Is WoTC even relevant to you anymore?

[Treebore]

One thing that playing something other than 3E (Mainly C&C and L5R) has helped me "relearn" was a lesson I learned in 2E. In 2E that the best game was ran without the "splat books". I forgot that in 3E, and have relearned the lesson.

So if I ever run 3E again I won't allow or use Splat books. If I can't find players who like that, then hopefully one of them will DM and I will play.

Thats another thing I relearned. If people wnat to play, and they want me to be the DM, then they are going to play by the rules I set down. IE, what books are used, what feats are used, stat generation rules, and anything else I like.

Which in turn has all added to why WOTC, and 3E, is less relevent to me. I am not going to DM a game unless I have ultimate creative control of the game. If that means I don't DM because I can only find players who think they should be able to tell me how to run the game, then I don't DM. Which is what they are telling me when they don't want to play by my rules. They want me to run the game the way they want.

Now don't get me wrong. I am fine with input. I am fine with a player telling me they would like to do this or that. Its just that whether or not it is done is up to me, and they better be able to handle being told "no".

So, for an example, I say I'll allow 6 specific PrC's for this campaign. Then, around 7th level a player comes up to me and says, "How about this PrC?" If I can add it, and not have everyone else asking for their "favorite" to be added, and make it "fit" in terms of where I am going with the game, I'll do it. If, however, I think allowing it will end up getting me a half dozen other PrC additions requested, or the PrC doesn't fit with where the game is going, then I'll say no.


So this is another reason WOTC and 3E has become less relevent to my gaming. I like "old style gaming" where the DM is in ultimate control. For some reason many adherents of 3E have a problem with that.

So I run L5R and C&C, at home and on line. Where my players trust me to run a fun game. Trust me. Not rules, or sets of rule books. But me.

 

[Fenris_x]

So this is another reason WOTC and 3E has become less relevent to my gaming. I like "old style gaming" where the DM is in ultimate control. For some reason many adherents of 3E have a problem with that.

Umm, maybe because we're adults now? When I was playing 1E back in grade school, it was fine to have one kid be "in ultimate control" because we were freakin' nine years old, and used to people telling us what to do. Not to mention that the rules were so random and arbitrary that you needed an iron-fisted DM to hold the whole mess together.

Now that I'm in my 30s, with adult responsibilities and demands on my time, and using a smoothly integrated ruleset where nearly everything meshes pretty well, I'm less tolerant of the "I'm in charge, I want to use only these books and not those, and if you don't like it find another game" attitude. That kind of top-down, do-what-you're-told reaction I can get at work from my boss, I don't need it in my recreational activities.

When 5 or 6 grownups come together to play a game, it should be everyone working together to have fun, not one guy deciding what's fun for everybody else. 3E is well-suited to everyone working together to have fun, because the rules don't need much highhanded DM-fiat in order to work.

 

[Xyxox]

Umm, maybe because we're adults now? When I was playing 1E back in grade school, it was fine to have one kid be "in ultimate control" because we were freakin' nine years old, and used to people telling us what to do. Not to mention that the rules were so random and arbitrary that you needed an iron-fisted DM to hold the whole mess together.

So long as you stick to the Core Rules, you're correct.

Now that I'm in my 30s, with adult responsibilities and demands on my time, and using a smoothly integrated ruleset where nearly everything meshes pretty well, I'm less tolerant of the "I'm in charge, I want to use only these books and not those, and if you don't like it find another game" attitude. That kind of top-down, do-what-you're-told reaction I can get at work from my boss, I don't need it in my recreational activities.

You've just added something outside the core rules so your whole "smoothly integrated ruleset" argument is thrown out the window. All balance went out the window as soon as the splat books started being published, so a DM has to take care to pick and choose what will and will not be allowed. There are too many broken rules in everything outside the Core, and denying the DM the capability to ban things makes the player making those demands irresponsible. Plus, you're forcing the DM to buy something s/he may not own. that's not such a good idea.

 

[Glyfair]

Umm, maybe because we're adults now? When I was playing 1E back in grade school, it was fine to have one kid be "in ultimate control" because we were freakin' nine years old, and used to people telling us what to do. Not to mention that the rules were so random and arbitrary that you needed an iron-fisted DM to hold the whole mess together.

This is beginning to drift off-topic, and probably should have another thread if this continues. So, I'll keep this brief (OK, maybe not so brief) .

I have sympathies for both sides. In my experience most of the "my way or the highway" DMs are control freaks, and I have no need for that. However, most is not all (a lesson usually forgotten on the internet).

A DM needs a certain amount of control of his game. It would be nice to discuss significant changes in the game for you campaign with your players. In the real world, that's usually not possible, especially if you are creating your own world (a lot of work, and too much work for me now). The time spent working on the world, and the atmosphere of this world is going to be done mostly when you aren't in contact with your players.

I think what I feel is appropriate is a middle ground. If a DM is running a game he let's his players know what sort of campaign it is. If they have any concerns, they discuss it. The DM should try to allow the players do what they want in his game. Sometimes it's not going to work. More often it just takes some creativity, and a DM should respect the players enough to work out a way for it to happen.

A lot is said about the players respecting the DM, but very little is said about the DM respecting his players. In my opinion, for a game to work the respect must go both ways. A DM who says "my way or the highway" doesn't respect his players (and more the likely visa versa as well) and that's why I would be concerned if involved in the game.

 

[Dan Bell]

Of course, like others have said, WotC is the 500 lb orge in this industry. While I stopped buying their product years ago (having focused on Harn, Fading Suns, Burning Wheel, GRUPS and other games) WotC going under would suck. (Lets face it, D&D is the product that helps those new to rpgs learn about other RPGs.)

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Umm, maybe because we're adults now? When I was playing 1E back in grade school, it was fine to have one kid be "in ultimate control" because we were freakin' nine years old, and used to people telling us what to do.

That's right! We're adults, by Crom! DM trying to be all authority-figure on you? Just tell him, "That's not what the rulebook says. Besides, you're not the boss of me!"

 

[der_kluge]

A lot is said about the players respecting the DM, but very little is said about the DM respecting his players. In my opinion, for a game to work the respect must go both ways. A DM who says "my way or the highway" doesn't respect his players (and more the likely visa versa as well) and that's why I would be concerned if involved in the game.

Like many things - there's a balancing act.

The day my players all pay me to run a game, I'll run whatever they want. Until that day comes, I'll run what I want. The day I make it no longer fun for them, they'll leave. So, it's in my best interest to run something they at least want to play in.

Balance.

 

[Khairn]

Relevant? Sure. As the largest RPG company, and publishers of the most popular RPG, they are very relevant.

When was the last time I bought anything they published? About 5 months ago. Do I see anything in their future releases that I am interested in picking up? Not really. But despite that they are still very relevant.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

WoTC could just about go out of business and I think I'd hardly miss them at all.


Anyone else in the same boat?

Far from it. I play Living Greyhawk, so if WotC farted it would be relevant to me.

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I don't buy a lot of WOTC stuff, but I do buy some on occasion and so they are still relevant. Last year I picked up the PHB2 and this year I grabbed the Spell Compendium and Eberron's Forge of War. I also buy out of print .pdfs from them since I have nostalgia for ODnD. I think that WOTC will have a harder time getting my attention as time goes along since it is difficult to create and print original material. Still, with the new Castle Greyhawk book out I will likely make yet another WOTC purchase this year. If WOTC does run out of ideas all they have to do is open up another campaign world, such as Planescape, and they'll have another line of books to publish. Maybe that's what they plan to do with Greyhawk...