Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 5532149" data-attributes="member: 12460">I'm not advocating a complete lack of transparency. In fact, Gary in those articles often described how he explained his actions to the players and they had to shrug and say "yea that was too powerful, so let's get on with the game." I don't think that just because you give an item to a player that it becomes the player's inviolate property though. It's still my game, and if it disrupts game balance, I will find a way to remove it. Guidelines for doing so have been in every version of the DMG to date for this very reason.Now when these (rare) situations do come up, I won't beat around the bush with the player. I'll take the item away via some means and then explain why I did so, often tossing in an extra piece of treasure specifically with this player in mind to help make up for the loss. I don't tend to balance my games according to the player wealth guidelines in the DMG though. But I'm an experienced enough DM to know that certain challenges aren't going to be appropriate without certain wealth expectations. I tailor my challenges to what I know the group can handle and I think I do a pretty good job of it. Character death is a rare event in my campaigns and usually because the player did something he knew would result in the death of his character ahead of time.Now when it comes to things like feats and classes, I am very flexible with those things. I always require anything outside the core rules (read: Player's Handbook) be approved ahead of time. But even if I do approve it, sometimes I see it in play and feel it crosses a line. It is for this reason that I allow PCs to retrain abilities, even whole class levels at times, and I'm even more flexible than the 3.5 PH2 is. They can retrain at any time as long as they take a couple weeks of downtime. And since there is generally about two weeks of downtime between each adventure, PCs are never at a loss for time to retrain.Ultimately I think a player needs to be mature enough to realize when something is unbalancing the game and be willing to accept the DM's judgment. If you quit a game because a DM takes away an item that he gave you as treasure in the first place, that's kind of like spitting in his face. The situation you describe [MENTION=44797]aboyd[/MENTION] sounds pretty unfortunate. Of course I'm sure if you were to ask the DM he would see things a different way. Either way, I don't think what you describe is what I or Gary in his articles are advocating. DMs have to have control of their games. Sometimes that means taking things out of the game. I'm always willing to give something a fair shake and I don't change rules in the middle of the game session. But I will change things from time to time as my campaign evolves and I am not afraid to remove a disruptive item or ability from the game. Its only fair to offer something in return, but a mature player will see it as an opportunity for a new plot or adventure, not a reason to stomp away from the game angry. It is just a game after all. And I think too many players forget that these days.</blockquote>

Verification