Excerpt: You and Your Magic Items

[Cadfan]

I keep repeating it because it's a problem. Its not something you should like. The DM has to have control over what is allowed in their campaign. Period. They can listen to player suggestions and think it over, but the players should not ever expect to get their way all the time, like it seems the PHB is being written for 4th edition. Every article and excerpt I've read about the phb keeps pointing to player entitlement and it's bullcrap. I don't want my campaigns ruined and I'm sick of the rulebooks making me out to be the villain.

The reason no one is agreeing with you even though you think you are making good arguments is because they are reading between the lines of what you write.

Frankly, you seem to view the world through a very crabbed lens. You describe in your posts a situation where you, the DM, has put sweat, blood and tears into creating a campaign. And then along come these players, these snot nosed players, and insist that they are entitled to things that you did not include in your campaign. Soon, a personality conflict ensues, which could have been avoided had only the rulebook more clearly spelled out your authority.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are experienced players and dungeon masters, and we've rarely encountered this problem. In general, if a dungeon master makes a restriction, players accept it. If the restriction turns out later to have been pointless or to have unbalancing effects, the players will lose confidence in the DM. A good DM avoids that problem by not making pointless or unbalancing restrictions. Its a path that many of us have tread, and not found to be a particularly difficult course.

Ever had a conversation with a guy who insists that all women want to date "bad boy" types, and they all ignore "nice guys" like him? And in the course of the conversation, it becomes clear that he's really, deeply resentful about this, and harbors an awful lot of ill will towards women in general? I've had that conversation, and I can tell you that you start to think that maybe the problem isn't that women don't recognize his "nice guy" attributes, but rather that he hasn't got "nice guy" attributes. That maybe what he interprets as women failing to appreciate his nice guy nature is more women fleeing from his bitterness.

That's what you're encountering in this thread. You seem to harbor an awful lot of ill will towards your players. You seem to denigrate them, and attribute to them a sense of entitlement while simultaneously displaying the same sense of entitlement. People are picking up on this in your posts, and reacting to you accordingly.

 

[Cadfan]

If the DM says the players can not play elves: no elf PCs.

Sort of agree. If the DM says "no elf PCs," then no elf PCs. But if, during the course of the game, it becomes apparent that there was no actual reason for why the DM said "no elf PCs," then the players have every right to conclude that the DM sucks.

 

[hong]

Of course, opinions can vary as to what constitutes a valid reason for "no elf PCs". Me, I'd say that "because elves suck" is a valid reason.

Just as I'm banning halflings, because they suck.

 

[drothgery]

It's not about whether or not you can run it in 4th edition, it's the wording in the PHB and the articles I've read. They're creating a sense of D&D, is by default a magic rich setting where players get all the magic items they want for all their slots and if they have the gold, they can buy it.

You do realize that this was definitely the case in 3e and 3.5e, and was a very common mode of play in 1e and 2e as well (because, well, there are magic item prices and treasure tables in the rulebooks), right?

 

[eleran]

I keep repeating it because it's a problem. Its not something you should like. The DM has to have control over what is allowed in their campaign. Period. They can listen to player suggestions and think it over, but the players should not ever expect to get their way all the time, like it seems the PHB is being written for 4th edition. Every article and excerpt I've read about the phb keeps pointing to player entitlement and it's bullcrap. I don't want my campaigns ruined and I'm sick of the rulebooks making me out to be the villain.

It just makes perfect sense to me for a game to be designed middle of the road. That way it offense the least amount of players and dm's. Magic rich is not middle of the road. WotC made a mistake with how they're wording campaign effecting aspects of the game in the PHB. Stuff like that should have been left in the DMG period and each broad style given at least a blurb.

Edit : I've gotta go run some errands, but I'm not arguing about whether or not 4th edition can handle different styles of campaigns. What I am arguing against and criticizing is the tone with which the writers have written the rules in the book. The rules are fine. Easily modded and well thought out for the most part. My issues, again, is how they're written.

But repeating it does not make it true.

My opinion, not that that counts with you, is that they have made a middle of the road write up of the rules. You fail to see that because you think your way is the middle of the road, when it actually is one side of the road.

Also, constantly banging your head against the forums about how miswritten the rules are is not going to change how they are written 3 weeks before the books hit shelves.

 

[Delgar]

Of course, opinions can vary as to what constitutes a valid reason for "no elf PCs". Me, I'd say that "because elves suck" is a valid reason.

Just as I'm banning halflings, because they suck.

Hong have you created a race of War Kittens for your campaign yet?

 

[D'karr]

Also, constantly banging your head against the forums about how miswritten the rules are is not going to change how they are written 3 weeks before the books hit shelves.

Personally I kind of appreciate that...

 

[Duelpersonality]

Guy can't take a night off around here...

What I like the most about this is the ability to drop magic items out of the game entirely. I know it's "not D&D," but it could be fun. I'm planning on running a couple of games strictly by RAW, then running a game like this to see how it plays.

I also like the reduced amount of "needed" items, though my players tended to ignore those anyway in favor of Rings of Sustenance and Heward's Handy Haversacks. Come to think of it, any ideas on what said rings may bring to the table in 4e? My first thought is that they don't really need much change (2 hours of rest and no food or water required), but that some kind of nifty utility power could be built into them.

 

[Cadfan]

Of course, opinions can vary as to what constitutes a valid reason for "no elf PCs". Me, I'd say that "because elves suck" is a valid reason.

Just as I'm banning halflings, because they suck.

"Valid" means "a reason that your players accept."

Its a social matter, and therefore fluid and organic.

 

[D'karr]

"Valid" means "a reason that your players accept."

Its a social matter, and therefore fluid and organic.

I wouldn't particularly use those words around Hong...