Dragon magazine is considered official!

[d4]

I've yet to meet a player that didn't spend an hour or so each week at least tinkering with the character concept.

[raises hand] here's one.

i admit i rarely think about my character outside of game-time. if i leveled up last session, it takes me all of five minutes or so to do the work, and then i forget about it until next session.

i'll also admit that i'm not proud of the fact that i spend so little time thinking about the game i'm playing in, but there you go.

 

[Sam Witt]

[raises hand] here's one.

i admit i rarely think about my character outside of game-time. if i leveled up last session, it takes me all of five minutes or so to do the work, and then i forget about it until next session.

i'll also admit that i'm not proud of the fact that i spend so little time thinking about the game i'm playing in, but there you go.

::hastily scrawls some notes in his datapad of gaming::

Not even an hour a week? 10 minutes a day you don't think about your character? For shame, d4, for shame!

Just kidding.

 

[maddman75]

Hours coming up with different strategies? I've personally NEVER seen that. I'd be floored if one of my players even leveled a character out of game. Most of my players spend *0* prep time on the game. Most buy nothing other than the PHB. If that.

These guys would hate me - I'd see this as metagaming. Metagaming really bothers me, the point is to escape into a fantasy world. That kills it if you know that monster X is vulnerable to Y because you have the MM memorized. And if you announce that fact, I'm liable to make him vulnerable to Z instead. And double his hit points.

If my players were different and did this kind of thing, maybe I'd have a different perspective. But from my experience, the DM does the work and therefore calls the shots. The players however, don't have to play. It's the player's responsibility to work within the DM's world. It's the DM's responsibility to ensure that everyone is having fun and work your concepts into the world. It's a two way street.

 

[ryard]

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"?

YES! Thank you Jeebus. Someone gets it. I talk about group consensus...someone tells me I'm playing the wrong way and that I can't possibly be having any fun or imagination.

 

[ryard]

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.

Oh. I didn't realize I was speaking with the arbitrer of all reality. I had no idea that things could ONLY BE DONE YOUR WAY. I like to do things a different way. See, we call that "variety." I assume you've heard of it, but don't understand what it means.

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

Oh, so you'll just toss someone out because you don't like the way they play. We choose to come to a consensus and work together. Aren't we the spoiled ones.

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.

No, it implies that he makes mistakes. Jesus. I wish my sponge like memory could absorb the intricacies of thousands of pages and rules. I'd rather have a DM who worked with the players than against them. Sounds argumentative to me.

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

I don't like hypocrites telling me I'm doing something wrong by not playing the game by their rules.

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

You get what you pay for. If you feel the need to be condescending, don't be shocked when it turns around.

 

[ryard]

You really make it sound like you guys barely value your DM at all. If you think players do as much work as DMs, then you have never run a game.

Also, if your policy is that everyone is equal, who makes rules decisions? It must be a concensus, I suppose. Those gaming sessions must be anarchy. Truly I would loathe to DM for such a group.

buzzard

And I'd laugh in the face of any DM that tried to set himself up as God. Simple as that. Why would you assume the games are anarchy? If they were, would I be defending myself and my friends so much? Seriously...why would you say that? I've known my regular DM for over 20 years. I value him a heck of a lot more than just as my DM. And, since we don't play the way you insist we should play, I'm not appreciative of him? Seriously...why would you say that? And I refer you to Mr. Witt's post from earlier about player and DM prep. I think what you mean to say is, "If you think that players do as much work as I believe DMs should work, you have never run a game under my terms." That makes more sense.

 

[ryard]

You say that your DM makes mistakes, so you built in all kinds of redundant checks and limitations. And then you say that it's not an issue of trust. You haven't addressed my statement that you have multiple contradictory statements; I even pointed several of them out to you.

Also, it's my firm belief that my kids will be better students if they learn to do their homework themselves and not count on me going back and checking it for them, but you probably didn't really want to talk about that, did you?

Sunshine, we can talk about that all you want, because I'm an English teacher and would move heaven and earth if I could get more parents involved in their kids' learning. And you didn't answer MY question, that would checking, say, your third grader's math homework be a violation of trust. Apparently, from your snappy reply, yes.

"All kinds of redundant checks and limitations." Like...hmm...the rules? That's the only redundant check and limitation I see here. Pray point out the others.

What multiple contradictory statements? I'm sorry, I must have missed that. I'm plowing through a lot here...

 

[ryard]

No, it's not shocking. I, for one (and certainly a few others) believe in that concept, and do agree with your premise. I, for one, only allow books that I (as DM) own.

But, as Joshua notes above, the point that came out from this thread and a thread over at WotC shows that there *isn't* a consensus in your group (again, Joshua's post above is a good indicator on how the discussion went) about what rules to use. Greymarch seemed to be quite surprised (and, based on his posts over on the WotC boards, even a little perplexed) by the answer he received that Dragon was "official" (again, a definition not yet defined).

