My DN Rant (cont'd)

[The Dungeon Nazi]

To be blunt, I wish I could afford to waste player initiative and to discourage people from playing. That would mean I had a wealth of people wanting to game. I don't think most people are able to afford to trounce on potential players; that's been true for the 23 years I've gamed.

I keep seeing people criticize players writing some backstory. I can't imagine anyone is such a brilliant writer and designer that their campaign world is perfect and untouchable. It seems more a matter of being too controlling on the part of the DM.

If you don't want the guy to play, or you want everyone to play exactly your way or no way, then just tell them so. Eventually you won't have to keep telling anyone that, because you'll have run out of players.

I honestly mean no insult, but I think you're being too exacting and demanding. It's a game, not a way of life. Again, no offense, but I can't imagine that your campaign plan is that much better than what a player may write. So what if he pumps himself up in it? Take what's there, revise it, and disabuse yourself of the notion that the players and their characters are simply puppets for you to play out your campaign with. They have role to play; they should have the attitude they're the ones to save the world. If not them, then who? NPCs of your own devising? D&D isn't a spectator sport, as was proven by the 2e version of Forgotten Realms.

I'm the DN, dude. When I get mad, PCs die.



Seriously, this is the kind of game I run, and this is the kind of game I like to play. I'm certainly not forcing anybody to play it, but this kind of philosophy makes the world that much more grounded and real, and I think it's a big part of what separates my game from the crowd -- the very fact that this place is inhabited by such powerful NPCs means that it won't be easy to really get noticed. That doesn't mean there's always going to be an Elminster ready to teleport in and save their butts and clean things up. It's not like that at all -- usually, most of the real heavy hitters are tied up in their own affairs, and they're busy saving the world while the PCs are still low level. They work their way up the EXP ladder, start approaching that kind of fame and power, and begin earning their place amongst those Drizzts and Khelbens of the world.

It results in such a much more rewarding and satisfying experience -- I can worry about not having players when they stop showing up for my games.

 

[Humanophile]

Colonal, I kind of see what you're saying, but I think you give your average player too much credit. Or too little, in some places. Sometimes you have a player who just thinks of background as a 1,000 word essay to excuse having certain powers, abilities, and backgrounds, and sometimes even the best cases can fall apart. (It's great if your background spans 10 pages, so long as you don't expect me to keep all of it in mind. And it's nice if your character occasionally spends time at his old town's swimming hole or looking up his childhood sweetheart, so long as those don't detract from the game. The V:tM stereotype of hogging four hours of gametime solloquizing about your old teddy bear, however, is not cool, and neither is hoping you can slip in something about your character being groomed to take the spot of the campaign's greatest diety before his 20'th birthday.)

I agree with you fully that DN and the player should see if they can come to a mechanically balanced compromise, but if that can't work, I think that the players have enough plot emphasis as is. They don't need the prophecies and bloodlines and artifacts your average high-fantasy character needs, simply because D&D is not a fantasy novel, and what works for one isn't necessarily good for the other.

 

[Voneth]

Boy, DN, you can sure pick 'em. I can't wait to see what challenge you third player is going to bring to our fourm.

First I am confused. The party is starting at first level, but he's brining in a character from another game? I doubt that character was still 1st level when the game closed. It sounds like he is trying to import over his coolest toy, even though I doubt he started with it in his old game. So did his backstory explain why he's also reduced in power level and ability now? Hey do something crazy, talk to his old DM. (Why are gamers so nonplussed about communication and networking?)

Now the toy.

1. I am a big fan on the "level up magic item" introduced in Oriental Adventures and Dragon 289. This can represent a lot of things for the creative crew. The XP spent can mean a certain level of attument to the weapon, a certain level of virtue/role model, or the attaiment of inherent greatness -- depending on your game. Do something in the progression chart such as (Hold person, Hold Monster, Mud to Rock, and then stone) in the end, he'll have a MORE powerful weapon that can carry on with him to higher levels. Sorry, a fact about DND items is that they have planned obsoletism when compared to PC levels.

2. Natural 20, my ###. This is aint no vorpal blade, otherwise only the SA of monsters do funky things on natural rolls. I'd say you should treat to the regular threat/critical process to determine if the effect goes off. Hey, I say give the opponet a Fort save to boot, it up to you if it nullifies or acts like a Slow spell on a successful roll.

3. In the matters of life and death combat, what is the difference between being frozen in stone or Hold Person?, not much. Make it a hold person with a stone special effect.


Back stories? I like them, I abuse them for story hooks and ways to twist an advantage into entertaiment (rich uncles have "new" real estate that needs some monster hunters to clean out before they give the nephew a new horse). Overall, I haven't had many who try to abuse it, but I do have some who overestimate how quickly those connections can produce results.

I can also suggest Background from Spycraft!!! Very stealable for DND. Basicly at level-up time, the player can spend skill points to create a subplot (romantic interest, vendetta, amenisa), but that's not the cool part yet.

Unlike most game systems which give a mechanical bonus (better spells, more character points to spend), Backgrounds give a player xp if he particpates in the subplot when it is offered. He can ignore it, but then he passes up xp. So what if the GM decides to ignore the subplot and the player feels gypped over his spent skill points? The subplots only last for 3 sessions a peice, if the GM ignore the subplot over the three sessions then the player gets a one-time sizeable xp reward for his attempt to put some spice in the game.

The only way the PC doesn't come out a head is if he buys the subplot and then doesn't particpate when the GM takes the time to make part of the game. Simple, cool, and effective.

My only advice to DN would be that it seems he would have to obviously state out loud when such subplots were occuring to make sure they knew they were passing up their chance to get XP and risking the investment of their skill points.

 

[ergeheilalt]

Let me say a couple things.

Give the guy a pat on the back for trying. (I stumbled into FR thinking it no different than any other campaign.) Then remind him of balance and tell him no. Yes, it should be exotic; yes, if he wants it masterwork he should pay for it. No questions there.

My disagreement is with Kamikaze Midget. I find that characters who write a nice history for their characters give a great aspect to the game. I like a page or two of history for an average player, I will write a page or two myself for any game I'm playing. If some one wants to write a 5 page story...I'll read it. I use these stories as a crutch...they provide great hooks to pull in new adventures and party members. I hate the faceless fighter.

This guy was attempting to situate himself in a game he has never played. Don't give him the weapon, but give him the chance to make/find it. After all every character has his/her ambitions.

 

[Glamdring]

Novels, 3E changes, and the role of the DM.

(And pointing to the novels isn't a valid argument. They were written with 2nd edition rules, not 3rd edition. So just because it happens in the novels doesn't mean that it is that way in 3rd edition. Not to mention the fact that the novels didn't even follow 2e rules exactly.)

3rd Edition is meant to completely replace 2nd Edition. It's not a "patch" meant to change some things, but keep everything that hasn't changed or isn't mentioned in 3rd edition.

Wow. So much to say. Let me begin by saying that any skilled DM realizes the dire importance of reading before trying to run a game. If a DM wishes to enter the world of Faerun, he or she must read the novels and accept them as scripture, not only to honor the authors, but to create a solid, almost tangible gaming experience. He or she must know who the Chosen are, who Alusair and Vangerdahast are, who Elminster is, who the enemies of the good races are, and how the realm works. One must have a feel for Faerun, and this doesn't come with the PHB, the DMG, or even the FRCS. Why do I say this? Because a good FR DM will encourage his or her players to read the novels, allowing them to make the connections between the game and the books. It's a marvelous thing when players encounter Shadowdale at the gaming table, and then take up books like Spellfire and see the similarities. It makes reading them more fun, and it makes gaming a more tangible experience, as I said before.

What does this mean? This means that, even though 3E mentions nothing about drow equipment eventually crumbling in sunlight, it still happens. There are many, many, many FR novels that detail how drow equipment crumbles in sunlight. How on earth can a compitent DM discount this information simply because 3E forgot to cover it? And how will players react when they read the Dark Elf trilogy and wonder why their DM allows them to use drow equipment in broad daylight? They may say to themselves, "Jeez, I'm sure glad my +4 drow sword still works," but such comments come from a gaming table where material possessions and magical items are the only thing anyone fights for. Intelligent individuals will say, "Hmmmm, someone hasn't done his research," and the magic of the game is what crumbles. Not good.

