Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Geron Raveneye" data-source="post: 2575972" data-attributes="member: 2268">Very often I have the impression that it is less a matter of rules discrepancies or different common sense being the driving force behind the troubles, but how personally people take it when it happens.As an example, the priest/alchemist/wizard sitting down to create heaps of Continual Flame carriers to sell them to the rich. The reasons for this can be numerous, and from different points of view, as can be the answers from the DM hosting that game. You could call it metagamey, or an ingenious application of the rules to further the character, a silly quirk or a dozen other things. The DM could answer by simply forbidding it (creating lots of frustration at the table), create adventure hooks that employ or undermine the idea, or simply let the character work to have nobody buy his stuff in the end because the church branded him a heretic, and everybody who buys his creations. The questions is always, how personal do people take it when their decision (or worldview of your campaign world) is nixed by the other side.Here is where the percieved "empowerment" of the players can go wrong. If I'm accessible to good advertisement, and have a few bucks to spare, and want my character to be more special, and such I buy a supplement, I of course would love to see it used in the game by my DM. If I get told by the game's creators that the rules I just put $30 on the table for are perfectly balanced with the rest of the game, I might even be convinced that there is no real reason why they shouldn't be used in the game my character plays in. Now, depending on how I present my wish to my DM, he might react differently to it, but it might as well go like "nope, sorry, only the core books"...at which point I might as well point out that the new stuff is as good as core...which might annoy my DM a little, because he has less time than I browsing special rules for one character, or simply doesn't want/can't spend the money on the book, or feels like he plays second fiddle to a book...which might make him grumpy, which will make his denial more grumpy, which could easily convince me that he simply wants to take me down personally, etc etc etc..(to quote a famous siamese king <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ).The whole point is that each side, players and DMs, only have as much power over the game as the other side allows them. The DM creates the adventures, sure, and fleshes out the background, the NPCs, the treasure...but the players ultimately provide the motivation for that. No players, no game...no DM, no game. That's where the "equality" sits. So as long as both parts of the game are working together, and can communicate and compromise on their opinions and wishes for the game, nothing should really be a problem. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification