D&D General The 3.5 Binder was a really cool class

[jmartkdr2]

I mean in D&D 5e, I wouldn't put it past them. But sure, fine. Only 90% of the sheet.


As if GMs have ever needed a reason for doing either of those? What's your point here?


Show me where 3e limits the GM's behavior in this. I was given to understand that it is--very literally--the case that a deity can take away a divine character's powers at any time and for any reason. It is, after all, always specifically a gift, a "granting" of power each day, and the deity can just decide not to do that if they feel like it. Doing so isn't even a violation of alignment. And a believer talking back to their deity? A believer telling that deity that their gracious boon of power is unfit? Sounds like a perfect recipe for having "grossly violated" the tenets of one's faith--you have, after all, back-talked your own god, telling them they're wrong to have failed to grant you your spells. At which point you literally don't have class features, you're a worse Fighter.

Like are you being serious here? This is the very thing that a lot of people hated about divine magic in 3.x. It's yours only until the GM decides otherwise, and guess who gets to set the standards? The GM. All power, no responsibility.


Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope. Not even close.

There are plenty of ways to do things that do, in fact, actually put limits on what the GM can do. Rules the GM must abide by or they are--openly and explicitly--breaking the rules.

It's only D&D, as far as I can tell, where there's this bizarre notion that the GM needs to never have any rules whatsoever, but the players not only can and should but must be hemmed in on every side by rules.


No. It's "don't design rules which depend on foolish assumptions, like no one EVER being a jerk in even the smallest ways".


"The perfect is the enemy of the good". Yes, perfect defense against jerk-GM behavior is impossible. Useful defense against the vast majority of jerk-GM behavior, however, is quite possible. Rules that actually set standards, that actually make consequences--and that make it just as easy for players to call out bad GM behavior as it is for GMs to call out bad player behavior--are quite possible. It's only D&D, as far as I can tell, where people deny that this is possible and pretend that the only way any game can be designed is "GM has absolute perfect latitude to do whatever they want whenever they want for as long as they want" or "the GM is never free to do anything at all".

(And @Alzrius) I may regret butting in here, but:

It’s not the jerk dms we need to worry about. It’s the well-meaning dms who think they’re adding challenges but are actually just discouraging creative play by over-punishing or over-meddling or whatever.

A jerk dm will screw over the cleric/paladin/warlock no matter what the rules say. A naive dm might use the possibility simply because they assume it was put there to be used. Or they might over-use it (ie micro-managing patrons) because no one told them about how not to do that. Or thinking that paladins are only interesting if you give them impossible moral dilemmas. Etc.

There should be solid guidance for how to use these hooks, which prevent overuse (rather than assuming any misuse is intentional) while still leaving the door open if they come up organically.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

(And @Alzrius) I may regret butting in here, but:

It’s not the jerk dms we need to worry about. It’s the well-meaning dms who think they’re adding challenges but are actually just discouraging creative play by over-punishing or over-meddling or whatever.

A jerk dm will screw over the cleric/paladin/warlock no matter what the rules say. A naive dm might use the possibility simply because they assume it was put there to be used. Or they might over-use it (ie micro-managing patrons) because no one told them about how not to do that. Or thinking that paladins are only interesting if you give them impossible moral dilemmas. Etc.

There should be solid guidance for how to use these hooks, which prevent overuse (rather than assuming any misuse is intentional) while still leaving the door open if they come up organically.

Exactly.

It is not malicious behavior that is most concerning. That's just the most obvious thing. The actual concern is people who genuinely believe they are doing the right thing....when they manifestly are NOT.

And good rule design takes this into account and builds in appropriate limits, explanations, guidance, etc. Something sorely lacking in both 3e and 5e, particularly guidance.

Well-designed rules structure power in a context, with a specific purpose and focus. Poorly-designed rules dump absolute latitude and minimal to non-existent guidance for how, when, and most importantly why to use such power.

Two rulesets can be functionally equivalent in what you can do with them, but one can be worlds better solely because it is actually structured to foster cooperation, collaboration, understanding, responsibility, etc. While the other just throws the GM (and this players by proxy) into the deep end, face-first, and says "hope you can swim!"

And just to be clear? I have personally seen GMs like this in 3.5e. Thank God I never actually sat at the table of the one I personally knew who, as I discovered over time, absolutely would put players in no-win situations maliciously. (He was also a terrible player, and I know for a fact he scared off at least one person from ever GMing again because of his atrocious behavior and attitude.) But I've known several more who thought "an adventure where you have to figure out how to survive without your god's powers" would be an awesome and revelatory story....which they would then spring on a player with zero prior warning because of course, why would you warn the player, that would ruin the story of it!

