Player Enablement

[sam500]

oh god.
This thread is reminding me too much of rules.
headache.
I withdraw the subject.

 

[Metus]

This thread is reminding me too much of rules.

The rules bringeth the light!

 

[TarionzCousin]

I've become very lax with the rules if my players want to do something cool. Basically, in my view, "cool" transcends the rules.

I try to follow this "rule" too. If someone does (or suggests) something cool, I let the players do it. I have explicitly told players this at the start of campaigns.

Hmmm, perhaps I need to state it explicitly to the current campaign group.

 

[Ipissimus]

My number #1 favourite rule from the DMG is very close to the front of the book. It's the one about throwing all the rules away for the enjoyment of the game.

Personally, Metus and Sam500, I don't think you're really on a different wavelength. Metus uses the rules to make everything fiar and balanced. The rules will let you get away with an awful lot if you read them right. Sam500 does things more spontaneously but keeps things fair. Two different roads toward the same goat. Is either better? No, everyone's having fun, so the goal's been achieved at both tables.

Consider yes, the emphasis should be on the 'consider'. I am a consider yes DM, if my players want to do something, I generally let them do it. I did not let my newbie wizard use his snake familiar as a whip, however. That was just stupidity. My more experienced wizard player wants a Staff of the Magi. Fair enough, they're 23rd level now, but he's gonna have to pry it from the Dracolich-riding Lich-Queen Demigoddess Vlaakith's unlifeless fingers. But I do try to encourage creative uses of spells, items and abilities, so I err on the side of yes. If one of them expresses the need for something not too outlandish, I generally say yes as well.

Now it's pet peeve time. Game balance is a myth. DnD is decidedly unbalanced and no matter how hard you try to follow the rule of law won't change the fact that the system is deliberately unbalanced. Magic Missile and Fireball are popular because they are simply better than all the other spells at that level. Scorch is the new 2nd level unbalancing act. The ammount of assets, powers and abilities a canny, powergaming, party can accumulate using the rules is amazing.

Balance has little to do with the rules and alot for what you do at the table. Following the rules explicitly and turning a blind eye to those who abuse said rules only feels stable and safe. Never looking out of the box and never fudging a die roll for or against the players for the sake of fun may deprive you of enjoyment that may have been had otherwise.

I often fudge results. If the game's bogging down, I throw in a wandering monster to kick it up a notch. I often tailor Wand of Wonder results to suit an encounter rather than rolling on the limited d100 table. These decisions are by no means arbatrary, I have a modus operandi, a goal and a method to my madness.

Let your players powergame and allow them to work the rules like cheap prostitutes, there's always a bigger fish and you can powergame just as easily as they can. I took one look at The Cathezar from Bastion of Broken Souls and knew she'd be mince meat in 2 rounds, if she was very lucky and got the drop on the PCs. So I ramped her up a bit. My 23CR Multiheaded, 12-limbed, Marilith/Kyton (optimized for spiked chain attacks with the Perfect Multiweapon Fighting feat) struck fear into the hearts of my 15th level players throughout the entire adventure, they literally ran from her into the tender arms of a 26CR dragon half-fiend (they were 18th level by then) who they found to be much easier prey.

Which goes to show you how whacked the CR rules are.

 

[hong]

I think it's basically about being flexible. Game balance is well and good, but breaking the rules doesn't have to adversely impact balance.

Eg new campaign, and a player wanted to play a dragon shaman. It's a decent class balance-wise, but I find the concept of gaining a bunch of draconic abilities because you follow a dragon to be rather cheesy in flavour terms. It's like saying that because you worship Heironeous, you eventually gain wings and become a celestial.

Instead of saying no, I allowed the class but changed it to be a geomantic channeller:

• Insert flavour text very similar to druid
• Remove alignment prereq (or use druid)
• Class skills: choose one set
• Spirit aura (draconic aura): choose one energy type for resistance, energy shield; you become immune at 9th
• Spirit (draconic) adaptation at 3rd, 13th: choose one special ability
• Breath weapon at 4th level becomes a line of geomantic energy (untyped) cast from your fingertips, like earthbolt spell from OA
• Remove draconic resolve
• Draconic wings at 19th level becomes one of fly 60' (no wings), burrow 30' or swim 30' speed

Overall still a decent class, and this time with a flavour I find much more to my taste. The player is happy, I'm happy, and game balance is preserved.

 

[The Shaman]

I think the earlier editions have been very clear that the DM can and should say "No" at the merest hint of diversion from what he wants.

Really?

Quote one.

 

[Oryan77]

That being said, what I took from your original post was, "I let a player start his new PC with a bag of holding." That's what concerned me. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the new PC was first level. The cheapest bag of holding is Type I (DMG pg. 248) given a price of 2,500 gp. What I would be an always "consider no" DM about is having a 1st level PC start with an item with a market value of 2,500 gp, which is almost the wealth amount he should have at 3rd level. If he decides to sell it for half, at 1,250 gp, then he has slightly more gp then he should have for his entire first level.

Ahhhhhh, ok! Now your previous post makes sense to me I should have said that the player was at 6th lvl when he created the new PC. I just assumed if he chose a bag of holding, people would know he was a higher level & could afford it. Now I see why you were saying a PC has too much wealth

 

[Jdvn1]

What I would be an always "consider no" DM about is having a 1st level PC start with an item with a market value of 2,500 gp, which is almost the wealth amount he should have at 3rd level. If he decides to sell it for half, at 1,250 gp, then he has slightly more gp then he should have for his entire first level.

Assuming I gave all the 1st level PCs the same deal, I'd be fine with this. What are they going to do with the money? Buy a +1 armor? 1 point of AC won't kill the game--it might even be a character hook.

If they use the money for a number of smaller things, even better. As long as the party (since I said I gave them all the same deal) is balanced, I don't see the problem. Are they a little bit too powerful? Great. They're having fun, I'm having fun. Let them feel like they're powerful.

If you want to compensate for it afterwards, put them against slightly tougher creatures, or give them less treasure later on. It's not the end of the world.

 

[robberbaron]

I would like to think that I am a 'Consider' DM. If a player wants to do something wacky with his character I consider it and make a decision. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

If he wants a feat/class/feature/spell/whatever from a twinkbook then the answer would normally be a considered no (not always, but mostly) as my game started as Core and I really don't want to open it up any further.

If he wants to modify an existing spell/power I will consider it, suggest amendments/compromises if I think it is too powerful or doesn't fit with my perception of my world.

If a player wants a particular item, I weigh the cost against the location but I don't say they can't have it, just that it isn't available where they are.

I have no problem with the party trashing my BBEG in 1 round through planning and working well together. That is them 'doing their job'. Likewise, if my party level -4 wandering monster does significant damage to the party because they screwed up, I am fine with that.
Whatever happens, I roll my dice in the open.

Perhaps, the question should also be, do the players consider their desires in the context of the game or are they simply trying to have the most powerful/most equipped character at the table? Are they pushing the DM to make decisions he should not have to make?

 

[lazarus1020]

I agree with robberbaron and would place myself in the "consider" DM group. I don't think sam500 got the point of my earlier post. I am not opposed to a player doing something off the wall. I had an Assassin character pour all of his poisons onto himself and then let a giant toad eat him. If I was gonna be a rule lawyer I would have said no because the poison was mostly injected not ingestible.

I also don't have a problem with players trying to take over the game because I ran a fair game for all the players. I think the rules provide consistentcy and that is what I truely value about the rules. If the players come up with some funny, clever idea to defeat to BBG I will listen to it but I am not gonna say yeah just because it was good for the story. I think the idea of " consider yes" has its' merit, but should be more moderate like just "consider".