Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hella_Tellah" data-source="post: 4060785" data-attributes="member: 52669">Sure, but not all of us adhere to that style of play.  I'm a much less interventionist DM than I think you're used to, so if a player asks if they can buy an item or have a particular pet, my answer is almost always "Yes, You Can!"  If a player is having an argument with an NPC in the NPC's living room, and she wants to threaten him with a a fire-poker, she doesn't need to ask if there's a fireplace.  She says, "I grab the fire-poker from in front of the fireplace and wave it threateningly."  I am the Barack Obama of DMs.  Yes, You Can!I say, put those options in the PHB so my players can see them, get excited, use them, and have fun.  Leaving it to the DM to decide means I have to be more responsible for my players' happiness at the table; I prefer to have my players use the rules to amuse themselves and each other with pretty scant intervention on my part.  I, for one, am happier when the game moves away from a top-down, monarchical style of DMing toward a group-consensus model.  I've never had a player who abused my notion of social contract in games, never had a player who tried to eke out enormous rewards and outlandish power from the rules, and I don't need rulebooks that presume they'll try.That said, I think it's as easy for me to ignore authoritarian wording in the rulebooks as it is for you to ignore permissive wording, provided your players share the concept of a social contract and play cooperatively and in good faith.  Troublesome players may be slightly more dissuaded when the rulebooks are written to constrain them, but it's ultimately up to the DM, not the game designers, to curtail bad behavior at the table.</blockquote>

Verification