Dragon magazine is considered official!

[ryard]

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.

No, I'm just floored that people here can't see that maybe, just maybe, there's a group of people that can come to a consensus about the rules they choose to use. And apparantly, that's shocking. Disgusting. Unimaginative. Old school. Not fun. And therefore, wrong. And somehow, it's turned into not trusting the DM. So, basic logic here...
IF making sure a specific set of rules are followed by all participants = not trusting the DM,
THEN allowing the DM carte blanche = blind allegiance to the DM.

I'm just using the logical steps with which I'm provided.

 

[maddman75]

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.

That's pretty unthinkable to our groups. The characters belong to the DM in a manner of speaking. They rarely, if ever, migrate from one campaign to another. When someone DMs, they do it pretty long term. If you rotate duties every few weeks then I could see where having a standard base is a good idea. Every time we've tried something like this, it ends in disaster. In general, a new DM means everyone makes new characters.

And don't get the idea that it's DM vs players. Not at all. Just that the players trust the DM to make a fun story, and if he has to bend or even break the rules to do so, no big deal.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

We simply don't care as much about the rules, I'd guess. I'm having a hard time figgering out exactly what kind of game you play, but it sounds very much like a wargame rather than a roleplaying game. If so, that would explain a lot. If you're not working against your DM, why are you so concerned about limiting the rules placed on him? Because you think he'll make a mistake?

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.

Don't be pedantic. Of course you never said the exact words "it's a matter of trust." You said you are concerned about DM mistakes being a big issue. Despite the fact that you didn't ever use the words "a matter of trust" that's exactly what that is. Trust isn't just trusting the DM not to cheat, it's also trusting him to run a good game and interpret the rules in a way that is fair and fun for all involved.

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.

Just curious -- do either you or greymarch actually DM?

 

[ryard]

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.

Well, we don't play in a world where the DM's whims change the fundamentals of the game for the rest of us. Why should we even play then? But anyway, what's with this "wargamey" assumption. As someone pointed out, even just using core Epic rules can be a nightmare, with the complexities. Try running a straightforward combat with 10 or more 30th level participants. If I hit a creature for 400 points of damage (utterly possible) then the DM should know how I reached that number. So I'll explain it. And if he tells me I take 350 points of damage, I need to know how that was calculated. Does my DR kick in? Is that one hit or four blows? There are dozens of little details when you're talking epic characters. A "simple" combat takes about an hour.

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.

Take it easy on you coming back? So I just wasted an hour here watching everyone else play, and I could have asked when the guy activated his Displacement cloak, since he got five hits on me in the first round and killed me. But no, the DM jealously guarded his secrets.
I'll take actually PLAYING a game to flashy descriptions any day of the week.

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.

I do accept that the DM and the player are equals. Not because of some lack of trust as you want to imply, but because the players put in as much time, money, and effort into the game as the DM does. So his opinion is equal. He also makes mistakes that he doesn't realize he makes as he decideds the direction of the campaign and its long term goals, WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RULES.

 

[Desdichado]

No, I'm just floored that people here can't see that maybe, just maybe, there's a group of people that can come to a consensus about the rules they choose to use. And apparantly, that's shocking. Disgusting. Unimaginative. Old school. Not fun. And therefore, wrong. And somehow, it's turned into not trusting the DM. So, basic logic here...
IF making sure a specific set of rules are followed by all participants = not trusting the DM,
THEN allowing the DM carte blanche = blind allegiance to the DM.

I'm just using the logical steps with which I'm provided.

Uh, isn't that the whole point of the thread, that you don't have good consensus about what rules to use? Those logical steps you're outlining are missing a lot of the conversation that actually happened on the thread. I'd call it something more like this:

• greymarch tells us all to spread the word that Dragon is now official and we're all free to use it.
• A lot of people ask why we should care.
• greymarch responds that official rules are better than other rules, having (and this is incorrect anyway) more oversight or playtesting or some other nebulous quality that elevates them above other rules.
• A lot of responses come back saying that official rules are not better than unofficial rules for the most part, and the PHB "officially" also states that what the DM says is a go for the campaign is what is official anyhow.
• You show up and make a lot of contradictory statements, like that you want broader allowances of rules in your game than the rest of the group is willing to accept, and that anyone who lets the DM decide what rules apply is a mindless zombie, and that everyone in your group has agreed to these rules (even though half of you disagree with the rules allowed.)
• In general, greymarch came and made a somewhat inane starting post to this thread that got a bunch of "what the heck are you talking about" posts, and then you show up and confuse things even more by making directly contradictory statements and insulting everyone who doesn't agree with your position, whatever the heck it actually is.

 

[ryard]

We simply don't care as much about the rules, I'd guess. I'm having a hard time figgering out exactly what kind of game you play, but it sounds very much like a wargame rather than a roleplaying game. If so, that would explain a lot. If you're not working against your DM, why are you so concerned about limiting the rules placed on him? Because you think he'll make a mistake?

