However, most modifiers CAN be spotted, even if they may be difficult. Yes, some things are hidden. Basically, I see that there are visible modifiers and invisible modifiers. Most modifiers are visible and the player will know about them in advance. Sometimes there are thing hidden or things that change after you start climbing. This is acceptable.

On the other hand, just making a wall that has a -20 circumstance penalty to climb it because "it's a living wall and doesn't want to be climbed" is kinda silly unless the player after he tries to climb has a good idea that something is horribly wrong. i.e. "You start climbing the ordinary looking wall, then suddenly, it shifts beneath you, all hand holds vanishing and becoming slick. You fall to the ground." No problem with this. I have a problem when this same situation plays out as "You try to climb. You fail." "But, I made a 30 on my climb check and it's an ordinary wall!" "You don't know why, you just can't climb it."

I agree with Majoru here completely. The DM is the eyes, ears, and all senses that the PCs have. He needs to provide them with appropriate sensory clues/cues. The DM is the repository of what the PCs should reasonably know about the world based on their skills, background, etc. He needs to provide them with appropriate information. If information should be obvious, the DM should provide it even if it is not asked for.

This is NOT an example of good DMing:

DM: "You see a largish room, some thirty feet wide and twice as long. The floor is tiled in a mosaic of blue and green flagstones and the ceiling is held aloft, some thirty feet high, by thick arches crossing the walls and ceiling from east to west."

Player: "I enter the room."

DM: "The dragon attacks you. Roll initiative."

Player: "Whoa there! What dragon? You didn't say anything about a dragon!"

DM: "You didn't ask...."​

RC

 

[D'karr]

This is NOT an example of good DMing:

DM: "You see a largish room, some thirty feet wide and twice as long. The floor is tiled in a mosaic of blue and green flagstones and the ceiling is held aloft, some thirty feet high, by thick arches crossing the walls and ceiling from east to west."

Player: "I enter the room."

DM: "The dragon attacks you. Roll initiative."

Player: "Whoa there! What dragon? You didn't say anything about a dragon!"

DM: "You didn't ask...."​

RC

It might not be an example of Good DMing, but man it did feel good...

You just cracked me up.

 

[The Shaman]

GM: "Okay, go ahead and create you characters. All characters are 2nd level, so you can pick any LA +1 race on the handout."
Player 1: "Hey, there's only humans on the handout?"
GM (fingers drumming): "King Arthur didn't need elves, why do I?"
Player 1: "But I was thinking of playing a fey-like character with ties to lake maidens and stuff..."
Player 2: "And I wanted to be a wizard, but this handout says they're forbidden?"
GM: "Magic in D&D is too powerful, so I took it out. Deal."

I'm not sure if this is what you intended to say or not, but what I'm reading here is that the GM created an Arthurian romance game with setting-consistent limits on classes and races, and you think that's an example of selfishness and poor GMing.

I can understand a player not necessarily wanting to play in a game where the PCs all play knights and squires and (non-spellcasting) priests and such, but that doesn't make it a bad setting or the GM a poor GM - it simply means that what the GM created is not to the players' tastes in this instance.

Presumably no one is holding a gun to the players' heads in this example, so they can say that they're more interested in playing a more traditional D&D game - either the GM will compromise or s/he won't, and the gamers involved can either play or not. In any case I don't see how the GM is obligated to create something for the players. I think the example of the GM-as-shopkeeper example is apt in this case: the GM offers a game, the players can choose to accept or not - if the GM won't compromise s/he has no players, if the players won't compromise they have no game.

In this instance I think it would be best for both sides to look for a middle ground, such as permitting clerics and perhaps druids but keeping wizards as NPC 'monsters' in the setting. However, if the GM is not willing to compromise the setting, the players are not injured in any sense: they simply vote with their feet, and the both the GM and the players can look for more compatible folks with whom to play.

(Personally I'd enjoy an Arthurian romance like the one you described...)

A selfish DM is the one who puts his own pleasures in the game first, ahead of the player's, rather than equal to them. Like a rules-lawyer is a selfish player who gets pleasure correcting others and won't stop, a selfish DM can be that DM who gives a player a familiar only so that they can kill it, torture it, and maim it later. Or that DM who has epic-powered NPC's swoop in and rescue the party. Or that DM who drops hints about going into the Forbidden Forest, when you get there, proceeds to TPK the group because "THE FOREST IS FORBIDDEN!" It's the DM that needlessly limits player choice. The DM who doesn't consider the ramifications of his changes. The one who fudges for monsters and important events, but fudges against players. The one who removes spells simply because they challenge him. The one who hands out loads of treasure to his girlfriend. The one who insists that he knows the game better than the designers, and who makes arbitrary changes to "use the d12 more often." The one who railroads relentlessly. The one who won't let you act until his villain is finished with his speech. The one who demands two written pages of character history only to give you the prospect of your long-lost sister coming back only to kill her out of some delightful malice.

Yes, immature GMs are bad, raildroading GMs are bad, killer GMs are bad, but is this really a newsflash for gamers?