3E is not something that totally replaces 2E. 3E is indeed a patch for 2E, and that patch has created massive contradictions. All of a sudden drow equipment doesn't crumble in sunlight. How on Toril did this happen? Another example is infravision. What happened to infravision? Are we supposed to believe that there was some titanic clash in the heavens of Toril, rearranging the very fabric of reality, randomly changing things here and there? It is these contradictions that the DM must struggle with. An annoying player asks, "Uh, what's up with the Dark Elf Trilogy? Drow society is strongly based on infravision. How do the dark elves tell time by Narbondel if they, all of a sudden, with no explanation, are now using darkvision?" Darkvision is not infravision, and the new rules create confusion. This is but one example of how the 3E "patch" throws a wrench into the game. In Salvatore's next novel, how will he deal with darkvision? His heat stones will mean nothing, Narbondel is now useless, Drizzt won't be able to track by the heat of his prey's footfalls, and the world that is the Underdark is changed forever. Just one of many mistakes made by the creators of 3E.

By and large, the novels contain the most (and best) information for any novel-based campaign (DL or FR). The DM must be in character as much as the players. If he or she isn't, the players will notice, and they might not have as much fun as they should. If the players don't notice, then everyone at the table is an idiot, and may Mystra have mercy on their souls.

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

I totally disagree with the sentiment that you need to read the novels to play in or run a Forgotten Realms campaign. It is not neccessary by any means, and you should ignore the authors and the books whenever you want to do so. It's your game, your rules, and your campaign to run the way you want.

If I run a Forgotten Realms campaign, I will change things, and if one of my players objects and says "That's not how it is in the novels" I will simply say, "So? That's how it is in my game." One of the biggest problems with running a campaign in an established setting is in fact the people who try and insist that you must follow the setting and the novels without any deviation whatsoever.

If a DM thinks it will make it more interesting to do something differently then the way the novels or the campaign setting book describes something, he/she should do it with no hesitation. Strict adherence to (often lousy) novels is one of the most surefire ways to wreck a potentially good game.

 

[Zappo]

Wow. So much to say. Let me begin by saying that any skilled DM realizes the dire importance of reading before trying to run a game. If a DM wishes to enter the world of Faerun, he or she must read the novels and accept them as scripture, not only to honor the authors, but to create a solid, almost tangible gaming experience. He or she must know who the Chosen are, who Alusair and Vangerdahast are, who Elminster is, who the enemies of the good races are, and how the realm works. One must have a feel for Faerun, and this doesn't come with the PHB, the DMG, or even the FRCS. Why do I say this? Because a good FR DM will encourage his or her players to read the novels, allowing them to make the connections between the game and the books. It's a marvelous thing when players encounter Shadowdale at the gaming table, and then take up books like Spellfire and see the similarities. It makes reading them more fun, and it makes gaming a more tangible experience, as I said before.

What does this mean? This means that, even though 3E mentions nothing about drow equipment eventually crumbling in sunlight, it still happens. There are many, many, many FR novels that detail how drow equipment crumbles in sunlight. How on earth can a compitent DM discount this information simply because 3E forgot to cover it? And how will players react when they read the Dark Elf trilogy and wonder why their DM allows them to use drow equipment in broad daylight? They may say to themselves, "Jeez, I'm sure glad my +4 drow sword still works," but such comments come from a gaming table where material possessions and magical items are the only thing anyone fights for. Intelligent individuals will say, "Hmmmm, someone hasn't done his research," and the magic of the game is what crumbles. Not good.

3E is not something that totally replaces 2E. 3E is indeed a patch for 2E, and that patch has created massive contradictions. All of a sudden drow equipment doesn't crumble in sunlight. How on Toril did this happen? Another example is infravision. What happened to infravision? Are we supposed to believe that there was some titanic clash in the heavens of Toril, rearranging the very fabric of reality, randomly changing things here and there? It is these contradictions that the DM must struggle with. An annoying player asks, "Uh, what's up with the Dark Elf Trilogy? Drow society is strongly based on infravision. How do the dark elves tell time by Narbondel if they, all of a sudden, with no explanation, are now using darkvision?" Darkvision is not infravision, and the new rules create confusion. This is but one example of how the 3E "patch" throws a wrench into the game. In Salvatore's next novel, how will he deal with darkvision? His heat stones will mean nothing, Narbondel is now useless, Drizzt won't be able to track by the heat of his prey's footfalls, and the world that is the Underdark is changed forever. Just one of many mistakes made by the creators of 3E.

By and large, the novels contain the most (and best) information for any novel-based campaign (DL or FR). The DM must be in character as much as the players. If he or she isn't, the players will notice, and they might not have as much fun as they should. If the players don't notice, then everyone at the table is an idiot, and may Mystra have mercy on their souls.