So....rules and consistency = wargame. Well, that clears it up. My bad. Guess we play wargames.

Don't be pedantic. Of course you never said the exact words "it's a matter of trust." You said you are concerned about DM mistakes being a big issue. Despite the fact that you didn't ever use the words "a matter of trust" that's exactly what that is. Trust isn't just trusting the DM not to cheat, it's also trusting him to run a good game and interpret the rules in a way that is fair and fun for all involved.

I said that the DM MAKES mistakes. And when making mistakes equals a 500 hit point blow, uh, yeah, forgive me for wanting to avoid those mistakes. Wow. So, if you double check your child's homework, it's because you don't trust him. Gotcha. Or maybe, hey! Maybe you just want to HELP your kid (read as DM) to BE the best student (read as DM) he can be. Sorry I had to annotate, but I'm being pendantic.

Just curious -- do either you or greymarch actually DM?

Yes.

 

[Wombat]

Intriguing.

We seem to have folks trying on both sides to say there is One True Way to run rpgs.

In the end, isn't it all a matter of "whatever the group agrees to"?

I, as a GM, make up a lot of monsters, mainly one-shots, that never appear in the MM or even necessarily using their rules for creation. I do a "what feels right for the campaign" style. Other groups only allow published monsters. Is one way right and the other wrong? Nope. Both are correct for the specific gaming environment.

RPGs are not about hard-and-fast-rules-that-apply-from-gameworld-to-gameworld; they are about the interaction between particular players and particular GMs in particular settings. I don't have Monks in my game world -- cool. One of my players ran a short-run campaign where he allowed Monks -- also cool.

The point is that neither side will ever convince the other that My Way Is Right, Your Way Is Wrong.

Accept what is good for your game, "official" or not.

But don't try to tell anyone else that there is One True Way to play rpgs.

 

[CSB046]

Ryard or Greymarch,

I'm wondering about something mentioned (I believe) earlier in this thread, as well as in one of the threads on the WotC boards: Kingdoms of Kalamar is a third-party setting, but it carries the official stamp of approval from WotC, even to the point that certain KoK books have been delayed because they were awaiting WotC approval.

So how does your group handle the discrepencies between KoK and other official settings? Forgotten Realms has the drow, who have an ECL higher than 0 (don't have my books in front of me at the moment). However, KoK contains a race just called dark elves, which have an ECL of 0 and are essentially a "dumbed down" version of the drow. If you had one player wanting to play a drow, and one a KoK dark elf, how would your group handle the differences? Would both be allowed because they're both official, even though this would seem a bit confusing from a consistency standpoint?

And would or does your group allow the additional core classes given in the KoK player's guide (such as the gladiator, Basiran dancer, and shaman)? Again, they're not WotC material, but they are officially approved.

I know this isn't exactly a major issue, but I'm really very curious about how these decisions are made in your group, and KoK seemed like a good example to use.

 

[buzzard]

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

However this whole discussion is about allowing dragon, since it is "official". In terms of volume it is probably far worse than any other source. If you want to avoid complication you would be best served by avoiding a monthly periodical which doesn't have an index.

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.

OK, you and the reality of other game groups are not acquainted. I believe that is a valid conclusion based on your attacks on the rest of us. A DM springing something new on players does not have to be to screw them. There is this odd concept called variety. It is sometimes supported by the obtuse situation called surprise. I get the impression that you are not familliar with either.

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.

Umm, yes. However, if you object to "y"'s interpretation, don't let him DM. Boy, that's hard.

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.

Snobbish? You are limiting the scope of what your DM can use based on your expecting him to make mistakes. That is the gist of your argument. If he is making a mistake, that implies he is not adjudicating the rules properly. If you understood what I said (and you said), then it could not be taken as snobbish. However, you appear to be inherently argumentative.

Certainly a DM can make mistakes. However, you (take as gaming group) assume that your DM will be incapable of adding in complexity without making an inordinate amount of mistakes.

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.

If this is the case, that you would like to use third party sources, what are your arguing about?

Gee, that might complicate matters. Who knows, a DM might spring something on you. Lions and tiger and bears, Oh My!

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

If you are so oblivious to the obnoxious quality of your initial statement, then I am in awe of your obliviousness.

buzzard

 

[Desdichado]

Intriguing.

We seem to have folks trying on both sides to say there is One True Way to run rpgs.

I'm not sure that that's true, but maybe I'm too close to the argument to see. I certainly don't see anyone telling ryard or greymarch that they should use third party stuff, or that they shouldn't use Dragon Magazine, or any variation on that theme. Rather, they've told us that we should consider Dragon to be official and treat it as such, and when asking why we should care, we got presented with a situation that makes little sense.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter if the way ryard or greymarch or anyone else plays the game, but if we can't even discuss it the logic behind their game decisions, then what's the point of making the post? Or for that matter, even having a message board dedicated to D&D?