Excerpt: You and Your Magic Items

[Aria Silverhands]

Yes, the sarcasm really helps. And there's no rolleyes smiley here. Probably because it's rude.

If Yaezukura is who I think it is, they're deserving of the sarcasm and smiley.

And I (and others, I think) are just pointing out that the vibe you're giving out in this thread is that you're just the opposite:

A DM that feels like the players are his minions, only there to perform to with whatever rules the DM wants regardless of how the players have fun playing.

So it's too much to ask for players to create characters within the guidelines of the campaign setting, which are reasonable imo, instead of creating whatever character they want regardless of what the setting is? I have had this happen: a party of five, four of whom are staying true to the guidelines for that short campaign, playing martial types in a mercenary guild and then the fifth wants to play a drow wizard from Faerun.

I'm not going to accommodate the idiots and morons that just want to play their pet class and race every single time and never vary the backstory or the dorks that want to try out the latest uber build from some charop board or the latest splatbook.

DM's who run the game they want to run regardless of what the players want to play typically find themselves without a game to run in short order.

The last few games that have died out have simply been because of unreliable and worthless players. They create a character and seem to be excited about it, even within the guidelines and then they just never show up or show up late or they get arrested. That was an interesting conversation at the game store.

I've always been a champion of "DM as final arbiter" in the game, but in my opinion, how the rules are written really shouldn't make a difference with the DM's reputation for running a fantastic game.

Ok, look at it this way... you have six games listed and they're all in timeslots that are favorable to your schedule. Four of them have specific guidelines for their settings, many of which are houserules that say "No" essentially, to various things in the PHB that already say you can do that. The other two games don't have those houserules and in fact, add some stuff to the players via new feats or multi-classing rules.

Which ones are going to look more favourable to you? As I said before, it's easier to give something back to the players than it is to take them away. Which is why the rules should have been written more middle of the road instead of magic rich.

And there are too many DMs who believe their precious snowflake setting is more important than the group's game experience

It's my campaign setting. I define the theme, the tone, the genre of the setting. I'm the one putting in hours of work into it. The players are given a set of guidelines and are free to create any character that falls within those guidelines. They're actually a rather diverse set of guidelines. I've had groups play the Witch Hunters, others played the spellcasters being hunted by the Empire or the Church. The current starting point of the campaign is actually based upon the actions of past groups, including the one where Evil took hold. The Betrayer was eventually defeated and that triggered a mass hysteria, a backlash against magic since the Betrayer used magic heavily to enslave entire kingdoms.

So yeah, when it comes to my setting... I have a specific theme to the setting. Players have an obligation to play by the guidelines so the tone of the game remains within the setting and doesn't alter it to something else. There's plenty of room for players to create their own story within the guidelines. Many have done so and a few have done so well enough to change the setting.

I've said this once already, I do not dictate character actions or their verses. I don't provide them with scripted lines. They make their own stories. Just within the scope of the campaign. Of the world their characters live in. If a player wants so badly to create their own story that runs counter to what the campaign is about... they can go run their own campaign setting instead.

Your point is invalid. You have a very pressing reason to change your viewpoint.

My point is valid. The rules are written in such a way that dm's wishing to create a campaign setting with magic that is more rare and "mysterious" are forced to write out a list of house rules that essentially say No to the players in many ways. This becomes even worse if they want to create a no-magic setting.

The rules are written as Yes - No - NO, whereas I feel they should have been written as Yes, - Yes - No. Again, my point is valid. It's a concern I have and it's my criticism of the excerpts as they have been presented to me. Therefore I do not have any reason to change my viewpoint.

 

[FireLance]

Ok, look at it this way... you have six games listed and they're all in timeslots that are favorable to your schedule. Four of them have specific guidelines for their settings, many of which are houserules that say "No" essentially, to various things in the PHB that already say you can do that. The other two games don't have those houserules and in fact, add some stuff to the players via new feats or multi-classing rules.

Which ones are going to look more favourable to you? As I said before, it's easier to give something back to the players than it is to take them away. Which is why the rules should have been written more middle of the road instead of magic rich.

And how is making the middle of the road option the default going to address this? DMs that want to run more permissive games will still run them, and players that gravitate to more permissive games will still gravitate to those games. Of your theoretical six games, then, you would have two that say "No", two that run according to the recommended default level of permissiveness, and two that give the players more flexibility and options that the standard. I don't see the players opinions of which game they would prefer changing based on which option is stated as the default.

 

[Jhaelen]

I'm not going to accommodate the idiots and morons that just want to play their pet class and race every single time and never vary the backstory or the dorks that want to try out the latest uber build from some charop board or the latest splatbook.
[...]
The last few games that have died out have simply been because of unreliable and worthless players.
[...]
It's my campaign setting. I define the theme, the tone, the genre of the setting. I'm the one putting in hours of work into it. The players are given a set of guidelines and are free to create any character that falls within those guidelines. They're actually a rather diverse set of guidelines. I've had groups play the Witch Hunters, others played the spellcasters being hunted by the Empire or the Church.
[...]
Players have an obligation to play by the guidelines so the tone of the game remains within the setting and doesn't alter it to something else.
[...]
They make their own stories. Just within the scope of the campaign. Of the world their characters live in. If a player wants so badly to create their own story that runs counter to what the campaign is about... they can go run their own campaign setting instead.

Do I even need to comment on this?

Look, I guess there must be some niche for games like this otherwise you'd probably never have found any players that stayed for more than one session. But I'll definitely be glad if there is nothing in the DMG to encourage this style.

I fear that calling players idiots, morons, unreliable, and worthless if they disagree with your idea of how the game should work is not going to get you more players. You are obviously totally convinved that your way is the only way. It's not so. I suspect that the majority of players would feel your guidelines to be too restrictive.

