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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spell" data-source="post: 4013880" data-attributes="member: 19718">well, to be fair, you have to compare apples to apples.you are saying that the DM-proofing angle with which the rules are written is good, because it makes easier for inexperienced DMs to jump into the game.it totally agree with you.on the other hand, consider what happens to novice players. they don't have years of experience with older editions of the game, or with other games. all they know is that CR1 (for example) means that that monster should consume 1/4 of the resources of every party member when encountered, and it's considered a fair challenge for a group of 4 characters of 1st level.sure, there are indications that you are welcomed to mix and match the CR level, but i think that, to some extent, that indication is irrelevant.the message that the average newbie will get, i think, is that if you are putting a CR3 monster against the 4 1st-level PC party, you are being a sadistic "BAD DM!!!!". there is also some implication that the rules are there to somewhat defend the players from DM fiat, which colours the role of the DM in a negative light and makes you look like an ogre when you want to enforce rule 0 for whatever reason.these perceptions are obviously wrong, and no group of veteran players in their right mind will read the rules with that in mind. but novice players might.and why shouldn't they? there is a big talk about how D&D is trying to get WoW players right now. well, in WoW you side with your friend to fight the monster. from the little i know about the game, there is no player commanding the monsters or the NPCs. you are a player, you have your character, you kill the monsters and interact with other characters. end of the story.now you start playing D&D and there is a guy running the monsters... is it really that difficult to understand how a certain way to present the rules might be presenting the DM in a bad light? after all, he's running the antagonists... makes sense that he's "evil" and wants to "win" and that joe the player needs rules to defend his characters from him.to me, that's the main problem of the rules as they are presented now. i might be wrong, but there are many many many other way to make the job of a DM much simpler: makes the system rule lighter, for example.or, if you don't want to, but at the same time you don't want to risk that the DM is assumed to be "the enemy", then repeat ad nauseam that he is free to change the assumptions in his campaign, that you might want to check with him to see what feats you are allowed to take, or what spells, that cohoperation with him is a good thing for everyone, and so on.just sticking rule 0 in the introduction, to me sounds like saying: "oh, yes, then there is this rule, but we don't really use it that much, and we just mention it because some dude has to DM, after all..."</blockquote>

Verification