Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2581838" data-attributes="member: 22779">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.</blockquote>

Verification