Dragon magazine is considered official!

[Zappo]

I think I am with the hippies and free-love ... first of all, IMC anything that's good for NPCs is good for PCs too. There may be many reasons preventing a particular PC from becoming the latest necromancer type, such as campaign style considerations, lack of a teacher, whatever, but they won't be just "because he's a PC".

This means that I can neatly divide the world in "stuff that players can use" (feats, PrCs, skills, spells, items) and "stuff that players can't use" (monsters, mainly).

I allow any feat, PrC, etc that a player can pull out of any supplement, if I deem it 1) balanced, and 2) appropriate to the current campaign. The first reason is pretty obvious, the second one... well, to me it's even more obvious, but maybe some people view it as a limitation to the player's "freedom" or "imagination". Personally, when I read about Vampire: the Masquerade campaigns where a character invented a discipline specifically to control the weapon systems of his space station, to better fight the alien cybernetic vampires... euh... let's just say that I view the selection process as a way to channel imagination, rather than limiting it.

For stuff that I use as a DM - I make up stuff very often, and why not? The characters don't know everything about their world, and even if they did, wizards and gods come up with weird creations continuously. I can't see in any way how coming up with a new monster or whatever can be considered unfair to the players.

 

[Sam Witt]

There are some pretty legitimate reason for players to have input into how the DM runs a game, especially if the players are like some of the ones I've had in the past that spend hours each week working out new tactics for their characters and seeking ways to optimize them in specific situations. There's nothing wrong with this behavior and, in fact, it's encouraged by the very nature of d20, which rewards thinking down the road for your character and using some fairly obtuse methods to make a character 'optimal.'

The kinds of players that look at d20 in this way, want the world their character inhabits to make sense, to follow the nature of the world as it is presented in the rules set they have agreed to use. When the GM begins randomly jacking with the rules set to fit the needs of a storyline, it sends a message to the players: "Your hard work and knowledge of the system is secondary to the needs of my adventure."

Which, you know, frustrating as hell for some players. Within reason, if an NPC can do something, there should be some way for a PC to at least attempt to do the same thing. Otherwise, you end up with the Elminster syndrome, where NPCs have sekrit powers and get all the hot elf chicks. Which, for the players, sucks so mightily they might as well stay home and read the transcripts of your NPCs smashing up the world instead of investing the time and intellectual energy in a fruitless exercise.

The rules exist as an interface between players and the game world and between DMs and the game world. When the players are locked into interacting with the world in adherence to the rules, and the DM is not, the players have received the shaft. They can no longer plan tactics or devise strategies, because there's a significant chance that the DM will respond with, "But you see, THIS ogre, he is special and your plan will not work because blah blah blah."

Which is why I have met numerous players who simply will not abide a DM who does not stick to the rules as they are understood by the group. Otherwise, they risk invalidation of the work they do on their characters.

Anyway, just my $.02-

Sam

ps. I don't honestly believe that the average DM puts in significantly more time than their players when it comes to the game. I have met far, far too many players who spend hours and hours each week doing work for the campaign to believe this is anything but arrogance.

 

[ST]

ps. I don't honestly believe that the average DM puts in significantly more time than their players when it comes to the game. I have met far, far too many players who spend hours and hours each week doing work for the campaign to believe this is anything but arrogance.

Well, all our evidence is only anecdotal -- there's no official surveys on this. But my experience is that the only time a player puts more than an hour of out-of-game time into a d&d game is when leveling up, and DMs always end up spending several hours of prep. Heck, some of us consider ourselves lucky when the players just remembered to bring their character sheets.

Your experience may be different, but my personal belief is that's how the majority of games go.

 

[Desdichado]

Note: I don't believe introducing a monster/feat/prestige class/etc. that the players aren't yet familiar with is "randomly jacking with the rules" by any means.

 

[Psion]

My experience is with STs. Some "character developer" types lavish attention on their characters between games, but that is only on of many player archetypes. I seriously doubt that the average player spends more time or money in game prep than the average DM.

 

[Tsyr]

I do think Greymarch has made this clear...Wizards-produced material.

Except, of course, that Dragon is not Wizards-produced material, so using it would be in violation of his own policy in that case.

Dragon is published by Pazio Publishing, not Wizards.
Outside writers contribute articles to the magazine.
Wizards stamps a vauge and meaningless "official" sticker on it.

 

[Sam Witt]

My experience is with STs. Some "character developer" types lavish attention on their characters between games, but that is only on of many player archetypes. I seriously doubt that the average player spends more time or money in game prep than the average DM.

I guess I should have pointed out what I based my opinion on - I could be entirely wrong about this, but here's what I've seen over the past 20ish years.

About half the DMs I've talked to on a personal level winged their games entirely. Their games were cool, but fluky - dramatically appropriate stuff worked, sometimes for no logical reason, while perfectly logical plans could fail due to scripting. These guys spent virtually no time on prep, maybe an hour or two a week just keeping their world in order. The worlds, by the way, were almost entirely built incrementally as the campaign progressed.

About 25% of the DMs ran modules exclusively. Their total prep time was probably about an hour a week, mainly with a highlighter to remind themselves to change place names where necessary.

Maybe 20% of the DMs ran structured games using all the rules and original adventures, using an existing world (either their own developed incrementally over years or a published world) that they sort of tinkered with on occassion. They had a pretty high prep time, I guess about five to ten hours a week.

The last 5% of DMs did no prep and ran modules straight out of the package with no pre-read and no care about how they fit together.

I've yet to meet a player that didn't spend an hour or so each week at least tinkering with the character concept. d20 has really amped up the options for characters, which has probably increased this time by a couple of hours, especially amongst those who purchase games regularly. In the age of character web-pages, experience point for journals, and other player-invested activities, the prep time could be considerably more.

From my experience, the d20 industry specifically caters to 'character engineers' those who like tons of options and like to play with them. There is a reason why the vast majority of books are player-friendly first, and DM-friendly second.

Anyway, everyone has their own experiences, just thought I'd share mine -

Sam

 

[d4]

They can no longer plan tactics or devise strategies, because there's a significant chance that the DM will respond with, "But you see, THIS ogre, he is special and your plan will not work because blah blah blah."

sure, if the DM is doing this for every monster and encounter, it can sure get annoying.

but if it's only once in a while, it can be a lot of fun. there should be things out there that the players and their characters don't know about. "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." it can get boring if the DM is only allowed to use things of which the players already have substantial knowledge.

 

[Aeolius]

I seriously doubt that the average player spends more time or money in game prep than the average DM.

I would bet cash money on that (granted, as my game is set underwater, I pay out in clams). I have nearly every hardback rulebook and splatbook WotC had produced for 3e. On top of that, I research any seafaring supplement that comes out, looking over its potential for use in an undersea campaign. I purchase quite a few of them. I expect only for my players to purchase the Players Handbook and whatever books contain the appropriate rules for their character (a triton PC might want Savage Species, Monster Manual, and a splatbook). My game is run online via message-board. Guess who pays for the web space, URL, web-design software, etc?

My game is set beneath the surface of the sea. I do not expect my players to share the passion that I do, for the setting. I spend time researching various locations, animals, plants, and so on, for inspiration. I won't even mention my saltwater aquariums.

 

[Sam Witt]

but if it's only once in a while, it can be a lot of fun. there should be things out there that the players and their characters don't know about.

I am not disagreeing with this sentiment at all - I believe DMs should have freedom to do cool stuff in their games and add junk to their worlds all the time. My point was, there are some groups that have legitimate gripes with this philosophy and they are not an insignificant group.

Sam