What you're describing is really the most extreme examples of poor GMing, and IMX (and of course my experience may be different from yours) they are really a small proportion of the overall pool of gamers - some GMs are mediocre, a few are really great, but the juvenile behavior you describe above is usually self-correcting: either the GM matures or s/he can't find anyone to play with after awhile.

Talking about the most extreme behavior doesn't really answer the questions that have been asked several times on this board already, such as...

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?

I didn't bother answering it because its such a loaded and rhetorical question that it isn't worth it. Any answer I give is pretty much rendered meaningless by the level of strawman in the question. Ask a less leading question and I'll answer it.

The question is not a straw man. It is, in fact, the crux of this thread. When determining when it is appropriate to say "No", whose discretion does the DM rely upon? If the DM relies upon his own discretion, then he is the ultimate arbitrator of that game. If the DM does not, then he is not.

KM says that the DM is allowed to say "No" in general because to do otherwise would make his position obviously untenable. However, KM also disallows the DM from saying "No" in any specific incident to which that general rule is applied.

So far all of the examples that have been presented have been the most extreme examples of poor GMing, IMX gaming skills reside along a continuum, and for me that's what's really at the heart of this thread: where is the balance point? So far the rules-lawyers haven' answered that question to my satisfaction, nor apparently to Raven Crowking's.

I'll repeat my earlier example, and hopefully Kamikaze Midget or Majoru Oakheart or Patryn of Elvenshae will reply: The PHB and the DMG (both 3.0 - my 3.5 books are in a box in the garage) indicate that the most complex mechanical trap is DC 25 to disable - does this preclude the GM from creating a DC 27 or 28 trap? What about DC 30?

Let's be clear about something here as well - I'm not talking about upping the DC just to beat the party rogue's stats, or changing it on the fly to hose a character who made a good roll. Those would be extreme examples of poor GMing. I'd like to hear a response from the perspective addresses whether or not you consider creating something like this to reasonably challenge the party in the normal course of adventure writing is "breaking the rules."

For that guy who wants to play a demilich? "Sorry, they're too powerful. But maybe you'd like being a necromancer...if we get high enough level, you may have the opportunity to become a demilich."

I agree with this - players should have goals.

For that guy who wants to play a demilich? "Sorry, they're too powerful. But maybe you'd like being a necromancer...if we get high enough level, you may have the opportunity to become a demilich." Or maybe even "Well, it doesn't need to be second level....does everybody think starting at level 22 is a bad idea?" This changes the ride, but keeps fun for everyone intact. Helping the players to have fun is the DM's job. This job includes finding out what they REALLY want, which usually isn't just power, because players don't have fun when they're all powerful unless they're selfish players.

And this I can't agree with at all.

Let's be clear on something:

GMing is not my job.

It's something I do for recreation, to exercise my imagination, to enjoy time with friends.

When I sit down to homebrew a setting, my first question is, "What kinds of adventures do I want to run?" This determines many of the setting details, influencing races (both character and non-), classes, geography, transportation, economics, political institutions and so on. The setting is built to accommodate the adventures - it's also designed to be internally consistent so that enhances the suspension of disbelief for the players, to give the setting verisimilitude and offer a more immersive gaming experience for everyone.

My second question is, "What options are available to the players?" As a GM I want to give the players a range of options - it's in my best interest as a GM to offer a goodly number of races and class choices so that the players have interesting choices to make with respect to their characters, in the same way that it's in my best interest to create exciting adventures set in an engaging game-world. That's not the same as giving them unlimited options, however: if I choose to remove outsiders and core-class paladins from the setting, then no, you can't play an aasimar paladin.

I imagine that right there I've raised the hackles of some gamers: "Why ban outsiders? Why ban paladins? That's not D&D!" If my goal is to run swords-and-sorcery adventures with a dark ages feel, if I want to create a cosmology in which there are no other planes, if I want to make the paladin a prestige class (or even exclude it altogether), that is my perogative as a GM. If I wanted to run the setting by the straight core rules, I could, but those same core rules give me the liberty to make those choices, to offer the players other options instead. Anyone who claims that the core rules preclude these sorts of choices is ignoring the core rules...

On the other hand, just making a wall that has a -20 circumstance penalty to climb it because "it's a living wall and doesn't want to be climbed" is kinda silly unless the player after he tries to climb has a good idea that something is horribly wrong. i.e. "You start climbing the ordinary looking wall, then suddenly, it shifts beneath you, all hand holds vanishing and becoming slick. You fall to the ground." No problem with this. I have a problem when this same situation plays out as "You try to climb. You fail." "But, I made a 30 on my climb check and it's an ordinary wall!" "You don't know why, you just can't climb it."

One method confuses the player, makes them think you are just using DM fiat to prevent them from getting to where they want to go, or worse yet, have no idea how the rules work so are making thing up off the top of their heads. I know I personally hate it when a DM says "well, it should be hard to climb...he can make DC 30 on a 10...that seems too easy, I'll make it 35."

Again, we're talking about the extreme of poor GMing here, which doesn't get us anywere toward finding the middle ground where most gamers play.