One of your first remarks here was that there was an overabundance of DMs in your area, making it difficult for you to find 'good' players. I have no idea in what area you live in but that is exactly the opposite of what I'm seeing in my area. Here, it's difficult to find a DM and even more difficult to find a good DM. Players are abundant and always searching for DMs.
Everything I'm seeing here points to a different reason for your problems with finding players. And believe me: A DMG that is written to support your view won't help you find more players in any way.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Just a tiny thing, though. The rules on "treasure parcels" and stuff are in the DMG, not the PHB. The players don't need to know what's in the DMG, so if you don't hand out magical items (or less), or hand out unique magical items that require special identification measures, they don't know you might have left the default assumptions. Unless they want to know the default assumptions and read the DMG...

And how is making the middle of the road option the default going to address this? DMs that want to run more permissive games will still run them, and players that gravitate to more permissive games will still gravitate to those games. Of your theoretical six games, then, you would have two that say "No", two that run according to the recommended default level of permissiveness, and two that give the players more flexibility and options that the standard. I don't see the players opinions of which game they would prefer changing based on which option is stated as the default.

Exactly.

A "permissive" DM will always attract players that like to have more options. It doesn't matter if the default rules are wishy-washy on default, or has some explicit default guidelines. Players will always prefer the DM that gives them what they like. Be it more options, interesting storylines, excessive combat, deep role-playing, or the best snacks...
This is a fundamental truth, and does not depend on the book.

 

[hong]

If Yaezukura is who I think it is, they're deserving of the sarcasm and smiley.


So it's too much to ask for players to create characters within the guidelines of the campaign setting, which are reasonable imo, instead of creating whatever character they want regardless of what the setting is? I have had this happen: a party of five, four of whom are staying true to the guidelines for that short campaign, playing martial types in a mercenary guild and then the fifth wants to play a drow wizard from Faerun.

I'm not going to accommodate the idiots and morons that just want to play their pet class and race every single time and never vary the backstory or the dorks that want to try out the latest uber build from some charop board or the latest splatbook.


The last few games that have died out have simply been because of unreliable and worthless players. They create a character and seem to be excited about it, even within the guidelines and then they just never show up or show up late or they get arrested. That was an interesting conversation at the game store.


Ok, look at it this way... you have six games listed and they're all in timeslots that are favorable to your schedule. Four of them have specific guidelines for their settings, many of which are houserules that say "No" essentially, to various things in the PHB that already say you can do that. The other two games don't have those houserules and in fact, add some stuff to the players via new feats or multi-classing rules.

Which ones are going to look more favourable to you? As I said before, it's easier to give something back to the players than it is to take them away. Which is why the rules should have been written more middle of the road instead of magic rich.


It's my campaign setting. I define the theme, the tone, the genre of the setting. I'm the one putting in hours of work into it. The players are given a set of guidelines and are free to create any character that falls within those guidelines. They're actually a rather diverse set of guidelines. I've had groups play the Witch Hunters, others played the spellcasters being hunted by the Empire or the Church. The current starting point of the campaign is actually based upon the actions of past groups, including the one where Evil took hold. The Betrayer was eventually defeated and that triggered a mass hysteria, a backlash against magic since the Betrayer used magic heavily to enslave entire kingdoms.

So yeah, when it comes to my setting... I have a specific theme to the setting. Players have an obligation to play by the guidelines so the tone of the game remains within the setting and doesn't alter it to something else. There's plenty of room for players to create their own story within the guidelines. Many have done so and a few have done so well enough to change the setting.

I've said this once already, I do not dictate character actions or their verses. I don't provide them with scripted lines. They make their own stories. Just within the scope of the campaign. Of the world their characters live in. If a player wants so badly to create their own story that runs counter to what the campaign is about... they can go run their own campaign setting instead.


My point is valid. The rules are written in such a way that dm's wishing to create a campaign setting with magic that is more rare and "mysterious" are forced to write out a list of house rules that essentially say No to the players in many ways. This becomes even worse if they want to create a no-magic setting.

The rules are written as Yes - No - NO, whereas I feel they should have been written as Yes, - Yes - No. Again, my point is valid. It's a concern I have and it's my criticism of the excerpts as they have been presented to me. Therefore I do not have any reason to change my viewpoint.

 

[Family]

Players will always prefer the DM that gives them what they like. Be it more options, interesting storylines, excessive combat, deep role-playing, or the best snacks...

Me, you, wavelength...we're on the same one.

 

[HerntheHunted]

I never thought of the Identifying rules as something that adds to the gaming experience.
We just never bothered to change the rules because we didn´t care.
Heck, I routinely added pearls to the loot to speed things up.
I doubt anyone in my group will shed a tear about the Indentify spell being gone.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I agree that changing the phrasing of the rules in the DMG would do little to encourage players who prefer permissive DMs to gravitate to non-permissive DMs. Most experienced DMs have their own preferred style(s) for running games. Changing how the DMG is written isn't likely to change that. All it would change is how inexperienced/ new DMs run their games and, IMO, the default that the DMG is written to sounds to me to be better suited to that than any other DMG that I've read.

That said, I really liked the article. I love how magic weapons are significantly more dynamic (granting powers in addition to bonuses, as opposed to the +x +xd6 energy damage weapons that are so pervasive in 3.x). I'm also happy that ID is gone for the majority of items, as it only rarely added anything to the game (aside from tedium).

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Mirror logic sets off the logic bomb.
Pointless as Family already won.

 

[Stormtalon]

Mirror logic sets off the logic bomb.
Pointless as Family already won.

Collateral damage is never pointless; it's where things get fun!