Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThirdWizard" data-source="post: 2588891" data-attributes="member: 12037">Wait, wait, wait.You're relating this to the topic at hand? I thought this was some tangent that people had gone into because we broke several hundred posts already. That makes this simpler.The origional poster had the feeling that the books inferred that the DM can't say no. This is, of course, innacurate. The books infer not that the DM shouldn't say no, but they do imply that there is nothing wrong with saying yes. Historically, the books empowered the DM so that it was his job to say no except when it suited him. Historically, the DM was in a more adversarial relationship with the Players. This is no more.I refer to to my post in another thread.Previously D&D was like playing poker where only the dealer knew the rules. You could bet and you knew that the more similar cards you had the better, and an inkling that consecutively numbered cards were good. But, beyond that, you had to rely on the dealer to tell you who wins. Now, the Players can look at the hands they are dealt and have a good idea of where they stand in the game, even if they can't see everyone else's cards.So, the DM can't alter the rules as much as he could, becuase the Players now know the rules. Before he could say that having the hand 5, 6, 7, 8, A was almost as good as a straight. Now he can't. He could outright say that a PC can't jump a 10' pit, and now he can't say that, because the rules cover jumping and the Player knows them.This isn't about DMs having control over what comes into their games. That isn't where the real power comes from, and it never really was. DMs used to be encouraged to kill PCs. Now they arn't. They used to be taught to keep the rules from the Players, and now they're right there for the Player to read. Heck, they're marketing traditional DM only books to Players now!So, we bring this around to the DM allowing or disallowing something. Now, the game is more balanced with the idea that everything that is written will work in a traditional, generic, D&D game. Before this wasn't really the case. Especially in 2E there was an arms race going on. Things would be unbalanced and it was the DM's job to adjudicate things so that his game stayed balanced if that's what he wanted. The idea wasn't to allow things, it was to disallow things. A DM had to disallow things or his game would soon spiral out of control.That isn't the case anymore. You can play a vampire fiendsh half-dragon PC in a game and it won't be unbalanced, it will probably be weak. So, now the DM disallows this only if it won't fit his campaign. Before the DM would disallow it if it wouldn't fit the campaign or because of a rules consideration (unbalancedness for one). So, now the DM has half the reason to disallow it.So, the DM is less likely to say no nowadays. Wanna play a bladesinger? In 2E I balked at the idea of letting that kit into my games. I didn't care that it fit a character. It was overpowered and there was no way it was going in. Now? It's a PrC and its balanced for play. I can now allow the bladesinger PrC into my game as an attainable goal for a PC whereas before I would have said no.So, for these reasons I have to say that 3E is definately giving to the Players, and that the DM's job is not only easier, but it is a lot more flexible in terms of saying "Yes."</blockquote>

Verification