The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[Bendris Noulg]

I wish Wizards would come out with a world that had restrictions rather than making every world as permissive as possible. Then maybe these newer players would accept restrictions because "that's the way the world works."

And I do not mean arbitrary restrictions. I just mean the ability to have slightly different races or restrict classes etc without the need to endure complaints.

Wheel of Time.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This:

This can be a problem if it's a vegetarian restaurant, the customer's favorite meal is roast beef, and it's the only restaurant in town. It's not really the fault of either the restaurant or the customer, but unless the two are able to come to some kind of agreement, the restaurant doesn't make a sale and the customer goes hungry. However, it does seem to me that it's pointless to complain about the existance of roast beef, or that there are too many types of food.

is probably a better summary of the situation than what I've been saying.

And I, for one, see 'cruch' as valid a reason to do anything as 'fluff,' and ideally a campaign has both. Why did you choose a half-fiendish minotaur for a villain...maybe it looked cool in your mind, and that doesn't preclude it coming organically out of the world.

It's kinda like The Matrix...one of the reasons many people saw it was just because 'it looked cool,' and that's as valid a reason as 'it turns Kant's Great Deciever into a science-fiction man vs. machine dichotomy that questions true humanity in the harsh artificial light we've built for ourselves.' It doesn't matter why you saw it, as long as you had fun seeing it.

And it's quite possible that this:

In my experience, if a player wants to play a particular class that is banned, it comes from either of the following:

A: I have found a particular nasty combo and I need this class to qualify for certain pre-reqs as soon as possible.

B: I want to play that class because it does not fit with the theme of the campaign. (ie. Some people just have to be an outsider.)

is hardly true of all people who want to play the class, and, indeed, most people who want to play the class.

And that just as often as there are players who wants a class for pre-reqs or just because it doesn't fit, there are DMs who rule 'no halflings' because halflings are overpowered, or because everyone else allows halflings and they annoy him.

Y'know, if you can find people williing to accept your authority and play a good game, more power to you. I'm just saying that not everyone will nessecarily kowtow to a DM's authority just because they're the DM and they have the final say. I'm one of those people, and I've been that way since 2e (it's a big part of my personality in genereal -- I'm not big on unjustified authority). I'm probably not the only one who thinks this way, *especially* if you're looking for blokes at the FLGS (where people are more likely to know what they want, what they like, and what they're looking for, because they're already familiar with their own way of playing the game). That could be part of the reason that these "gimmie gimmies" are being seen. Sometimes people want a better explanation than "Because I'm the GM, and I say they don't fit."

 

[Belen]

This:

is probably a better summary of the situation than what I've been saying.

And I, for one, see 'cruch' as valid a reason to do anything as 'fluff,' and ideally a campaign has both. Why did you choose a half-fiendish minotaur for a villain...maybe it looked cool in your mind, and that doesn't preclude it coming organically out of the world.

It's kinda like The Matrix...one of the reasons many people saw it was just because 'it looked cool,' and that's as valid a reason as 'it turns Kant's Great Deciever into a science-fiction man vs. machine dichotomy that questions true humanity in the harsh artificial light we've built for ourselves.' It doesn't matter why you saw it, as long as you had fun seeing it.

And it's quite possible that this:

is hardly true of all people who want to play the class, and, indeed, most people who want to play the class.

And that just as often as there are players who wants a class for pre-reqs or just because it doesn't fit, there are DMs who rule 'no halflings' because halflings are overpowered, or because everyone else allows halflings and they annoy him.

Y'know, if you can find people williing to accept your authority and play a good game, more power to you. I'm just saying that not everyone will nessecarily kowtow to a DM's authority just because they're the DM and they have the final say. I'm one of those people, and I've been that way since 2e (it's a big part of my personality in genereal -- I'm not big on unjustified authority). I'm probably not the only one who thinks this way, *especially* if you're looking for blokes at the FLGS (where people are more likely to know what they want, what they like, and what they're looking for, because they're already familiar with their own way of playing the game). That could be part of the reason that these "gimmie gimmies" are being seen. Sometimes people want a better explanation than "Because I'm the GM, and I say they don't fit."

When the players start spending 10-20 hours per week outside the actual game session preparing for said game session, then they can have equal voice. Players act as if denying one single race or class is the end of the world and they do nothing but show up and update their sheets.

For instance, on my world there are no half-orcs. Why? Orcs cannot breed with non-orcs. However, I just happen to have an entire race that fills the niche of the half-orcs.

In your worldview, someone should be able to play a half-orc because the example I just gave is "GM arbitrary fiat."

Well, if said player wants half-orcs in the world, then said player should be the GM. That player should spend a LARGE portion of their week trading their time in order to provide pleasure for a group of people rather than whinging because one class or race is not allowed.

A player has equal say when they spend equal time on the campaign. If they show up, play, and update a character sheet, then do not expect me to hand them the keys to the car and free passes to Disney.

 

[wingsandsword]

I run a d20 Modern game using the Dark*Matter setting. I don't allow most of the magic/psionic classes (and the few I do allow I have heavily rewritten to fit the setting), but I generally allow all the nonmagical classes/feats from the core books and the Modern Player's Companion. It's a low-magic setting so I have no qualms about restricting magic and psionics (but definitely magical, but it's not as powerful or silly as say, Urban Arcana)

A particularly odious member of our local gaming club (who started gaming with Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights and is an example of the "GM is my EQ server" mentality) heard I am running this game and immediately decided to create a character for my game, he started rolling up a PC right in front of me and telling me he was playing a Paladin.