So yeah. It's a power with extreme and brutal implications for the player character, and one given with at best extremely poor explanation or advice.

 

[Necropolitan]

(And @Alzrius) I may regret butting in here, but:

It’s not the jerk dms we need to worry about. It’s the well-meaning dms who think they’re adding challenges but are actually just discouraging creative play by over-punishing or over-meddling or whatever.

A jerk dm will screw over the cleric/paladin/warlock no matter what the rules say. A naive dm might use the possibility simply because they assume it was put there to be used. Or they might over-use it (ie micro-managing patrons) because no one told them about how not to do that. Or thinking that paladins are only interesting if you give them impossible moral dilemmas. Etc.

There should be solid guidance for how to use these hooks, which prevent overuse (rather than assuming any misuse is intentional) while still leaving the door open if they come up organically.

That's like demanding all football uniforms be equipped with water wings, life vests, and flippers in case the stadium floods. It's going to impede play the majority of the time and there are numerous better ways of dealing with that hypothetical situation if it did end up happening.

Just tell the 'naive' DM there's a problem, don't demand the rulebook be rewritten. Clear communication is key and if you don't have that you shouldn't be playing together.

If you don't want to deal with the lore of the class you chose to play then either talk to your DM to get an exception made or pick a different class.

 

[Alzrius]

I mean in D&D 5e, I wouldn't put it past them. But sure, fine. Only 90% of the sheet.

Haha, nope! Spell selection isn't anywhere near that much, and it's hard to countenance any suggestion that it is.

As if GMs have ever needed a reason for doing either of those? What's your point here?

My point is that your point about how GMs will apparently screw with a PC's sheet willy-nilly comes across as difficult to take seriously. Particularly since you seem to be indicating that GMs will do that on a whim while simultaneously suggesting that divine spellcasters are more vulnerable to that. It comes across as your having a problem with GMs in general rather than anything else.

Show me where 3e limits the GM's behavior in this.

Show me where it says that players "aren't allowed to say no" or that they lose "all of their abilities, completely."

I was given to understand that it is--very literally--the case that a deity can take away a divine character's powers at any time and for any reason.

And here we begin to see the problem, so let's start at the beginning: your understanding is flawed. Literally, figuratively, and otherwise. Because even if we leave aside the fact that a divine character can't have things such as levels or magic items simply removed (which you literally just wrote you think they can, so you can't cite me for indicating things which aren't divine powers), you're also making the deliberate choice to look at this only in terms of potential abuse. That's where you're coming from, and it's what colors all of your points on this topic.

It is, after all, always specifically a gift, a "granting" of power each day, and the deity can just decide not to do that if they feel like it. Doing so isn't even a violation of alignment. And a believer talking back to their deity? A believer telling that deity that their gracious boon of power is unfit? Sounds like a perfect recipe for having "grossly violated" the tenets of one's faith--you have, after all, back-talked your own god, telling them they're wrong to have failed to grant you your spells. At which point you literally don't have class features, you're a worse Fighter.

Again, we'll leave aside the technical flaws in your argument (i.e. you do still have class features, since you don't lose things like weapon and armor proficiencies) and skip straight to the heart of the matter: that you're looking at this in the worst possible interpretation imaginable, with no understanding that if someone is looking to act like a jerk, then they're going to do so no matter what the books say. This is therefore hard to take seriously as an argument, simply because it's so beyond the bounds of the particulars being discussed. After all, you can't cite any passages that says that "talking back to your deity" is a "gross violation" of the tenets of your faith; this is entirely your looking at that in the most catastrophic way you can, which is a lot of baggage to bring to the table.

Like are you being serious here? This is the very thing that a lot of people hated about divine magic in 3.x. It's yours only until the GM decides otherwise, and guess who gets to set the standards? The GM. All power, no responsibility.

Again, we have to overlook your being fast and loose with the details here (as if there was something particularly unusual about 3.X compared to its predecessors) and instead focus on your wild assumptions about the role of the GM. "All power, no responsibility"? That's not something that can be countenanced with a straight face, because the GM is literally all about responsibility. I honestly can't imagine how you'd come to the conclusion that there's no responsibility involved in what you're describing. It's baffling.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope. Not even close.

There are plenty of ways to do things that do, in fact, actually put limits on what the GM can do. Rules the GM must abide by or they are--openly and explicitly--breaking the rules.

And unless you can cite some enforcement mechanisms for those rules, they're pointless in any kind of practical context. You seem to think that being able to point at the book and say "Aha! You've broken the rules!" is somehow going to bring the "tyrannical GM" that you're so scared of to heel. But what it comes down to is the social contract, no more and no less.

