Solve my grim and gritty debate

[AuraSeer]

It surprises me very much that your players are being so presumptuous as to tell you how things should work in a world of your own creation. Input on rules interpretations I can understand, but I'd never presume to tell my DM what he should and shouldn't be doing in designing his campaign world.

Hey, I wish I had players like you. I've been waiting to try out my cool new setting, where the PCs are first-level human commoners armed with pointy sticks, and humans have a +25 LA, so they can't get any experience or acquire any gear unless they go kill some epic-level monsters. But my players are being so presumptuous as to tell me they don't want to play in that world! Can you believe the nerve of them?

Seriously though, everyone needs to remember that D&D is a game, and the DM is responsible for making it fun. If he doesn't care about what the players want, and just ego-trips all over them with his 1337 DM p0w3rz, why bother playing the game at all?

 

[jeffh]

OK, so here's a debate that has arisen in my current campaign. I run a grim and gritty low-magic campaign. That being said how do I treat creatures with spell-like abilities. I, being the DM believe that just because the world has low-magic (which results from a rarity of arcane spellcasters coupled with tight restrictions for entry into arcane academies) it should not impact the abilities of creatures who gain the spells as part of their nature as opposed to years of practice and study. The players on the other hand insist that low-magic implies that creatures would also suffer from these drawbacks. Any help settling this debate is welcome as the players and I have agreed to allow the non-partial jury of EN World settle this.

It's not all-or-nothing; you can make such abilities less powerful, and probably should seriously consider doing so in some cases. This is in addition to such creatures not being encountered very often, of course.

When you say G&G, do you actually mean the so-called Grim & Gritty rules being discussed in a long thread here (and an earlier version of which is in Mongoose's Game Designer's book)? In that case big monsters should be extremely rare - any dragon bigger than a horse is the stuff of legends under those rules, for example.

 

[Taneel BrightBlade]

If they keep their powers the sorcerer class should be legal because their powers are just as natural. I mean they both have inherant abilites.
I'd toss spell-like abilites and just give them times 2 hit dice

 

[Nifft]

Monsters should retain their spell-like and supernatural abilities, but should be rare. Imagine how shocking a blink dog would be in real life -- and that's a nice critter. Evil critters should be truely horrific.

-- N

 

[Ourph]

Hey, I wish I had players like you. I've been waiting to try out my cool new setting, where the PCs are first-level human commoners armed with pointy sticks, and humans have a +25 LA, so they can't get any experience or acquire any gear unless they go kill some epic-level monsters. But my players are being so presumptuous as to tell me they don't want to play in that world! Can you believe the nerve of them?

Seriously though, everyone needs to remember that D&D is a game, and the DM is responsible for making it fun. If he doesn't care about what the players want, and just ego-trips all over them with his 1337 DM p0w3rz, why bother playing the game at all?

Hey, if you could make that game fun, I would play!

It's the DM's job to make the game fun for the players. But a DM should feel free to do that in any way he is creatively inspired to try. If dontpunkme can't make the game fun for his players doing it his way, then it's time to discuss. It doesn't sound like that's the case though. It sounds like the players are picking at what they perceive to be "unfairness" (a code word for "not what I'm used to" in most cases) before dontpunkme has a chance to show them just how fun his concept can be if they come into it with an open mind and a good attitude.

I don't need XP, leveling or KEWL class powers to have fun playing RPGs, just a good DM and a challenge to overcome.

OK, maybe I'd be fantasizing about getting a masterwork pointy stick.

 

[Krieg]

I chose (the nonexistent) "C: It depends. They should be handled on a case by case basis."

While I wouldn't remove the spell-like abilities from every creature I threw at the party, in some cases ditching said abilities could be apropriate.

 

[dontpunkme]

Well its not a no magic world, just a low magic world. All would-be wizards attend one of a handful of small schools where they study the art of magic until around 7th level. After that they take a grueling test and if they survive then they can travel and use their powers. Said wizards also have a strict obligation to their school and must spend a portion of their time training and working for the school. Sorceror's are hunted by wizards as loose cannons and are rare for this very reason. The party is starting at 3rd level so none of them are eligible to be wizards (if someone dies down the road when they are higher levels then I will be more apt to allow a wizard into the party) and I certainly don't want to have one of them be a sorceror and invite the wrath of every wizards they encounter upon the party. Divine spellcasters are more common as their is a strong belief in the dieties.
I certainly don't plan on incessantly throwing creatures with spell-like abilities at the party (a great deal of them have been hunted by the wizards guild for the same reasons sorcerors have), but the occasional one will be seen from time to time.

The party is comprised of a half-orc ranger, a human paladin, a dwarf barbarian, a half-elf fighter, and a human cleric. There's a slight chance another friend might take out an elven rogue, but its not a guarantee (personally something I hope doesn't happen, but wouldn't object to as it is a good friend).

As per players questioning the DM, my campaign is about to start after a brief hiatus (TPK with the future of the world on the line) so the world is radically different from before (much time has passed). I chose to run the basic idea for my campaign and new game mechanics changes by my players in advance, as it helps to get feedback from my players (fellow DM who runs the Monday night game I play in and other players who have DM'ed before) as I like to keep things in balance and have a general understanding as to what to expect. Everyone is happier that way and it helps eliminate the DM vs PC competitions that have marred many failed games of the past. Also, it helps alleviate the inherant problems of miscommunication and players feeling cheated when they aren't studs because I for some reason consistently roll kindly on the treasure tables (I roll in the open so there's no fudging). Thanks everyone for the help.

 

[pogre]

I would vote "jack up their CRs" - an example of what I mean can be found in BadAxe's Grim Tales. GT allows you to build a CR from the ground up and assumes a low magic world.

 

[Starglim]

Alter some creatures. D&D creatures and published NPCs have many random magical widgets that are not essential to the creature's concept, but instead stuck on as a power-up against PCs who are expected to have an arsenal of spells and magic items. Compare many dual-stat conversions from other systems to d20 to see what I mean.

 

[MonsterMash]

Make them rare, tone down abilities e.g. make something that would be multiple times a day, once a day, or make once a day once a week.

Also I'd allow for their CRs as being one or two ranks higher.