Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rasyr" data-source="post: 2546622" data-attributes="member: 2855">Okay, am at home and on lunch, so her I go... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />That is because the rules took a more "player-oriented" approach and that is laced throughout everything.Yes, there may be an implied connotation of a GM not being able to say no, but I think that there are problems in other areas as well. Such as the implicit reliance on magical items, and that characters of certain levels SHOULD have xx amount of gold or xx number of magic items. That you only need this many combats against monsters of xx CR to reach the next level. Over in the thread where this post originated, Mike Mearls made a side comment that very few game designers (i.e. authors) do not understand the CR system or use it properly (or something to that effect). This system (the CR system) is another of the examples of power being removed from the GM. The CR system says what the GH "should" be throwing against the party at a given level. Overall, the rules have been reducing options for GMs while expanding them for players.Actually, the rules have take a lot of control out of the hands of the GM by impliciting supporting and promoting a certain style of play. This control has not been permanently removed, but it has made it more difficult to play using other styles than the one explicitly supported by the rules themselves.So? D&D is the new Rolemaster? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> Seriously, RM got a bad reputation, in part, because of all the options available, and because many players treated them as requirements, not options, and becuase those options were not very well balanced (against one another, to say the very least). From the posts in this thread, it is apparent that some of the same mentality is present amongst some D&D players (and no, apparently not your players, Psion - you have the exceptions, all in one basket from the sounds of it).It is also apparent that many GMs (at least those who responded here) have taken steps to counter, or reduce that perception. Good for them!Yup! The ability for players to have choices and options is a good thing. However, those choices should be determined by the GM as to what is right for HIS game. I have seen plenty of posts where players want to take a certain PrC and are complaining because such a PrC is not allowed by the GM. This type of post comes about because of the GM trying to set the limits for what is allowable in his game, and yet players (and no, I am not saying ALL players, just some) have the perception that because it is there, they ought to be allowed it.Exactly! Prestige Classes were originally meant as a method for GMs to customize their game settings, but instead, they have essentially turned into power-ups for players. I have other problems with PrCs, but those are not relevant to this discussion.Additionally, there is a current expectation that new books SHOULD contain new Prestige Classes. That they are almost required to...Options are good, yes. However, having players expect that all options are equally allowable is part of the problem.And what about those options that are not balanced well, or have game breakers in them? If the GM misses the potential problems, then it is of no benefit to everybody, it becomes a problem and then that will re-inforce the GM to wanting to curtail future options.In short, the options themselves are not the problem. It is the expectation that the player should automatically be allowed any option he wants to use that is the problem. Exactly! The current ruleset does not do this latter though, it implies that the former is the norm.</blockquote>

Verification