The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[hong]

Bull pucky. Any player that's going to get "peeved off" for such petty reasons is unworthy of my table and not worth my time to accomodate.

/hands BN a rattle

 

[jerichothebard]

Again, though, this is half the problem: some players don't think a "themed" campaign world should "restrict" what the Core Rules give the false impression of entitlement to unless it's in print (print=playtested and valid, houseruled=arbitrary and broken). Yes, I agree with your earlier statement that they should be told to go GM their own game (although I have, at times, told certain individuals to go do something else that I won't mention here). However, this isn't the entirety of the issue. For instance, my mention earlier about the way I handle Prestige Classes getting me ripped on in several threads. This isn't a case of not allowing a person join my table, but rather of being publicly prosecuted for being incompetant, fearful of PC empowerment, railroading, power-mad, and so forth, by several posters that have absolutely no idea what gaming it my table is really like. They didn't see "campaign world conditions" or "playing style preferences" being discussed; rather, they saw only "restrictions" that they don't feel are valid within the gaming community at all and did their (pathetically) best to make it look like I was some kind of villain that the 3rd Edition rules are designed to "protect" players from (and thus how it relates to this discussion).

Why do you care?

 

[jerichothebard]

... In fact, these editors believe that any restriction not in accord with the core rules is too much.

So, they change the article to reflect their views.

Would such a thing, should it ever happen, indicate a broader trend? Would it mean that the new edition of D&D has produced a consumer-base that has been conditioned to disapprove of restrictions that conflict with the core rules--even in a campaign setting?

Should, in other words, full agreement with all of the options presented in the core rules always and forever trump any consideration of the tone of a campaign setting?

Apparently, if you work for Paizo, yes.

I don't happen to agree with this choice.




Which is one of the reasons I don't have a subscription to any of their mags.

 

[SSquirrel]

The exact quote from the original DS base set on why Paladins aren't in the game.

"There are no Paladins in Dark Sun-the idea of serving good and right for the simple rewards of inner peace and faith faded from the barren world of Athas long ago."

Sounds like completely perfect justification to me.

Hagen

 

[Gothmog]

I want a *good* reason. I don't think I've heard many good arguments in favor of these restrictions.

Well, I'm looking at it from a player's perspective. As a player, if a DM is going to take the tested core rules and alter parts of it that I am interested in playing, I'm going to want a justification for that. After that, I can either alter my choice based on the world, or help the DM give a bit so I can still play the concept I want. If they're just going to give me some condescending "'cuz I'm the DM, that's why!" I'd rather not deal with someone who's that heavy-handed when I just want to play a game and have some fun. If they give me some off-the-wall "Horrible balance, I have no idea what WotC was thinking, they must've been smoking crack when they let halflings be rangers!," I'd rather not deal with someone who, as a DM, has that narrow a concept of their world. If they give me their rationale, I can give them mine, and we can work to form a common ground in which I can play the character I want, and the DM's world is still preserving it's flavor.

See where I'm going with this? Don't make you restrictions absolute and involatile, and provide ways to play the same character archetypes in a way that is square with the world, and you won't end up peeving off players who just want to play a bloody fatalistic hero in a blasted world for a little fun on the weekend.

No offense intended KM, but I think you are making the rather erroneous assumption that the D&D rules are generic and all elements are suitable for use in any fantasy world. D&D is the strange bastard child of many influences, including mythology, Tolkein, Howard, Leiber, Vance, and by this point a bazillion other sources. Not all of the races, classes, etc are suitable or even thematically appropriate for all worlds. As such, I think the options presented in the core books should be seen as optional elements, not as assumptions. The DM is perfectly within his rights to say "gnomes never existed in my world", or "all clerics and paladins must draw power from a deity" if thats the way he has defined it in his cosmology. I do think its laudable that you work with players to try and help them build a character concept that fits what they are wanting- thats the sign of a DM who cares about his player's happiness and enjoyment of the game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

How about, "There aren't any and never were."

It's heavy handed, and it doesn't give them a way to play those archetypes within your world. I mean, as a DM, you have reasons for ditching the races, ne? You have reasons why, in the creation of the world, these things weren't considered and don't occur, and IMHO, a player deserves to know what these underlying reasons are, not just for this one character, but for the way they play in general. When there is an option to have artistic, magical forest people, or not have them, why choose not to have them? It's a "why can't there be any?" kind of thing. And IMHO, the reason should be deep enough to help the player not only accept it, but also to encourage them playing as a member of the world. Right now IMC, wizards -- there aren't any and never were. But because "no wizards" isn't exactly key to the conceptualization of my world, I can allow a PC who wants to be one to adopt it in the course of the campaign.