In the example of my living wall earth elemental, I described it to the players roughly like this: "About thirty feet off the ground you suddenly feel the rough surface of the wall grow smooth as a river-polished stone. The rock itself seems to shift under your grip, your hand and toe holds feel as if they are receding into the wall, and you fall to the ground...taking eleven hit points damage." (No, I didn't just decide the thief fell - she failed her skill check.)

Again, I think we all agree that saying, "You just can't climb it," or, "You fall regardless of what you roll," is just poor GMing. For me at least there remains the larger question, based on the following:

The point is, if a wall should be DC 15 to climb in the PHB, there should be a darn good reason for it to be harder than DC 20.

Here's another question that I hope someone will answer for me: Who decides what the "darn good reason" is, the GM or the players?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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

To me, it isn't about making the game feel the way it should be. Instead it is about making the game feel like it should be. Not how I feel it should be.

For example, you could run a Babylon 5 RPG and make it a laugh fest with 2 dimensional characters because you feel B5 should be played like that. It won't be B5, but it might be fun. If I ran a B5 game, I'd try (the best I could) to get the same feeling as the show across.

When I run D&D, I try to make it feel like D&D. Wonderous magic everywhere you go, ancient ruins filled with artifacts from empires long dead, evil gods and their minions plotting the destruction of everyone, evil creatures who want to rule the world.

It also means other expectations. An average person can climb a rope taking 10 as long as they aren't wearing armor. A 1st level wizard can cast magic missile.

Just like when I run Rifts, I try to have a feeling of being in an infinite universe filled with alien creatures and devices and a sense that you are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. That is the feeling of that game.

How *I* feel either of those games SHOULD work is fairly insignificant. I don't feel it's my place to go changing around the world to the way I want it to work. My players may not want that change, it may cause problems I haven't forseen, and most of all it causes work for me. I'm inherently lazy. I want to run the game with minimal changes because I don't have all week long to spend thinking over the implications of any changes I make.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Player 1: "Can I play an elf?"
DM: "Sorry, no. I'm going for a really tight Arthurian thing with very, very low magic and an elf would break the feel I am trying to present."
Player 1: "Oh. Well, I really only like to play elves. So, I think I'll pass."
DM: "That's cool. I think Bob might be running a more core-assumption game."​

I would like to point out that a lot of people play with friends. When I run a game, I have the same players and if I were to play in a game, it would be because one of said players wants to try to run a game. Now, I'm not alone in this. There is no, "go play with Bob," available. There is my game, or nothing. And there is one of my friends games, or nothing.

In these cases, the DM must learn to be flexible, as must the players. If I wanted to run an Arthurian game, the first thin I would do is ask my players if it is what they want. If one really wants to play an elf, I would alter my idea to make it possible, so that fun could be had by all. Telling my player to find another game would be telling them that the game is more important to me than our friendship. Not something I would ever do.

 

[Raven Crowking]

To me, it isn't about making the game feel the way it should be. Instead it is about making the game feel like it should be. Not how I feel it should be.

Majoru,

What is the difference?

How something should feel is a subjective decision. There is no objective statement one can make about how a game should feel. Even "a game should feel fun" is a subjective statement, allbeit one which is widely held. Obviously, one would want to create a feel for a game which is "the way it should be". But, how do you decide what way it should be, and why bother to make it that way if you feel it should be different?

I know you gave some examples, but, seriously, there is nothing objective that says that a Babylon 5 game should not be a laugh fest with 2 dimensional characters, nor is your interpretation of the same feeling as the show necessarily the feeling that I got from the show.

You say, "When I run D&D, I try to make it feel like D&D. Wonderous magic everywhere you go, ancient ruins filled with artifacts from empires long dead, evil gods and their minions plotting the destruction of everyone, evil creatures who want to rule the world."

Isn't this because you believe that the game should feel that way?

Conversely, if how you feel either of those games SHOULD work is fairly insignificant, and if you don't feel it's your place to go changing around the world to the way you want it to work, wouldn't that imply that your players should respect your homebrew world in exactly the same way?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would like to point out that a lot of people play with friends. When I run a game, I have the same players and if I were to play in a game, it would be because one of said players wants to try to run a game.

Me too, and I covered this:

Certainly, if this DM wants these players to play in his game, then he can only get what he wants by presenting something they are interested in. Conversely, if a player wants to play in a game run by this DM, then that player has to play in a game that this DM is running. There is no obligation on either side.​

Certainly, you don't imagine that your friends have an obligation to entertain you. Nor do you have an obligation to entertain your friends. If a game isn't fun, don't play it. Go camping or something instead.

It is only when an obligation is imposed that selfishness enters the equation.

In other words, if I bake chocolate chip cookies, and I offer one to you, I am not selfish because you don't like chocolate chip cookies. If I bake chocolate chip cookies, and I know you don't like them, so I offer them to someone else, I am still not selfish. If you, however, demand that I consult you prior to baking cookies, you are selfish.​

You can make a game world that is entirely co-operative, with no DM at all if you like. Vote what the scenery is. Vote what kind of monsters you encounter. Or make up some kind of random system to determine these things. When a question comes up, vote.

What you do not have is the ability to obligate someone else to participate in a game in a way which makes them unhappy. Your friends will forgive you for voting with your feet, if they are your friends.


RC