D&D and the Implied Setting

[genshou]

That's because you haven't factored-in the gear of all NPCs over 2nd level. Now you see how common it is.

Only if you assume that the fact that elite NPCs should get X amount of gear means all NPCs should get X amount of gear. I don't expect a 20th-level Commoner to have wealth by the elite NPC table. Besides that, NPCs have a much lower wealth value than PCs, and how many NPCs are there above 11th-level in the world?

Minor magic like potions aren't exactly cheap. 50gp is a lot of money to anyone but an adventurer who just looted an ancient and rather treacherous temple, or a member of the nobility.

Also, think of all the magic-using classes; bards, clerics, druids, sorcerors and wizards start with spells; paladins and rangers get them at 4th level. Add in the adepts and you've got about as big a portion of spellcasters in your population as you have Black people in the US.

I'm not too sure about that. Unfortunately, I seem to have lost my DMG. Once I find it, I'll randomly generate a village and list the ratios to demonstrate.

Hopefully, I didn't leave it during my d20 Modern game earlier this week. I like to have all my books in my own house for safekeeping.

 

[fusangite]

Only if you assume that the fact that elite NPCs should get X amount of gear means all NPCs should get X amount of gear.

You'll see that the DMG has a separate table for NPC gear at different levels to address just the issue you are raising.

 

[genshou]

You'll see that the DMG has a separate table for NPC gear at different levels to address just the issue you are raising.

I guess I didn't explain that very well. I'm saying that just because an elite NPC of X level gets Y amount of gear, that doesn't mean every non-elite NPC of X level also gets Y amount of gear.

 

[genshou]

I generally reject the idea of the 'implied setting'. To me, things operate differently for the PC's than for Everyone Else so I have no problem in which healing, ressurection and the like is sorta easy for us, but for Everyone Else, dead is dead, people die from the flu, and cutting yourself on a rusty nail is probably a death sentence.

I guess I missed this post earlier. QFT

 

[Hjorimir]

So, because there are some overtwinking kids that will never play your game on the wotc boards you've got the impression that all players need hand holding to make reasonable PC's?

I didn't say all players needed their hand held. But a DM should be able to step in and say no when needed.

I don't buy into this. If a good campaign has to be limited, why not limit it to the stuff the players like as much as you do. I mean, if your players like the stuff you do and prefer to sit back and let you figure out what they may play, ok, but otherwhise I see no reason to not work with the player on worldbuilding?

Because I don't run campaigns in a vacuum. Any homebrew I create has some kind of logical consistency and I don't make the players privy to the secrets of the world as that is part of the fun of exploring a setting.

So, the DMs desires are more important than those of the players, because he has the right to strip out stuff he doesn't like and players don't have the right to include stuff they do like?

I would say that the DM is in charge of the setting and that the players are in charge of their characters, which need to fit into the setting.

I'd say a game that is less based on rights and more on players and DM sitting down and hammering out a gameworld together they all like would be more successfull.

Okay, you've said it. But I've been successfully running campaigns for over twenty years and have had to beat my players back with a stick at times because I just don't want to run another fifteen person game.

So, who said this was going to be a middle earth game? You alone?

If I want to run a Middle Earth game I will announce it. The players who are interested in playing that will say they want to play. It seems pretty simple to me.

I see three reasons to play a strictly middle earth game:

You decided you want to run middle earth and sought players that want to do so as well.

The group decided to play a middle earth game.

The group ok'ed your suggestion to play a middle earth game.

I don't seek players; I call friends who happen to play role-playing games. I never ask for the "ok" to run any kind of game. Call it a luxury, call it arrogance, but they like whatever I run.

In those three cases I'd agree that Bob is totally out there. Otherwhise I'd say that a game that includes a fantastic pseudo-atztec and Japan sounds fun. And because Bob made the suggestion, he can flesh out those regions, leaving you more time for adventures and other places.

I'd tell Bob if he is so interested in that to start up a game and see who else might be interested.

Obviously, I'm not a fan of rule by committee, which I consider to be the most ineffective form of rule.

 

[Buttercup]

I'm happy to contribute if you want to start a thread in the other place.

Squee! Yes, please start that thread, one of you. I've been thinking about this too, and would love to talk about it.

 

[Herobizkit]

Eh maybe it's not so much the DM's power is weakened, merely the PCs aren't subject to the whims of a useless DM. Just my two cent. Besides with 3.x and d20, I got my home. Scarred Land forever!

I think what I was getting at is the ratio of player goodies versus DM goodies. As a DM, you are expected to create a world, maintain its theme, and create adventures for your players to explore.

As a PLAYER, your job is to create a character with which you will have the most fun, however that may be.

While players and DMs alike have access to a slew of resources for feats, options, gear, and so forth, it is up to the DM whether or not said items are included in said game. This power is solely the discretion of the DM. The players, on the other hand, can be easily swayed by the vast amount of goodies and of COURSE they'll want to try new skills, powers, and options... and for each one they pick, the DM will have to learn a new rule and try and incorporate it into his world, or simply drop the hammer and say "not in my campaign". But let's be honest here; the DM runs the game, the players play. If the players don't get to play characters they enjoy because the DM says those options are unavailable in his game, it creates an impasse. Without players, there is no world to play in.

I think my logic is getting fuzzy, but I hope I made some sense...

 

[Nightfall]

Hero,

some but I don't agree with all of it. But that's just my personal opinion. You raise good points about it, but I still feel the DM has a lot of control. Not every player is cut out or wants to DM.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

If the players don't get to play characters they enjoy because the DM says those options are unavailable in his game, it creates an impasse. Without players, there is no world to play in.

I think my logic is getting fuzzy, but I hope I made some sense...

I don't think it's that fuzzy, and it does make sense. While the DM does have the upper hand, needs to have the upper hand, since he's the one whe needs to keep the balance, it may not be a complete domination. The game is for everyone. While the DM runs the game, the players play in it. It must be fun for all. If the players aren't having fun with the options given to them, the game is a waste of time. Of course, if the players make unreasonable demands and walk over the DM, if the DM allows being walked over, it isn't right, either.

 

[Herobizkit]

[...] I still feel the DM has a lot of control. Not every player is cut out or wants to DM.

This is true. In many cases, not even the DM wants to DM. A

A stringent DM with a narrow focus of available options creates a vaccum of sorts. Players who don't want to work within the guidelines set forth by the DM have the following options:
a) suck it up and find a way to either like or at least tolerate what type of character can be created, even if it's not the vision the character wants to portray;
b) volunteer to DM a different kind of world that allows the options the other DM denies (but this still does not solve the PLAYER's problem);
c) abandon the campaign entirely.