Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Belen" data-source="post: 2549764" data-attributes="member: 1405">There are a lot of people who seem to think that DMs who decry current balance are those DMs who want the change the rules.&nbsp; That is not the case nor was it the real point behind my initial comments.&nbsp; I was never the type of DM that changed the rules no matter what edition I ran.The issue with 3e lies in the promotion of rules and how those rules interact with the DM.&nbsp; There is a large number of people who have only played 3e.&nbsp; Among that contingent there is the idea that rules trump this DM and that each &quot;option&quot; is a core rule to the game.&nbsp; Wizards has gone to a lot of effort to make the DM appear as a referee.&nbsp; A referee can say no to how a rules is used, not whether the rule is used.There is a difference.&nbsp; I know a lot of young DMs who believe that they are required to allow any option released for D&amp;D by Wizards.&nbsp; And these DMs are unhappy.&nbsp; You'd be surprised at how many people I meet as a WOTC Delegate.&nbsp; You just cannot support DMs by not giving DMs their own set of options.&nbsp; It's fine to give players a wide variety of options.&nbsp; I think that is great.&nbsp; However, they have not done the same with DMs.&nbsp; Other than making sure that DMs know that they can say no, why have we not seen books that tell DMs how to craft their own feats, spells, or prestige classes?&nbsp; Or more advice on their website for DMs(other than the occasional adventure of rules clarification.)Maybe Mearls said it best when he described WOTC on one side and DMs on the other.&nbsp; Instead of seeing DMs as customers, they see them as a threat.&nbsp; A group of people who can compete with them for creating material and thus they see a need to minimize the DM in favor of the rules in order to not have to worry about them ending the need to pay for books.Personally, I no longer play with anyone who uses the rules to &quot;win&quot; the game, but I have had those people in my group in the past.&nbsp; It is not fun to have 3 hours and 50 minutes of arguments over rules interpretation and 10 minutes of gaming. I have gone through that and it was a horrid experience and that seems to come when the rules are elevated to the point where people do not matter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Belen, post: 2549764, member: 1405"] There are a lot of people who seem to think that DMs who decry current balance are those DMs who want the change the rules. That is not the case nor was it the real point behind my initial comments. I was never the type of DM that changed the rules no matter what edition I ran. The issue with 3e lies in the promotion of rules and how those rules interact with the DM. There is a large number of people who have only played 3e. Among that contingent there is the idea that rules trump this DM and that each "option" is a core rule to the game. Wizards has gone to a lot of effort to make the DM appear as a referee. A referee can say no to how a rules is used, not whether the rule is used. There is a difference. I know a lot of young DMs who believe that they are required to allow any option released for D&D by Wizards. And these DMs are unhappy. You'd be surprised at how many people I meet as a WOTC Delegate. You just cannot support DMs by not giving DMs their own set of options. It's fine to give players a wide variety of options. I think that is great. However, they have not done the same with DMs. Other than making sure that DMs know that they can say no, why have we not seen books that tell DMs how to craft their own feats, spells, or prestige classes? Or more advice on their website for DMs(other than the occasional adventure of rules clarification.) Maybe Mearls said it best when he described WOTC on one side and DMs on the other. Instead of seeing DMs as customers, they see them as a threat. A group of people who can compete with them for creating material and thus they see a need to minimize the DM in favor of the rules in order to not have to worry about them ending the need to pay for books. Personally, I no longer play with anyone who uses the rules to "win" the game, but I have had those people in my group in the past. It is not fun to have 3 hours and 50 minutes of arguments over rules interpretation and 10 minutes of gaming. I have gone through that and it was a horrid experience and that seems to come when the rules are elevated to the point where people do not matter. [/QUOTE]

Verification