Oh oh oh. I just saw the "contradictory" posts. I missed those earlier. His timeline is a little messed up, so here goes. I have found things in Dragon that I wanted to use. I have third party books where there are a couple of things to use. The CONSENSUS of the party was, naw, better not. It'll complicate to many things and open up doors we didn't want to deal with. So, we go by the WOTC materials. WOTC opens the door that says Dragon IS official D&D materials, so now Dragon is in. Grey posts that. Grey gets a lot of crap thrown in his direction that ALSO drags his party in ("sounds like Grey's group are blah blah blah and some such"). I log in to say, "no, don't paint the ENTIRE party like that, but here is our justification" and immediately, I'm labeled and attacked. "ryard isn't listening..." That on the basis of ONE post (which, to be fair, Joshua retracted). But then the insults kept coming.

(Of course, there is also a bit of confusion on the boards here, because it seems that everyone taking part in this particular thread has never seen anyone limit what books the DM can use - so yeah, for us it does seem somewhat hard to believe. I'm afraid you just might have to accept our disbelief... it is quite a strange concept for all of us.)

Well, that's one thing. I can understand that. But why the hell is AVOIDING 3rd party stuff so egregious? Why the hell does my group no longer have fun and has no imagination? That's mind-numbingly insulting.

No, he didn't... and thus another point of confusion. Dragon is not Wizards-produced material - it is Paizo-produced material. Only *some* of the articles inside Dragon are from WotC employees (writing on WotC company time, thus being Wizards-produced material) - most of the magazine is, in fact, from 3rd party authors and freelancers. So, by your somewhat vague definition, only *part* of Dragon is official.

No, I think you're reading something wrong. According to the information from WOTC, the information Greymarch reported (to immediate catcalls) Dragon is "official," by WOTC standards, which opened the door for Greymarch to accept it.

 

[ryard]

I'm with you as far as *character* abilities go. If you want to house-rule a spell, hey that's cool. Just let me know ahead of time. Players should know what their characters can do.

But that does not apply to the DM. I can't imagine tying his hands so that any new rules have to be approved by the players given the modular nature of 3e. What if my new villians are a group from a foriegn land with exotic fighting techniques (expressed as a feat chain or PrC)? Is that fair game? What if instead of making it up I snag it from a Mongoose book or something?

Ok, I'm not sure where this whole tying the DM's hands came from...you're not the first to mention it. Like many other things, someone made a ridiculous assumption and it got repeated as truth here. The only thing tying the DM's hands is the RULES. If the DM finds an interesting little item in some Forgotten Realms accessory, super. If he finds an interesting little item in some sourcebook nobody's heard of, that's not acceptable in our group.

Yeah, I'm human. And if I make mistakes I'll make it up to you somehow. These references to the ELH are irrelevent. I don't play that crazy verison, just regular D&D .

Many's the day I wonder if Epic is a little TOO crazy...

I can't believe this is a true statement. How many hours a week to you work on things for your game as a player? I might spend an hour recopying my sheet, or fleshing out some background, or looking up some abilities. Maybe. Most times, the player just shows up with his dice and games. The DM on the other hand spends hours of his free time constructing an adventure, working on NPCs, planning out his plot arc, contemplating rules issues, and more often than not works on player/player conflicts.

I believe the average for a DM is one hour of prep for every hour of play. Even if you run modules, you need to read through them, make notes, and tweak it to your preferences. I even find modules more time consuming than doing it from scratch. Are you honestly claiming that you spend this much time getting ready for a game?

Great googly moogly. Cold day in hell before I expect my DM to put six-seven hours a week in preparing an adventure, then playing six-seven hours...I won't make a snappish comment about getting a life but...damn, there is some good TV out there to watch, too. I suggest Gilmore Girls, personally.

But seriously, no...we don't slave over our campaigns, and trust me when I tell you that Grey reads more than the regular DM does each week of materials. And yet, we still have a fully realized world and lots of fun...and six or seven extra hours a week to watch Gilmore Girls. I just think that Lauren Graham is hot, ok?

And I'm not trying to say that my way is the right one, and others are wrong. I'm just having a discussion, trying to figure out where graymarch and ryard are coming from.

And I appreciate that, and I've said over and over again where I'm coming from, but to dare to be...DIFFERENT is somehow frowned upon here. I'll remember that.

 

[ryard]

Yes and no; while I find the idea extremely strange that the group would come to the DM and say "you can't use such and such book, and you can use such and such book" I do very much believe in the collaborative nature of the process.

See, now I think we're getting somewhere...and here's the final piece...once again, you're assuming there's some sort of antagonism between the DM and the players...that there's a separation between the DM and the Group. That the Group goes to the DM and tells the way it is. Is it hard to believe that the DM is PART of the group? That the DM actually...gasps...agrees with it? Maybe even is part of the faction that is adamant about sticking with the rules?