Basically, this is "think long and hard about the changes you make, and why you are making them," odly enough, just like Monte says throughout the PHB when adopting house rules (which 'no elves and orcs' is). Players deserve to know the thought you put into the setting.

You mean that you haven't heard a reason that's good enough for you to put aside childish wants in favor of just "going with it" to have fun.

"Too bad, so sad," as the saying goes.

I dunno, it strikes me as more childish to aparently arbitrarily limit the setting, which is something I don't expect many DM's do. I mean, it's a game I'm playing to have some fun once a week. If my concept of 'fun' includes playing savage, half-blooded outcast barbarians who are not welcome in civilized society, either my DM can cater to that, or they can not, and if they don't, it's smell ya later. And if they don't give me a good reason they won't cater to that, even if that's *not* my current concept of fun, it makes me worried about the heavy-handed nature (which is not something I'm a fan of, YMMV, of course).

Thinks all you want... Fact is, once you remove flavor, all you have left is books full of numbers. Heck, remove the flavor from M:tG, and all you have is cards with numbers.

It's not removing flavor, it's replacing it with flavor more suited to the setting.

Healing, cure disease, courage... These are all related to the "force that defines the cosmos" referred to as "Good".

They could not be....they could be related to 'preserving the status quo.' Evil can be healed, could succumb to disease, could be too affraid to bear it's fangs...evil needs paladins, too.

In which case I'll refer you to the section on altering available classes in the DMG. If Monte Cook's words on the subject aren't good enough for you, than there's little I can do to change your mind.

As a player, I'm not asking my DM to bend to my every whim, but simply to help me have fun in his world. If he's too defensive about it to be able to talk about it with me, that's too heavy handed for my tastes.

Funny... Your "Good Answer" is the exact reason Paladins aren't a part of Dark Sun. Glad to see you're finally coming around on this issue. I was afraid this debate might be hopeless...

Well, I just realized that once you 'ideally adapt' the Paladin, there's not a lot, mechanics-wise, distinguishing it from a healing psychic warrior. The main hinge is the 'loose your powers if you do evil' idea, which the organizations help to reinforce. That is the reason paladins "don't belong," but it doesn't say "PALADINS ARE FORBIDDEN FOR I AM THE DM AND I AM GOD MWAHAHAHA!" It says "we're not encouraging pure heroics." If, as a DM, you don't mind encouraging heroics (maybe you're playing DS more to change the world than to live within it?), then you can allow Paladins, and note the recommendations for a role within the setting. It makes the setting far more verstile when you give your reasons, and allow individual DM's (and individual players who now can understand the world better) to go their own route with it rather than "No paladins on Athas. Evar."

Any player that's going to get "peeved off" for such petty reasons is unworthy of my table and not worth my time to accomodate.

And this is something that, as a player, is hard for me to live with. Because your game is no better for me than Bob the DM's Game down the street, and he allows half-orcs. There's nothing sacred or special about your table that I can't get somewhere else, and no reason for me to be "worthy of it," in my mind. We're playing a game, not taking a purity test. As a player, that kind of heavy-handedness grates on me, and there's no reason for me to enjoy that game if the DM thinks so highly of their own campaign that they aren't open to conversation about it's underlying philosophies.

I guess this "sense of entitlement" is more a "desire for accomodation." I don't intend to speak for most people, but I don't personally think attending a game the DM thinks is somehow "better gaming" than someone else's, and thus can have "unworthies," (instead of just people whose styles don't mesh) is just not that fun. And since the point of the game is 'to have fun,' first and foremost, IMHO, this could be why you're seeing resistance to limitations. If someone has fun playing a half-elf, and the DM disallows half-elves, and won't even give you a reason (or worse, insults you for wanting a reason, and threatens your 'worthiness,'), well there doesn't, from my side of things, seem to be a lot of fun for me in that.

Others may be okay, and that's fine. But I don't think I'm alone in my above opinion, and if there is resistance to the limitations in your campaign, this could be part of the reason. *shrug*

 

[hong]

Because your game is no better for me than Bob the DM's Game down the street, and he allows half-orcs. There's nothing sacred or special about your table that I can't get somewhere else, and no reason for me to be "worthy of it," in my mind.