3e is not a patch for 2e. 3e is meant to replace it. Underdark hasn't been changed because in a 3e FR game it has always been that way; same thing for drow darkvision or weapons. The books (which most D&D players haven't read or don't care for) are not official 3e material and shouldn't be considered as such. Any difference between the books and the rules is just that, a difference. If one really wanted to see a flaw (and I wouldn't), it could only be of the books, because the FRCS and 3e rules are what defines the setting.

If you consider 3e a patch for 2e... well, that's not what the designers meant. Of course it won't work well. You could fit a circle in a square hole...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yar...I think the novels are VERY overrated, and I will try to hold my displeasure at them in check.

That said, the novels and such are one of the big reasons I *don't* play FR. I want to mess with stereotypes and toy with the way things are. I don't want players saying to me "It's not like that, because the books say it's not!" or even making that assumption, because they probably *will*, even if they know it's got to be a bit different.

I've got a new player who has never played D&D before, but has soaked up a bit from a few novels. The character, who has never seen drow and probably only heard about them in legends, suddenly decides that her character would probably hate drow because drow and elves hate each other in the novels. Sure, she probably wouldn't have a good opinion of them from what her character has heard, but the typical elf probably wouldn't have even *seen* one, and are likely chaotic enough to judge them on a case-by-case basis.

And that's in my homebrew, where they *know* that what they've read doens't nessecarily apply (like, for instance, most of the Drow in my world are actually still good, and a few neutral, just led by CE priestestess...).

If you'd like to play with the novels as a bible, and have fun that way, go for it. But do realize that that's a pretty big house rule, and you're going to have to make a few adjustments. The 3e "patch" for instance....it wasn't designed to be a patch, and using it that way is going to require a lot of house-ruling.

Anyhoo, back on topic...

I do appreciate a bit of history....just not quite that much. A player that takes the initiative and gives a family, birthplace, etc. is all good, and that's encouragable. Where it gets a bit questionable is when they start to write themselves a little story and dictate NPC actions to me. I'm the DM, and the NPC's are MINE to dicatate the actions of. You tell me what you do. I tell you what happens to you and how people react to what you do.

This is borderline. I certainly wouldn't allow such a weapon at first level, but I would consider it my responsibility to help the guy play the character he wants to...which would include this ancestral weapon. I'd explain to him that such a weapon would be a bit powerful for a first level character, and tell him that he could get it eventually (or "release it's power" or something), but, until then, it would have to be weaker. When he could get such an item, I'd probably design a specific quest to unlock it (where he'd probably get big-time RP XP), and then everyone's happy.

Honestly, I think I have more issue with the DMing style than the player, but that's just me. I've been called a VERY linient DM, and far be it from me to tell others how to have fun. You should do whatever works for you. But I must say, using any fantasy books as a bible probably wouldn't work for me.

 

[The Dungeon Nazi]

Well, first off, I think the one of the worst things Wizards ever did was use the "Edition Transition" to move the default setting out of the Realms and into Greyhawk. I think that since 3E was designed with Greyhawk in mind, the FRCS feels almost like Greyhawk with an "FR template" added to it, if you will.

That's one of the primary reasons I only use 3E to patch things that are explicitly changed. My drow levitate, and it was an integral tactic they used in the early stages of their assault on Mithral Hall. I was just discussing with a friend today about how I'm going to allow my priests to take certain spells out of Faiths & Avatars -- for instance, if I have a priest of Tempus in my game, I want to see him using Dance of the Fallen; if the PC rogue dual-classes over to priest of Mask, I want him putting Listening Shadow and Shadowcloak to good use.

The way I set up my games, the rules are only important in the context of the novels, and the game just feels better for it, for having a solid grounding the novels (especially the Greenwood books).

As for the whole infravision thing, I've been thinking about it, and will probably just bring it back for the first adventure to see how it works with the group. If I have to, I might house rule that darkvision works not with black, white and a series of grays, but something like colors on a scale between blue and red. Try to inject a little bit of that FR flavor back into 3E.

We'll see what happens.

 

[I'm A Banana]

....Infravision.....is....flavor? Of FR?

I always figured it was a term from 2e that people interepreted as "heat vision" but really just meant "you can see in the dark."

I thought it was universally muddled, not just in FR....

...Honestly, I'm not sure what's so flavorful about seeing heat, or what's so FR specific.

Again, far be it from me to tell you how to have fun.