Dragon magazine is considered official!

[Psion]

In response to Psion's request, I'll comment.

I've been DMing D&D for less than a year, and GMed a little Star Wars before that (maybe a year's worth). I am mostly running the game because we needed somone to run it, and I have a good job and can afford supplements and such. Anyhow, because of time constraints I only run published adventures, with the occasional random encounter created by myself or from outside sources (En Route rocks). My players are mostly the kick in the door, kill the orc, disable the trap get the gold and XP type, with a wee bit of roleplaying thrown in with the purpose of making the above easier.

Okay now you have background on my campaign, here's my policy on "Official".

I typically let players use anything they can purchase off the shelves or PDF's. Why? Because they spent money. I've been burned buying stuff and never being able to use it, and I would hate to do that to someone else. Most of my players don't have full-time jobs, and buying a book is a big deal. Also they usually check with me or even ask my recommendation before buying. I do reserve the right to step in and disallow something that is blatantly overpowered.

Cool... thanks for the feedback. It sounds as if you have a healthy policy balancing the need for some stability in the rules with allowing additional resources.

 

[ST]

ryard -

Just to be clear, *I* didn't think you guys were a 'museum piece', but that's certainly how I read most of the posts taking about greymarch's viewpoint (and by extension, your whole group's). I'd only go as far as saying it's not a common playstyle around here.

But I do think you're being a bit extreme in saying that DMs who feel free to 'make things up' are freakish out-there hippies After you're familiar with a system, it is possible to make things up that are compatible with the rules and balanced as well.

I mean, if the DM can't make up new classes or races, what can he do? Is he allowed to invent new locations? or treasure? Can he 'make up' anything, as long as it uses 'official' game mechanics? Does he have to only use published adventures (which I guess need to be by Wizards, since third-party ones often include new feats and rules used by the NPCs in them)? I'm honestly curious.

 

[ryard]

So basically the problem is that you don't trust your DM to find things which are reasonable and balanced. Either that or you expect him to cheat.

Hmm, methinks the problem lies well beyond "official" vs. "non-official".

OK. If that's the assumption, let me try to address that.

No, "basically" it's a matter of free access and preparation for all. It's also an opportunity to make sure nobody makes mistakes. I can't tell you how many times we have had to stop the game to make sure everyone is using Time Stop right. When you're playing Epic games, and three or four of the creatures you're fighting all have Time Stop, Quicken Rods and spells, Multispell, Delay Spell, and free actions, and essentially the DM has to figure out fifteen or so spells and actions and timing, it's very, very easy to make a mistake. Does the item the DM using from a different source have a round limit? In an large-scale Epic battle, which can easily last an hour of real time, it's entirely possible to lose a round. And no matter HOW prepared the DM, or how diligently he is keeping track of the events, the players need to be able to double check his work, just as it should be the other way around.

Now, what's more painful? Full disclosure and understanding, or losing a character and sitting there for an hour before someone realizes the DM made a mistake? Do you go back and replay the last hour? Sucks to be you? Or, do you know that since the Displacement Cloak needs a standard action to activate, the NPC can't get his full five attacks on you?

Of course, maybe I'm making a huge assumption here that DMs make a mistake...I am starting to understand the Manson-like hold some DMS have over their group.

 

[ST]

Of course, maybe I'm making a huge assumption here that DMs make a mistake...I am starting to understand the Manson-like hold some DMS have over their group.

If I was playing in this kind of game, which sounds like a recursive rules-heavy mechanical wargame (actually it sounds like _Continuum_ for D&D), then yeah, I'd want to know every single rule in the game so that I could use them to my best advantage. In that kind of game, yes, mechanical player-knowledge of how things work is paramount.

It sounds to me like your current rules environment is much more complex than most other games, even those that use piles of 'unofficial' rules.

In any case, hopefully your post will persuade people that they should stop trying to persuade you or greymarch of anything -- your game sounds only tangentially related to what most people call "D&D", and I don't think many of our experiences would have any relevance to yours. Enjoy your game.

 

[Desdichado]

ST, that's essentially what I'm starting to feel as well. Still, it's been an interesting discussion, if nothing else.

 

[ryard]

Intriguing. I'm finding it hard to believe that you stifle imagination in your group as much as it appears from this thread, so I'd like to ask a few clarifying questions to find out if we are truly on opposite pages or if there is some broken communication going on here.

I don't understand the huge leap between playing by the rules and stifling imagination.

How many of the following situations would you consider objectionable?

1) You run into an evil enemy barbarian who has the feat Super Mighty Power Attack which works just like Power Attack but it is WAY better. PCs don't have access to this feat.

Did the DM just create a feat for the simple purpose of making an enemy tougher? That's balanced? Yeah, that's objectionable. Magic bullet villains are VERY objectionable.

2) You are battling a group of enemies and suddenly two of them swap positions on the battlefield! Later, you discover why as you identify that the two were wearing Armbands of Juxtaposition, a magic item that your DM made up that allows the wearers to switch positions with each other once per day.

Don't know what they're called, but those exist...read a write up on them somewhere recently.

3) Your DM introduces the following adventure: There is a princess who is somehow strangely immune to magic, because she was born as the moons were in alignment. The pricess is a pacifist and will not attack you or anyone. Unfortunately, she has been kidnapped by the big bad evil guy who has realized that he can drain her life essence into a magic ring that will give him SR (Spell Resistance) 5. She will unfortunately die in the process, so it's up to you and your companions to rescue her before it's too late.

Objections? Only to cliches.

