Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="haakon1" data-source="post: 4074581" data-attributes="member: 25619">These are interesting issues.&nbsp; I've either encountered complaints of each of these types, or thought about it myself and decided I didn't want the appearance of this, so I designed my DMing around not causing offense in this area.1) &quot;Unfair encounters&quot;.&nbsp; Use a published module.&nbsp; That way, there's no arguing that you were screwing them -- it's WOTC's design.&nbsp; Then go back to yours, which is probably not that different.2) &quot;Rule change for a particular encounter&quot;.&nbsp; Don't do it.&nbsp; Use consistent rules, and keep it as simple as possible.&nbsp; For me, the only rules are the Core Books, plus the Greyhawk guide, the gods book, and the WOTC monster books.&nbsp; Limited crunch might limit rules arguments.&nbsp; Also, the rules that apply to PC's must also be applied to monsters, which cuts both ways.&nbsp; No made up magic beyond PC crunch is important for some players too.3) &quot;Requested items&quot;.&nbsp; My answer again is just say no to crunch.&nbsp; I banned all non-WOTC and non-Core sources, so no problem.&nbsp; Of course, some of my players bring me stuff anyhow, but it's more often feat ideas than anything else.&nbsp; My rule of thumb is it needs to a) make sense in the Tolkienesque feel I am for and b) get a netbook of feats rating of 4.5 or higher.&nbsp; For items, it has to be historical.&nbsp; Also, I NEVER let PC's just buy magic items, except from one magic shop, where I determine the inventory, which turns over very rarely.&nbsp; No picking magic items works because of another rule I have -- every character starts at first level.&nbsp; You can use ECL's, but you have EARN every character level and every bit of loot beyond starting wealth.4) &quot;Them v. me&quot;.&nbsp; Lots of people assume this.&nbsp; One counter to it is NPC party members/DMPC's joining the party.&nbsp; There's nothing like the DMPC getting Coup de Grace'd by evil halflings to show folks it's not &quot;against&quot; them, it's just a tough world, unforgiving world!&nbsp; Yes, I really did do this one!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="haakon1, post: 4074581, member: 25619"] These are interesting issues. I've either encountered complaints of each of these types, or thought about it myself and decided I didn't want the appearance of this, so I designed my DMing around not causing offense in this area. 1) "Unfair encounters". Use a published module. That way, there's no arguing that you were screwing them -- it's WOTC's design. Then go back to yours, which is probably not that different. 2) "Rule change for a particular encounter". Don't do it. Use consistent rules, and keep it as simple as possible. For me, the only rules are the Core Books, plus the Greyhawk guide, the gods book, and the WOTC monster books. Limited crunch might limit rules arguments. Also, the rules that apply to PC's must also be applied to monsters, which cuts both ways. No made up magic beyond PC crunch is important for some players too. 3) "Requested items". My answer again is just say no to crunch. I banned all non-WOTC and non-Core sources, so no problem. Of course, some of my players bring me stuff anyhow, but it's more often feat ideas than anything else. My rule of thumb is it needs to a) make sense in the Tolkienesque feel I am for and b) get a netbook of feats rating of 4.5 or higher. For items, it has to be historical. Also, I NEVER let PC's just buy magic items, except from one magic shop, where I determine the inventory, which turns over very rarely. No picking magic items works because of another rule I have -- every character starts at first level. You can use ECL's, but you have EARN every character level and every bit of loot beyond starting wealth. 4) "Them v. me". Lots of people assume this. One counter to it is NPC party members/DMPC's joining the party. There's nothing like the DMPC getting Coup de Grace'd by evil halflings to show folks it's not "against" them, it's just a tough world, unforgiving world! Yes, I really did do this one! [/QUOTE]

Verification