It's only D&D, as far as I can tell, where there's this bizarre notion that the GM needs to never have any rules whatsoever, but the players not only can and should but must be hemmed in on every side by rules.

This is just player-entitlement, disguised under a thin covering of being aggrieved. The idea that the GM actually holds you accountable for what you do isn't tyranny, and doesn't become so even if you wave the mostly-imaginary threat of overbearing GMs. There's a reason why this so-called "problem" has yet to sink D&D's viability as a game or popularity among other games of its ilk.

No. It's "don't design rules which depend on foolish assumptions, like no one EVER being a jerk in even the smallest ways".

"Have a referee" isn't a foolish assumption. What is a foolish assumption is that the rules can forcibly compel someone to not only stop being a jerk, but keep their behavior contained over the course of a campaign.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good". Yes, perfect defense against jerk-GM behavior is impossible. Useful defense against the vast majority of jerk-GM behavior, however, is quite possible.

We already have those defenses, and they're not found in a book. You can't write rules that stop someone from behaving badly, or which mandate talking things out, let alone create understanding or personal insight.

Rules that actually set standards, that actually make consequences--and that make it just as easy for players to call out bad GM behavior as it is for GMs to call out bad player behavior--are quite possible.

And yet you can't seem to cite any instances of how those rules are enforced, or explain why their absence hasn't someone driven a stake through D&D's heart. The answer to that, of course, is that this is one of so many problems which are comparatively rare in real life, but which people seem to love wringing their hands about on the Internet. Which is why I'm glad that no one has tried to write into the rules some formulation of "the PCs must never be impeded in anything that they attempt" the way you seem to want.

It's only D&D, as far as I can tell, where people deny that this is possible and pretend that the only way any game can be designed is "GM has absolute perfect latitude to do whatever they want whenever they want for as long as they want" or "the GM is never free to do anything at all".

No, it's apparently only D&D where people pretend that jerk GMs are a regular feature of the community, and which players are left to helplessly suffer under because there's nothing in the rulebooks that they can point to in order to make those GMs stop. Literally, you're the one positing that this is a horrible problem, and then turning around and berating the game for not offering a solution. All while ignoring how almost everyone else seems to be just fine with how things are going.

 

[Alzrius]

(And @Alzrius) I may regret butting in here, but:

It’s not the jerk dms we need to worry about. It’s the well-meaning dms who think they’re adding challenges but are actually just discouraging creative play by over-punishing or over-meddling or whatever.

A jerk dm will screw over the cleric/paladin/warlock no matter what the rules say. A naive dm might use the possibility simply because they assume it was put there to be used. Or they might over-use it (ie micro-managing patrons) because no one told them about how not to do that. Or thinking that paladins are only interesting if you give them impossible moral dilemmas. Etc.

There should be solid guidance for how to use these hooks, which prevent overuse (rather than assuming any misuse is intentional) while still leaving the door open if they come up organically.

Sure, but the way to solve the problems of mismatches of expectations between players and GMs is by an honest dialogue. At best, you can write advice about that into the sections on GMing, but even then that's just that: advice. At the proverbial end of the day, the player(s) and GM need to talk to each other. Attempting to hard-code a rule about the GM not being able to do X, Y, or Z is not only a fool's errand, it's counter-productive, since it simply takes the much-decried state of "tyrannical GMs" and tries to create a check by empowering tyrannical players.

That's not a counterbalance, it's detante, and only leads to things being worse rather than better. The books cannot make the social contract binding; only the people at the table can do that.

 

[Tigris]

At best, you can write advice about that into the sections on GMing, but even then that's just that: advice. At the proverbial end of the day, the player(s) and GM need to talk to each other.

No. Really not. Asymmetric boardgame and other game manage this. We just need to come away from seeing thr GM as a higher being. A GM is just 1 player with an asynchronous position. Maybe we should rven change the word from dungeon master to dungeon slave to counterbalance this "GS is god" feeling.

Many modern asymmetrical boardgames manage to just be played without needing this long discussions. You decide to play together game X so you just directly play game X and everyone has to follow its rules.

Attempting to hard-code a rule about the GM not being able to do X, Y, or Z is not only a fool's errand, it's counter-productive, since it simply takes the much-decried state of "tyrannical GMs" and tries to create a check by empowering tyrannical players.

Good. Its better if everyone has atomic bombs than if only 1 crazy old guy has them.


Also the reason "only D&D" has this "problem" is because only D&D is advanced enough finalcially and in game design to really be able to take care of this problem (again look at boardgames and how they try to be not prone to cheating and make asymmetrical games work).

