Confirmed: Magic items and summoned monster stats in PHB

[rkanodia]

You say that like that's a game of Diablo!

Thaumaturge.

ENworld is too videogamey. You heard it here first.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

This is pretty cool.

And as I said, after giving it some thought, if I were in the right mood, I might let there be a political reason rather than a metaphysical one. But there will be some reason. Because I think it's far more fun if there is a better one than just "the players caught the DM with his pants down."

In any case, the reason why there's a metaphysical or political reason is because the players discovered a plot hole. They caught the DM with his pants down, and so the DM comes up with something. The DM has the choice whether to run with it or not. It's his prerogative.

 

[Voss]

As presented, the players seem to have decided that the adventure will "suck" without even giving it a chance. They're essentially saying they have no faith in their DM. What kind of person would want to DM for such a group? Not I.

Or they suddenly came up with an idea, and it isn't a value judgement on your adventure in any way at all...

 

[Lizard]

My 3000th will either be "You say that like it's a bad thing" or a long badly spelled rant accusing 1e of being too videogame-y.

Oh, please! The Amulet Of P'ong is a CLASSIC!

 

[hong]

Oh, please! The Amulet Of H'ong is a CLASSIC!

Hmmmm.

 

[JohnSnow]

Or they suddenly came up with an idea, and it isn't a value judgement on your adventure in any way at all...

Sure. No problem coming up with an idea. Choosing to pursue that idea over the DM's objections is absolutely a value judgement on the adventure.

It's not like the players are sitting in a dark room going "huh, what do we do?" They're getting a bunch of adventure hooks thrown at them by the DM. If they choose to ignore all of them and do something else instead, it's obviously because they think that something else will be more fun than what the DM had planned. If they thought they'd have more fun with the DM's planned adventure, then I guarantee that's what they do. People aren't generally going to decide to do something they think will be less fun.

Either that, or they just get their jollies driving their DM nuts. Which isn't a mindset I'd want to put up with very often. As I said, once in a while it's fine - I like a challenge.

But when you make a habit of it, it's just plain disregard for the guy who spent his free time preparing an adventure for your amusement.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Sure. No problem coming up with an idea. Choosing to pursue that idea over the DM's objections is absolutely a value judgement on the adventure.

It's not like the players are sitting in a dark room going "huh, what do we do?" They're getting a bunch of adventure hooks thrown at them by the DM. If they choose to ignore all of them and do something else instead, it's obviously because they think that something else will be more fun than what the DM had planned. If they thought they'd have more fun with the DM's planned adventure, then I guarantee that's what they do. People aren't generally going to decide to do something they think will be less fun.

Either that, or they just get their jollies driving their DM nuts. Which isn't a mindset I'd want to put up with very often. As I said, once in a while it's fine - I like a challenge.

But when you make a habit of it, it's just plain disregard for the guy who spent his free time preparing an adventure for your amusement.

This goes back to the old argument about whether following the DM's plot hooks constitutes railroading. After the DM has spent all week coming up with a handful of different directions the campaign could go, fleshed out some plots and NPCs along those options, and given the players their choice of things he has prepped for, the players decide to do something completely incongruous. The DM is annoyed that all his hard work is being ignored and his role as game organizer disrespected. He comes to teh internet to complain about it, and gets flamed for not running a totally sandbox game like real, manly DMs do.

 

[Orius]

As far as Tolkein goes, the dwarves are given bows by Beorn in The Hobbit, and run out of arrows in Mirkwood, making their bows useless.

I'm reading The Hobbit to my older girl right now, and we are just about to read "Flies and Spiders", where this happens. And those bows would have been useful against the spiders, had they not wasted their ammo on black squirrels and white deer.

You're expecting dwarves to use bows properly?

 

[TessarrianDM]

Okay, they have to have the stats. Does anything else determine the availability of summons? Do you have all the creatures on the lists in your world? Or might you say "No, sorry, Xorns don't exist." How about the monsters added in later MMs with the note that they can be summoned with spell Y?

What determines the availability of polymorph forms? Can players browse the MM to pick the forms to use? Do all of those creatures exist in your world? How about MM2-5, Fiend Folio, and other books?

As I noted, I generally see "defining what exists in the world" to be the DM's job.

Yes, I have determined what creatures exist in my campaign world. As others have said, the PC's can only shapechange into creatures they have encountered or are otherwise familiar with. As far as summons go, I only allow a divine PC to summon a creature of the same alignment (or within one step if there is not one that matches), and some creatures cannot be summoned (such as dinosaurs) because they do not exist. Some summoning/calling spells I just do not allow (such as Dragon Ally and Summon Bralani Eladrin from the SC).

Adding creatures from other sourcebooks besides the Monster Manual has not been an issue, as I am the only member of our group who has purchased any of them. Few of my players own anything more than the PH (and SC for spellcasters).

 

[Brother MacLaren]

This goes back to the old argument about whether following the DM's plot hooks constitutes railroading. After the DM has spent all week coming up with a handful of different directions the campaign could go, fleshed out some plots and NPCs along those options, and given the players their choice of things he has prepped for, the players decide to do something completely incongruous. The DM is annoyed that all his hard work is being ignored and his role as game organizer disrespected. He comes to teh internet to complain about it, and gets flamed for not running a totally sandbox game like real, manly DMs do.

One good compromise might be to try to get the PCs to decide what to do next at the end of a gaming session. You can give them several options, or let them come up with their own, and they can show you the consideration of giving you prep time.

So near the end of a session, the caravan guard gig is offered. The PCs can decide to take it (your suggestion), to try to make an end-run around it by finding or making a Decanter and bringing that to the city (their suggestion #1), to make a pre-emptive raid on the lair of the bandits who attack the caravans (their suggestion #2), or to ignore this city entirely and deal with one of the other things they have in mind (maybe previously ignored plot hooks). These kind of discussions can also happen between session (such as on an online forum), but IME some players just do their gaming at the table and don't get engaged in "between-session" interaction.