Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 4013526" data-attributes="member: 467">We're definitely havinga&nbsp; communication error on this subject and I think it has to do with how we are reading each other's terminology.&nbsp; When I said you still needed a &quot;trap remover&quot; i didn't mean &quot;a trap remover class&quot;, I meant simply a character that is capable of &quot;removing traps&quot;.&nbsp; In other words, just becasue you eliminate the class doesn't mean you eliminate the role.You can make as many new monsters as you want, so long as their abilities fall within the appropriate range.&nbsp; Remember, I am not talking about the inability for DMs to ignore or go beyond rules, I am talking about the reduction of DM power -- perhaps authority is a better term? -- in doing so by arming the players with a codified ruleset that tells the players what is or is not appropriate based on their level and other details.&nbsp; 3E's wealth-by-level and CR systems are perfect examples of this.&nbsp; If a player adds up all the value of his magic items/other gear and comes up short with respect to WBL, or the party gets creamed by a creature they look up in the MM and see it has a too-high CR, the rules of the game transfer to them the authority to argue.&nbsp; That's why I said it is important to clearly communicate differences between the written rules and the DM's method of running the game in order to head off these kinds of conflicts.Mostly, it is a &quot;culture&quot; thing.&nbsp; IME, the more heavily codified the rules are and the more explicit issues of &quot;balance&quot; are made in the game, the less like an art and more like a science DMing becomes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 4013526, member: 467"] We're definitely havinga communication error on this subject and I think it has to do with how we are reading each other's terminology. When I said you still needed a "trap remover" i didn't mean "a trap remover class", I meant simply a character that is capable of "removing traps". In other words, just becasue you eliminate the class doesn't mean you eliminate the role. You can make as many new monsters as you want, so long as their abilities fall within the appropriate range. Remember, I am not talking about the inability for DMs to ignore or go beyond rules, I am talking about the reduction of DM power -- perhaps authority is a better term? -- in doing so by arming the players with a codified ruleset that tells the players what is or is not appropriate based on their level and other details. 3E's wealth-by-level and CR systems are perfect examples of this. If a player adds up all the value of his magic items/other gear and comes up short with respect to WBL, or the party gets creamed by a creature they look up in the MM and see it has a too-high CR, the rules of the game transfer to them the authority to argue. That's why I said it is important to clearly communicate differences between the written rules and the DM's method of running the game in order to head off these kinds of conflicts. Mostly, it is a "culture" thing. IME, the more heavily codified the rules are and the more explicit issues of "balance" are made in the game, the less like an art and more like a science DMing becomes. [/QUOTE]

Verification