And second in other games than D&D 5e, its often soo hard to find a GM that people are afraid to even introduce mechanics vs tyrannical GMs, because else they might just find no GM at all.

 

[Alzrius]

No. Really not. Asymmetric boardgame and other game manage this.

TTRPGs aren't boardgames, and shouldn't be judged by their standards, since they necessarily limit what anyone playing them can do. Imposing those same sorts of limits are too high a price to make TTRPGs "safe" from bad GMs. (Besides, we already have boardgames; if you're that worried about a jerk GM, go play that instead.)

Good. Its better if everyone has atomic bombs than if only 1 crazy old guy has them.

If that's the position by which you're characterizing the current state of the GM-player relationship, then I question if the basic premises exist for this to be a meaningful discussion.

 

[jmartkdr2]

That's like demanding all football uniforms be equipped with water wings, life vests, and flippers in case the stadium floods. It's going to impede play the majority of the time and there are numerous better ways of dealing with that hypothetical situation if it did end up happening.

Just tell the 'naive' DM there's a problem, don't demand the rulebook be rewritten. Clear communication is key and if you don't have that you shouldn't be playing together.

If you don't want to deal with the lore of the class you chose to play then either talk to your DM to get an exception made or pick a different class.

So new players are responsible for providing sound experience to new dms?

That doesn’t sound like a great solution. If only there was a way for the designers of the game to communicate to players how best to use their product.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Haha, nope! Spell selection isn't anywhere near that much, and it's hard to countenance any suggestion that it is.

My point is that your point about how GMs will apparently screw with a PC's sheet willy-nilly comes across as difficult to take seriously. Particularly since you seem to be indicating that GMs will do that on a whim while simultaneously suggesting that divine spellcasters are more vulnerable to that. It comes across as your having a problem with GMs in general rather than anything else.

You can decide not to take it seriously if you like. I know people to whom it has happened, and I know at least one GM who has specifically spoken about putting people in this position because he liked doing it to people. It really does happen!

I have no problem with GMs-in-general. (I'd have to have a problem with myself if I did, and Hussar, who has been nothing but supportive, amongst others.) I have a problem with rules which create trap situations and then don't lift a finger to address those traps....especially when they clearly end up encouraging GMs to do crappy things at least some of the time. Because I've seen it encourage GMs to do crappy things some of the time. Thankfully, almost never at tables I'm personally playing.

Show me where it says that players "aren't allowed to say no" or that they lose "all of their abilities, completely."

Ex-clerics. It's literally right there, in the book. You lose everything except proficiencies and skill points, IIRC. All your powers. Every single one.

And guess who gets to decide whether your deity took your powers away?

And here we begin to see the problem, so let's start at the beginning: your understanding is flawed. Literally, figuratively, and otherwise. Because even if we leave aside the fact that a divine character can't have things such as levels or magic items simply removed (which you literally just wrote you think they can, so you can't cite me for indicating things which aren't divine powers), you're also making the deliberate choice to look at this only in terms of potential abuse. That's where you're coming from, and it's what colors all of your points on this topic.

I had said that GMs were always able to remove levels and magic items--but that's a total other thing. I know for a fact you have heard of the "you were thrown in jail and all your items were taken away" story and how much players HATE that sort of thing most of the time. So don't act like this is some bizarro weird nobody-ever-does-this thing. It happens.

I was--and am--talking about loss of divine powers. I won't respond to your statements about things I didn't actually say.

And yes, of course I'm choosing to look at it in terms of potential abuse. That's what you have to do when you examine the design of something. You have to look for its points of failure. Or do you think we should design, say, our laws against fraud under the idea that nobody would ever abuse such laws?

Again, we'll leave aside the technical flaws in your argument (i.e. you do still have class features, since you don't lose things like weapon and armor proficiencies) and skip straight to the heart of the matter: that you're looking at this in the worst possible interpretation imaginable, with no understanding that if someone is looking to act like a jerk, then they're going to do so no matter what the books say. This is therefore hard to take seriously as an argument, simply because it's so beyond the bounds of the particulars being discussed. After all, you can't cite any passages that says that "talking back to your deity" is a "gross violation" of the tenets of your faith; this is entirely your looking at that in the most catastrophic way you can, which is a lot of baggage to bring to the table.

I am specifically looking at it from the most catastrophic perspective because that's when the rule is breaking down. You don't judge a rule by its best-use cases. You judge it by its worst-use cases, and you try to address and mitigate them as best you can. You won't be perfect. You won't prevent everything. But you'll prevent a lot just by putting in a modicum of effort.

