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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sundragon2012" data-source="post: 2532304" data-attributes="member: 7624">I think that increased codification is a good thing in some ways but not so good in others. When I look ad D&D now I see a system that is more integrated and tight and that leads to the DM having to do less on the spot rule arbitration. That can be good because then the DM is more free to concentrate on the setting, the adventure and the role-playing instead of attempting to fix gaps in the rules.On the downside those who like rules lite are not going to find it in 3e but 2e wasn't rules light either really but just seemed that way because it was very easy to hack apart what you didn't want to use without causing serious repercussions. 2e had a lot of rules but I think they were easy to discard than 3e's rules.About the DM thing. I have yet to see players more "powerful" in any 3e game than they were in 1e or 2e. If anything the codification and more exacting nature of the rules makes the rules-lawer pain in the ass player shut up sooner than ever. Because the rules-lawer isn't really about the rules, but the loopholes in the rules. Then add that to the RULE that the DMs word is LAW also known as Rule 0, the DM has total control of his game and best of all has to worry less about minutea and can more easily concentrate on the bigger picture.Players should never be under the false assumption that they run the game, they don't. Any DM knows that the countless hours spent preparing and tweaking one's campaign makes pale in comparison the time any individual player puts in. Most don't even want the job of DMing. The only time I had a player thinking he could "rebel" against my authority was in 2e when he wanted some game breaking BS character concept that not only didn't fit the setting but was designed to take advantage of loopholes in the rules making him more powerful by far than anyone else. I told him to forget about that character concept because of the reasons I enumerated and told him to think of something else. He didn't like it and actually stormed off.The clown never returned and I thought "good riddance to bad rubbish". A DM who is fair and has mature players can wield his authority to make things better for everyone. The anarchy of allowing player's (and game designer's) merest whim to determine the shape of your setting is a recipe for frustration, difficulty, hard feelings and campaign dissolution. As long as a game needs someone to sit long hours crafting adventures and settings for the enjoyment of the players the DM will be in control. As long a game needs someone fair and knowledgable to make sure things run smoothly the DM will be in control. As long as a game needs someone above the petty rivalries and personality conflicts to arbitrate in favor of what's right and reasonable the DM will be in control.Player control over anything other than their own characters is illusion. Its an illusion perpetuated by WoTC because they keep pumping out books of player orientated PrCs and nifty feats and powers. The marketing strategy is to make players buy more books. There are fewer DMs than players and marketing folks know this. DMs should keep in mind that this new philosophy of "player empowerment" is only partially based on empowering players and instead largely based on the ability for companies to make more money marketing to the larger segment of the gaming community, the players.DMs, don't be deceived....YOU are the law in your world. You should be fair, non-arbitrary, reasonable, trustworthy and should have the best interest of your players and your campaign at heart but YOU are the LAW.Chris</blockquote>

Verification