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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="an_idol_mind" data-source="post: 3435365" data-attributes="member: 43749">In my experience, I've never seen any issues of DM control in any of the versions of D&D I've played. The DM is the guy running the game. You can disagree with him, but you can hardly hold him hostage -- there won't be a game if you don't let it be on his terms.I think a lot of this DM control thing is a matter of play style and perception. Any edition I've run has always been the same in this regard; I don't have more control or less than I used to. Just because the rules are clearer and the PCs are now capable to broadening their standard archetypes doesn't mean I can't say what is and isn't allowed as a DM. I've even had cases of characters wanting to play a prestige class that I wouldn't allow. It wasn't a huge fight about how I'm restricting player choice; it boiled down to the player saying, "Okay, but I really like this concept. Can we tweak the class to make it fit into your game better?"To each their own, I suppose.That said, there has definitely been a change in the way supplements are presented between 2nd and 3rd edition. I used to want to work at TSR so I could produce some of the weirdly creative stuff they had in the 2nd edition days, like Dark Sun, Planescape, and Birthright. As I went through college and 3e came out, my desire to work in the gaming industry disappeared. The supplements shifted less toward stuff that was more a creative exercise than something you'd find in a regular campaign (i.e., Council of Wyrms) and more toward crunch and rules expansions to the core setting (i.e., the Complete books). The latter is better business, so I can't complain, but the former seemed much more fun to me as a writer.</blockquote>

Verification