"No, your game is not a precious snowflake, unique in every way."


Hong "politically incorrect DM" Ooi

 

[Greg K]

With KM's attitude, my players would tell him to take a hike before I ever a got a chance to do so !

 

[FireLance]

Hm. From the sound of things, the player that insists on playing a particular archetype, regardless of the appropriateness to the DM's campaign, is as equally childish as the DM that imposes arbitrary restrictions the characters. A little bit of maturity on both sides might be desirable.

I don't care if you're playing cowboys and indians. I want to play a galaxy star fighter with super laser guns! Zap! You're all dead!

Anyway, if anyone is interested in my opinion, I like options, I like rules, I like balance, and this is why.

More options means that I have more tools. As a player, I will be better able to create a character that I want to play. As a DM, I will be better able to create the campaign setting that I want to present to my players.

Oh, okay. You're a galaxy star fighter, but you had to crash land on this planet full of cowboys and indians and you don't have your super laser guns, or body armor or any of that fancy science stuff.

I like rules because I like consistency as a player and as a DM. A situation that is not covered by rules has to be decided by DM, and that creates the risk of inconsistency. As a DM, I would expect the players to tell me if I have implemented a rule incorrectly, and as a player I would expect a DM to react with good grace if I did so.

Bang! You're dead.
No, I'm not.
Yes, you are.
No I'm not.
Look, we're playing in my house with my toys, so if I say you're dead, you are!

I want the options to be balanced that players have some latitude of choice in the characters they play without worrying that their characters will be useless to the party, or worrying the DM that they are going to create some monster.

But I don't wanna be a cowboy. Can I be that guy in the bar that plays the piano?
Okay. Bang! You're dead

Finally, I prefer game companies to focus their energies on creating balanced rules and options because I find it a lot more trouble for me to do so. For me, adding flavor is easy. Figuring out the implications of creating a new feat, spell or presitige class is more complicated, and I'd rather pay someone to do it for me.

Or I could go back to playing cowboys and indians.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

It's heavy handed, and it doesn't give them a way to play those archetypes within your world.

Actually, dictating to the GM what archtypes must be available is heavy-handed. While rules prevent the "bang, you're dead" syndrom that Firelance described, what I've found to have increased with gamers is the "play my way or I'm going home to play with myself" syndrom. To which I'd be glad to see the person leave; he can play with himself all day for all I care.

I mean, as a DM, you have reasons for ditching the races, ne?

Check out your own term: Ditching. I'm not "ditching" anything if it was never there. Rather, "ditching" is a negative term that has only one purpose: to make the decision not to include something sound arbitrary. Indeed, their inclusion in the game is equally arbitrary, and so including them or not including them requires no justification.

You have reasons why, in the creation of the world, these things weren't considered and don't occur, and IMHO, a player deserves to know what these underlying reasons are, not just for this one character, but for the way they play in general.

I laid out the campaign, placed certain races in certain locations, and then realized I didn't have any Elves. I made the (wise) decision not to shoe-horn them in.

When there is an option to have artistic, magical forest people, or not have them, why choose not to have them? It's a "why can't there be any?" kind of thing.

To which I ask, "why must there be any?"

Hmmm... This conversation is starting to take an interesting, existential twist, don't you think?

And IMHO, the reason should be deep enough to help the player not only accept it, but also to encourage them playing as a member of the world. Right now IMC, wizards -- there aren't any and never were. But because "no wizards" isn't exactly key to the conceptualization of my world, I can allow a PC who wants to be one to adopt it in the course of the campaign.

See reply concerning the lack of Aedonian Elves above.

Basically, this is "think long and hard about the changes you make, and why you are making them," odly enough, just like Monte says throughout the PHB when adopting house rules (which 'no elves and orcs' is). Players deserve to know the thought you put into the setting.

No, including or not including a Race is not a rules change. Removing Divine Magic, Arcane Magic, or something else that serves as a tool is a rules change, but not removing a race.

I dunno, it strikes me as more childish to aparently arbitrarily limit the setting, which is something I don't expect many DM's do. I mean, it's a game I'm playing to have some fun once a week. If my concept of 'fun' includes playing savage, half-blooded outcast barbarians who are not welcome in civilized society, either my DM can cater to that, or they can not, and if they don't, it's smell ya later.