 

[buzzard]

OK. If that's the assumption, let me try to address that.

No, "basically" it's a matter of free access and preparation for all. It's also an opportunity to make sure nobody makes mistakes. I can't tell you how many times we have had to stop the game to make sure everyone is using Time Stop right. When you're playing Epic games, and three or four of the creatures you're fighting all have Time Stop, Quicken Rods and spells, Multispell, Delay Spell, and free actions, and essentially the DM has to figure out fifteen or so spells and actions and timing, it's very, very easy to make a mistake. Does the item the DM using from a different source have a round limit? In an large-scale Epic battle, which can easily last an hour of real time, it's entirely possible to lose a round. And no matter HOW prepared the DM, or how diligently he is keeping track of the events, the players need to be able to double check his work, just as it should be the other way around.

Now, what's more painful? Full disclosure and understanding, or losing a character and sitting there for an hour before someone realizes the DM made a mistake? Do you go back and replay the last hour? Sucks to be you? Or, do you know that since the Displacement Cloak needs a standard action to activate, the NPC can't get his full five attacks on you?

Of course, maybe I'm making a huge assumption here that DMs make a mistake...I am starting to understand the Manson-like hold some DMS have over their group.

This has to be about the strangest argument I've seen in a while.
It would appear that because, in what ought to be quite rare circumstances, the DM might make a mistake, he has to be limited in his options to things which are familliar to the players.

I hate to break it to you, but when you are playing epic encounters like you describe, things are going to be damned complicated even if it's just core.

However, as you have stated, it is a matter of trust. It appears that you don't trust your DM to be able to adjudicate the rules properly.

Of course, and I may be wrong, your advocacy of Dragon as an official source so you can use it appears to be completely inconsistent with your justifications. A stack of Dragon magazines is a far worse problem in terms of digging up obscure rules to use on players. Then again you did mention that you subscribe, thereby having the advantage yourself.

The 'manson' sniping is rather unecessary. Just because people have DMs whom they trust, and don't expect to screw them over doesn't make them drones.

buzzard

 

[Desdichado]

ryard, I admit to being a bit confused here -- you say you're one of the ones who's been pressing for broader available rules, but at the same time you make insulting posts at those who do so, trusting their DMs to give them a fair shake. I thought I understood where you were coming from, but I'm finding myself getting more and more mystified by the entire thing the more I read.

 

[ryard]

This has to be about the strangest argument I've seen in a while.
It would appear that because, in what ought to be quite rare circumstances, the DM might make a mistake, he has to be limited in his options to things which are familliar to the players.

I hate to break it to you, but when you are playing epic encounters like you describe, things are going to be damned complicated even if it's just core.

This is very true. So why complicate things with even MORE random stuff to keep track of.

I don't understand why this discussion is strange. In our group, the DM works WITH the players. In some of the other campaigns going on the DM seems to be working AGAINST the players. What I find it strange is that some people who think there's an antagonism between player and DM in our group seem to be the same ones extolling the virtues of playing gotchas with made up items and surprises...and then hiding behind a curtain of "imagination" and "fun." Sounds to me like ours is the ONLY group that works together to play and have fun instead of in opposition.

So what the heck do these groups do if they have rotating DMs? One guy decides that "x" is ok, then two weeks later, another guy takes over, and "x" is right out..."y" is the correct interpretation.

However, as you have stated, it is a matter of trust. It appears that you don't trust your DM to be able to adjudicate the rules properly.

Wow. What a ridiculously snobbish thing to say. I don't recall ever saying it's a matter of trust...I'll have to look back and see. It's not a matter of not trusting the DM, it's a matter of being human and making mistakes. DMs are, you know. Human.

Of course, and I may be wrong, your advocacy of Dragon as an official source so you can use it appears to be completely inconsistent with your justifications. A stack of Dragon magazines is a far worse problem in terms of digging up obscure rules to use on players. Then again you did mention that you subscribe, thereby having the advantage yourself.

And you are wrong. For the third time, I've always liked to use third-party sources, but the sentiment in the group is generally that it's not worth the hassle.

The 'manson' sniping is rather unecessary. Just because people have DMs whom they trust, and don't expect to screw them over doesn't make them drones.

buzzard

Accusing me of sniping with the same breath you snipe at me? Got a black kettle for you.

 

[maddman75]

Of course, maybe I'm making a huge assumption here that DMs make a mistake...I am starting to understand the Manson-like hold some DMS have over their group.

I certainly do make mistakes - it's just that most of us (I'm assuming) don't play in nearly so wargamey a manner as you describe. Heck, I banned time stop outright - it's so broken I don't know how to fix it. And that was when I leaned pretty close to the core.

But to be honest, mistakes can be fixed. So someone's cloak takes a FRA to activate instead of a MEA. Did it cost someone a character? Then you take it easy on them coming back. It rarely will, as for me anyway the story is more important than the tactical results. Any time, for player or DM that I run into a situations where interpretation A would likely be a more strict reading of the rules while B would be more fun, I'll go with B any day of the week. I've been known to negate AoOs or even give bonuses for flashy descriptions. Style counts, man.

I do not accept that the DM and the player are equals. Not because of some demented DM worship as you seem to want to imply, but because the DM puts in an order of magnitude more time, money, and effort into the game than a player does. So his opinion counts more. He also knows things you don't about the direction of the campaign and it's long term goals.

And I'm not even a DM right now, letting others take the reins for awhile. (Well, I'm DMing a PBP but that only takes a couple minutes a day). And as a player, I take extra pains to defer to the DM for these reasons.