DMs do you trust your PCs?

[Crothian]

This isn't about cheating. This is about players taking advantage of things. DMs, do you feel that you could open up the rules and not have your PCs abuse them?

I ask this because in other forums people post things that seem to rein in characters. They limit classes, race, alignment, feats, etc., basically they really limit the choices. If you allowewd any race would the PHB races even be used or would everyone pick somethine wierd or powerful? If you would allow any alignment would they all play evil and not care if it workes as a party? For that matter would they just make the character they want and not care what the effects on a party might be?

 

[clockworkjoe]

ECL races shouldn't be feared. The levels you pay for really level it out. A 3rd level human fighter is better than a level 1 drow fighter hands down.

As for particular spells, feats, skills, etc. I'm not too worried about it. I can always create challenges that will test their powers to the limit, no matter if they're level 1 or 25.

As for evil alignments, I don't care either UNLESS a player becomes disruptive to the rest of the group. I suffer no game wrecking fools.

 

[Wormwood]

It depends if they can pass a simple test:

"Assuming your character could have a Familiar, what would he choose?"

If they would pick a Toad, then I run the game differently (and I die a little inside).

 

[N Hammer]

Do I trust my players?...

Current all my players I have known for at least 10 years...Yes I trust them unconditionaly..

If I let them pick any class and race....I'd be prepared for what ever they throw at me..

I admit that knowing my players as good as I do does make for some boring moments.

I'm all for a player I've never played with before...It adds some fun.

 

[the Jester]

Huh... well, I certainly don't expect my players to not use their abilities to best advantage, and I certainly don't fail to use my monsters' and npcs' abilities to best advantage. Things I think are unbalanced I tweak or eliminate entirely. If I opened those things up I'd get what I deserved.

As to alignment/playing something compatible with the group- well, I let almost always let pcs make whatever kind of character they want, and if they get killed off because they try to bring an evil character in to a paladin-heavy group, that's their choice. Maybe not one that I'd make, but sometimes they can make it fit anyhow.

 

[Magius del Cotto]

Well, as long as it doesn't clash with the campaign, I pretty much play "anything goes". Races, classes, feats, they just need to run it by me (pretty easy to do since I'm the one with all the books). The only rule I really have is that none of the characters can play evil characters. I don't mean grab what you can when it's there, I mean slaughter the innocent type evil. They break this simple rule, I set an appropriate deus ex machina on them.
I know this seems harsh, but I really don't like players playing evil. I mean, D&D already has a bad enough reputation around it already, right?

 

[Moe Ronalds]

t-t-trust?? M-m-my players?! HAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAhhh!!! Oh that's rich... Ah geeze my sides hurt... Ahhh... Ahhhh... TRUST! *snort**giggle* Okay, I think I've got it out of my system... heeheehee.... okay... I'm okay now... Trust... heh... ah... Okay I can breathe now...

 

[Creamsteak]

I don't trust my players at all. They love to try and abuse rules and such. I don't limit the game either. I just rely on the all-powerful DM screen. I know I can control any scenario, and I know I can do it well.

If I have a PC that has a really fugly +30 to hit on all attacks at level 1 (something I don't think is even possible by the best munchkin), I just tell the player he misses every once in a while.

Player 1: 17
Me: You hit
Player 1: 8 Damage.
DM: Insert Description here.
Player 2: 49, critical threat!
Me: You miss.
Player 2: How?
Me: (rolling noise) He managed to dodge your attack. I rolled a 20 rather than his normal AC since your confirmed to hit nomatter what, which isn't very fair to the creature, and I rolled a 20.

If I have a PC that has an instant death spell with a Will Save DC of +40 attacking creatures with no will save whatsoever...

Player 2: Save or die, DC 40
DM: (rolling noise), I pass.
Player 2: How?
Me: Natural 20

My assumption is that players should hit/miss about 10% of the time if they are a Core Fighter, about 25% if they are a mid-fighter, and 50% if they are a wizard or such. I also assume creatures fail about 50% of thier saves. My players still havn't caught on that I really don't care what they roll, and it's been 2 years.

All I'm saying, is DMs unite. Do not fear the munchkin. Do not fear Min/Maxing. Do not fear unbalanced rules. Do not fear horribly unbalanced races. Do not fear Save or Die. Do not fear anything. Quit being cowards, you have control, not the rules. You are the final word. Do not fear the game system, embrace it as a friend. Don't be afraid to kill players, and don't be afraid to let the BBEG die. Just enjoy the game for what it's worth, and play because it's fun.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Well, I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum from Creamsteak. I think that PCs and NPCs should play by the same rules. If my NPC has a quickened magic missile, he'll use it. If he doesn't he won't. I think it's a lot fairer to players that way. After all, I don't say "you hit" when the players roll a "1" on their attack rolls. Why should I just say "you miss" when players roll a "20."

Still, as to trusting players, for me it's not a matter of trust. I allow feats that I want in the game. If I don't want a feat in the game I say so and prohibit it. It's the same for alignment. I enjoy playing a game where the PCs are heros rather than scumbags. So I say "Good and neutral PCs only." It's not that I don't trust my players. Rather it's that I don't expect them to read my mind when I'm thinking "I won't prohibit toad familiars or the Miser with Magic feat but they're really too powerful and I don't want anyone taking them."

Well, that and I tell them up front that the game scales to their power level. If the players want to make horribly min-maxed characters, they'll face horribly min-maxed foes. (And my players have never wanted to go up against orcish ranger/barbarians dual wielding greatswords and armor spikes or fiendish half black dragon trolls

 

[Creamsteak]

Ick on scaling campaigns. If my players make it to epic levels ever, I don't want new more powerful creatures to come down. I want them to have to work for much longer (like years OOC) to level up.

For instance, if the Tarrasque and Great Wyrm dragons are about the most powerful creatures in my setting, save for gods and such, then players are just going to have to settle down once they are Mordenkainen powerful. They are just going to have to settle minor disputes, keep general order on an epic scale, and wait for that next super-baddy to come along...

Also, from viewers experience, scaling doesn't work if you like to vary encounters based on planing and enemy experience/intelligence.

And don't concieve that I don't use the rules, but I do cancel out overly powerful characters by simply setting them up against stronger/luckier enemies just enough that the game is evened out, but I don't change the rules for the creatures.

For instance, idiot bakemono goblin swarm fight. The wizards and clerics are all about equally challenged by the enemy with thier different skills, but if the Half-Dragon Ogre Barbarian with a 30 strength is untouchable and always kills, every now and then I'll let a kobold life, or dodge. The logic being that the encounter should not depend on the Barbarian killing everything without being challenged. I just get "lucky" enough to make sure he's sweating just as much as the rest of 'um.