The concept alone isn't the issue. However, if someone's going to whine like a spoiled brat because a specific combination of the above concept isn't available, than he can go whipe his tears on his mommy's apron for all I care.

And if they don't give me a good reason they won't cater to that, even if that's *not* my current concept of fun, it makes me worried about the heavy-handed nature (which is not something I'm a fan of, YMMV, of course).

Guess what? I'm not a fan of heavy-handed players that are going to thump the rules at me as if it's some form of empowerment tool.

It's not removing flavor, it's replacing it with flavor more suited to the setting.

That's dodging the question by adding a condition not present in your original statement.

They could not be....they could be related to 'preserving the status quo.' Evil can be healed, could succumb to disease, could be too affraid to bear it's fangs...evil needs paladins, too.

And Unearthed Arcana handles this quite well. Unfortunately for your stance, they didn't do it by just changing the flavor text of the Paladin.

As a player, I'm not asking my DM to bend to my every whim, but simply to help me have fun in his world. If he's too defensive about it to be able to talk about it with me, that's too heavy handed for my tastes.

What you want is to have an explaination that you may or may not choose to agree with. And, should you choose not to agree with it, you'll call him heavy handed and his decision arbritrary. Granted, you're free to make this choice, but don't confuse your choice with the facts.

Well, I just realized that once you 'ideally adapt' the Paladin, there's not a lot, mechanics-wise, distinguishing it from a healing psychic warrior. The main hinge is the 'loose your powers if you do evil' idea, which the organizations help to reinforce. That is the reason paladins "don't belong," but it doesn't say "PALADINS ARE FORBIDDEN FOR I AM THE DM AND I AM GOD MWAHAHAHA!" It says "we're not encouraging pure heroics." If, as a DM, you don't mind encouraging heroics (maybe you're playing DS more to change the world than to live within it?), then you can allow Paladins, and note the recommendations for a role within the setting. It makes the setting far more verstile when you give your reasons, and allow individual DM's (and individual players who now can understand the world better) to go their own route with it rather than "No paladins on Athas. Evar."

Yet the concept that Elves were never born/evolved on a world isn't enough? That's the problem with your stance: It doesn't matter if there is a reason for it, it matters if you agree with the reason. And that makes you just as heavy-handed as the GMs you are complaining about.

And this is something that, as a player, is hard for me to live with. Because your game is no better for me than Bob the DM's Game down the street, and he allows half-orcs. There's nothing sacred or special about your table that I can't get somewhere else, and no reason for me to be "worthy of it," in my mind.

Actually, yes, if you are the sort of player that is going to disect every world-condition and whine and cry like a spoiled brat if you choose not to accept the reason, than you are indeed unworthy of my table.

We're playing a game, not taking a purity test.

Interesting. Now take this sentance and compare it to your own posts. If the term "hypocritical" comes to mind, don't be surprised.

As a player, that kind of heavy-handedness grates on me, and there's no reason for me to enjoy that game if the DM thinks so highly of their own campaign that they aren't open to conversation about it's underlying philosophies.

And as a GM, your kind of heavy-handedness is a waste of my time and will eventually grate on the nerves of the other players. According to many posts around here, that would make you a trouble-maker.

I guess this "sense of entitlement" is more a "desire for accomodation." I don't intend to speak for most people, but I don't personally think attending a game the DM thinks is somehow "better gaming" than someone else's, and thus can have "unworthies," (instead of just people whose styles don't mesh) is just not that fun.

Except look at your post: You are complaining about GMs that won't bend to mesh with you. This makes you a hypocrit. And, if you did this at my table, you would indeed be deemed unworthy: Unworthy of our time, our effort, and our loss of fun, all of which would be caused by your hypocritical whining.

And since the point of the game is 'to have fun,' first and foremost, IMHO, this could be why you're seeing resistance to limitations. If someone has fun playing a half-elf, and the DM disallows half-elves, and won't even give you a reason (or worse, insults you for wanting a reason, and threatens your 'worthiness,'), well there doesn't, from my side of things, seem to be a lot of fun for me in that.

I don't consider anyone "unworthy" because they like playing Half-Elves. I do consider someone unworthy if they whine, cry, and prattle on like over-pampered spoiled brats about it.

Others may be okay, and that's fine. But I don't think I'm alone in my above opinion, and if there is resistance to the limitations in your campaign, this could be part of the reason. *shrug*

I only find resistance when seeking new players, and most often from those that have only played 3E.

Take that as you wish.