Again, we have to overlook your being fast and loose with the details here (as if there was something particularly unusual about 3.X compared to its predecessors)

Yes, there is. The books explicitly give the GM direct permission to remove almost all class features of Clerics, Paladins, and a few other characters, for "Gods work in mysterious ways~" reasons. In other words, for any reason or no reason at all.

and instead focus on your wild assumptions about the role of the GM. "All power, no responsibility"? That's not something that can be countenanced with a straight face, because the GM is literally all about responsibility. I honestly can't imagine how you'd come to the conclusion that there's no responsibility involved in what you're describing. It's baffling.

No no no, you misunderstand. I absolutely 100% believe that the GM role comes with ENORMOUS responsibilities.

I'm talking about what these specific rules do and say. And what they do and say is that the GM can functionally delete everything your divine character can actually do, without any limits. No advice. No explanations. No discussion. Just incredibly vague and often EXTREMELY unhelpful so-called "guidance" and single throwaway lines like, as you yourself quoted, "gross violation". Who decides what is a "gross violation"? The GM--exclusively. The player does not and cannot argue about that, because it's up to the GM.

When the exact same person is both the dispenser of--let's be real here--punishment, and also the person who decides whether or not a behavior is worthy of punishment, what is that usually called in English? The phrase I'm familiar with is "judge, jury, and executioner".

And unless you can cite some enforcement mechanisms for those rules, they're pointless in any kind of practical context. You seem to think that being able to point at the book and say "Aha! You've broken the rules!" is somehow going to bring the "tyrannical GM" that you're so scared of to heel. But what it comes down to is the social contract, no more and no less.

Nope, because again you think I care about fighting inherently butthole-y people. I don't. Well, only limitedly. When someone's a butthole and you can point to the rules where they've done so, it's much, MUCH, MUCH easier to call them out for their bad behavior. Orders of magnitude easier. Why do you think forums like ENWorld have a codified set of rules which includes things like "be civil"? Because when you have a codified rule that says what someone has done is wrong, it's much easier to deal with their behavior, whether or not they are acting in good faith.

Will it stop buttholes? No. Nothing can. I've never said otherwise and even in the posts you're quoting I said as much. Instead, it gives players the ability to call out bad behavior FAR more easily, and to clearly articulate why that bad behavior is, in fact, bad. With jerk GMs, it smooths and accelerates the escape of players from said situation--doesn't mean they all will, but far more will, and that's worth seeking. Further, with the huge huge huge excluded middle here, where we recognize that most GMs are neither supervillains nor saints, but rather most GMs are mediocre, or of patchwork quality (amazing at A, dog poop at B, etc.), or deeply misinformed, or well-meaning but wrongheaded, or grossly misjudging the situation, etc. Rules that help players to address such situations are good and useful tools to have, not some insane tyrannical imposition on poor helpless GMs.

This is just player-entitlement, d

And here we part ways. I won't engage with anyone who seriously uses the phrase "player entitlement". Sorry.

We live in an age of GM entitlement and I'm tired of pretending we don't.

 

[Tigris]

TTRPGs aren't boardgames, and shouldn't be judged by their standards, since they necessarily limit what anyone playing them can do. Imposing those same sorts of limits are too high a price to make TTRPGs "safe" from bad GMs. (Besides, we already have boardgames; if you're that worried about a jerk GM, go play that instead.)

You know also RPGs can evolve and adapt better more modern gamedesign.

"RPGs are not boardgames" and similar thinking just keeps RPGs from evolving and getting better. RPGs and boardgames are games you play together with other people, so its naturally to learn from one another.

If that's the position by which you're characterizing the current state of the GM-player relationship, then I question if the basic premises exist for this to be a meaningful discussion.

See these kind of reactions from GSs is exactly why the "just talk" does often not work in practice and why having instead fixed rules in practice about what a GS is allowed to do and what not.

This also gives the opportunity to take burdens away from GMs. You can have a player being the "rules engineer" who knows the rules. So the GM does not need to take over this responsibility if he does not have the power to change the rules any longer.


You have 1 player be the rules engineer. Another player be the notetaker, 1 player be in charge of scheduling and the GS is just in charge of running the adventure. (Which as a group together was selected).

So new players are responsible for providing sound experience to new dms?

That doesn’t sound like a great solution. If only there was a way for the designers of the game to communicate to players how best to use their product.

yes exactly. Its similar to mechanics to "prevent cheating" in boardgames. It does help especially new players to not make errors. And make sure the game is played in the (hopefully best) way, the way it was designed for.

I have played lost mines of phandelver with a complete new GM and it was really not that good, and part of this is because some knowledge or behaviour how to play etc. Is pressumed instead of enforced.