Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Keldryn" data-source="post: 3438026" data-attributes="member: 11999">That was an issue in every edition of the game I've played.  Ever since there have been sourcebooks, players have bought them and want to use an exciting new concept in the game.  It might have been classes, kits, races, or spells from a Dragon magazine article, PHBR supplements, one of those Mayfair Games unlicensed books, official campaign settings, HR series sourcebooks, Oriental Adventures, or even from other RPGs.  I remember a couple of players who insisted on bringing in races from the Palladium fantasy RPG.  And when they weren't allowed to use one of these options, they complained about it being unfair.  It's never been edition-dependent in my experience.Also, it does very clearly state in the 3.5e DMG that prestige classes are purely optional and entirely under the DM's control.  The recommendation is not to use all of them in one campaign.  I don't even think prestige classes are mentioned in the 3.5e PHB.  And virtually every WoTC-published book that contains new races, feats, or prestige classes states that it's up to the DM what to include.When players were familiar with monsters or magic items in previous editions, and I changed something, they'd complain that they should have hit, or the item should have a certain power, or what have you.  I haven't really seen much of a change from 1e to 3.5e in this.  In my experience, it has probably gotten better, as there is a much more consistent set of rules to cover the type of situations where a DM might have arbitrarily decided that the PC had to "make a Dex check at -10" simply because he wanted the character with a 19 Dex to have a reasonable chance of failure.I think those are some of the best aspects of the game.  What I don't like is taking too "gamist" a perspective and placing such challenges almost randomly.  I find that the 3.x editions encourage a more logical and consistent approach to world- and adventure- building than did earlier editions.  This isn't so much a rules issue as it is the "advice" given on such aspects of design, although the consistent resolution mechanics and saving throw categories that make sense contribute as well.  My 3.x games have had as much problem solving as any of my earlier edition games.  And again, I may actually do more of this in my games now because, for example, I feel more justified in letting a player make an appropriate Knowledge check to obtain a hint if the players are stuck on something.  Sure, it was very possible before and I did it all the time as well by asking for an Int or Wis check with some modifier, but it felt more like fudging then than it does now.  To me, anyway.I never said that players shouldn't allow the DM the freedom and fun of creating his world.  However, in my point of view, despite the fact that I'm the one putting most of the effort into creating the game world, it still isn't my world, and I do think that DMs who insist on it being his or her own world are being somewhat self-absorbed.  I may create the setting and the adventures, but it is the players' contributions that make it alive.  Sure, I can have NPCs all operating according to their own agendas and all of that which makes a game world a "living" world that seems to exist outside the PCs, but it's just a bunch of notes and maps without the players.  By inviting my friends to join in my game as players, I am making it their world too.  Of course the DM needs to enjoy creating the world and running adventures in it.  But it is a very self-centered DM who bases the world entirely upon his own preferences and insists that players either play it his way or go find another game to play in.  Being a DM is about running a game in which everyone is enjoying themselves, not about being an amateur novelist. I totally agree that the DM's vision of the campaign world should be dominant -- especially if the game world is to be a relatively coherent one.  I guess if one is DMing on an impersonal level, with a bunch of geeks met at the local game shop whom one never socializes with outside of the gaming circle, then a bit more of a "my way or the highway" attitude is understandable (I suppose).   I always game with pretty much the same people, who are all my friends outside of gaming, and it would never occur to me to force a style of gaming on my players that they don't want.  As for your example, if I had a really good reason for Dwarves not to be Sorcerers but one of my players for whatever reason would not be happy with any other character, I would probably find some way for it to work.  That doesn't mean I cave whenever a player doesn't like something that happens in the game.  Of course, when I design my game worlds, I try to avoid setting up restrictions such as certain races can only take certain classes and whatnot.Nah, I've played with mostly good DMs.  However, even good DMs make up stupid or poorly thought-out house rules -- myself included.  And I went through a phase back in the early 90s or so where I had a pretty narrow view of what a good fantasy world should be like.  Of course it was lower-magic, grittier and more realistic, vastly reduced hordes of gold and magic items, and lots of restrictions on character creation to support my desired "flavour."  My players didn't complain much, but it wasn't really what they wanted, and I later realized that I was wrong to try to push my preferences on them.</blockquote>

Verification