Strike three, he's out. First, he didn't even bother to ask me if I had room in my campaign or if I wanted him in it (frankly, I would lose my sanity if he joined the game, and the apartment I run my game in is crowded enough as-is on game night). Second, he started to create a character without knowing or caring to know about any house rules (like I don't roll PC's, I use Point Buy, 25 points, and I have a list of homebrew feats he should probably look at), he automatically assumed that everything was by the book. Third, he started to create a high-level character from scratch assuming I would allow it, there is a "Paladin" prestige class in d20 Modern called Holy Knight, but it is campaign specific to the Urban Arcana setting (and I explicitly disallow it in the campaign), and since you can't take the class until 9th level he wanted to start with a 9th level character (I was starting new PC's at 4th level at the time).

In other campaigns, he always plays the exact same character: Lawful Stupid Paladin. If it detects as Evil: Smite It, even if it is trying to negotiate, surrender or help, because it is EVIL! If they are an Evil race or creature, smite them because they are all evil. If the DM is allowing the Book of Exalted Deeds his characters aren't complete without some PrC's and feats from there. What little roleplaying that is done is being condescending to other PC's about IG morality because you are a paladin and infalliable so if you disagree with other PC's they are wrong and immoral, and possibly even Evil if you disagree too much. Oh, and he believes that Paladins are by-far the most powerful class (but you should start as a Ranger at 1st level in 3.0e to get the front-loaded abilities before multiclassing to Paladin, he's also a munchkin). When this fellow didn't understand why every melee combat character didn't have a level of Ranger for the bonuses, some others in the club tried to explain to him that being a Ranger isn't in everyone's character concept or doesn't make sense for them. He just said "but that's more powerful if you do it, everyone should do it". A Poster Child for the "Crunch=Game" mentality.

I've also seen GM's have seemingly arbitrary house rules. It's hard to go along with seemingly abitrary, unexplained rules. "I am running Forgotten Realms, but no elves in my game and PC's can't be Druids". If you question them, they say simply "I am the GM, this is my game". If he had said "this is an alternate timeline from the normal realms, where all elves have finished the retreat and none remain in Faerun, and the Druids are all reclusive and isolated and a member of their order wouldn't go adventuring" I would live with it.

GM's and Players are supposed to be partners in having fun, not GM's as dictators handing down arbitrary rulings, and Players are supposed to enjoy the world, not find ways to trick or rules-lawyer the GM. A friendly, cooperative atmosphere is the best way to an enjoyable game. If a GM wants to have lots of restrictions, a friendly explanation of Why (especially if there is a story/plot reason why that class/race/feat/skill/whatever doesn't exist on that world) will go a lot further than just saying "Because I"m the DM".

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I've also seen GM's have seemingly arbitrary house rules. It's hard to go along with seemingly abitrary, unexplained rules. "I am running Forgotten Realms, but no elves in my game and PC's can't be Druids". If you question them, they say simply "I am the GM, this is my game". If he had said "this is an alternate timeline from the normal realms, where all elves have finished the retreat and none remain in Faerun, and the Druids are all reclusive and isolated and a member of their order wouldn't go adventuring" I would live with it.

Alright, here's a possible situation where it might look arbitrary but it isn't...

In 2E, all Druids in a campaign were supposedly part of a world-wide organization of nature priests (The Order). In this organization, the Balance between Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos were crucial, far more crucial than the personal views of the individual Druid. In such a scenario, Druids could actually be the foe; Seeing Good and Law having the upper hand for an extensive period of time, they believe that Chaos and Evil now need a "boost" to rebalance the cosmic scale. This would mean that Druids would be presented as a foe in the setting even though they are traditionally not cast in such a light.

Now, how do I, as GM, present an explaination for not allowing Druid PCs that...

A. Doesn't give away the plot.
B. Isn't a flat-out lie.
C. Doesn't come across as arbitrary?

That's the problem with the "explain why anything's different" stance: It demands an explaination for things that are possibly (indeed, probably!) best left to be discovered in-game.

As for the Elves, that is another situation entirely; FR is a heavily supported campaign and there are certain assumptions that players will make about that setting in particular (especially since a family of Elves can't go on summer vacation without coming back as a new subrace). For this reason, an explaination of some sort should be forth coming or the players will have presumptions about the game world that aren't correct (and justly so!).

However, this is specifically an issue with a published campaign setting. The problem being discussed is, in fact, not at all related to such a thing, but rather is people assuming that a GM's homebrew needs to be exactly like Greyhawk (same races, classes, choices, etc.) and demanding explainations for why it isn't. And, quite frankly, that's a mistake on the player's part.

I mean, does anyone complain that Scarred Lands is different from Greyhawk? How about Gothos? Freeport or Bluffside? Midnight? Oathbound? Arcana Unearthed? Iron Kingdoms? Conan or Slain? Is the "world concept of a publishing company" really any different than the "campaign vision of a homebrewer"?

I say it isn't. And to put individual GMs up against the wall with incesant demands for explainations and reasoning is just as rediculous as expecting such explainations from Jim Butler, Hal Greenburg, Wil Upchurch, Monte Cook, or any other professional. It's rude, discurteous, and is more representative of distrust than anything else.

 

[trilobite]

When the players start spending 10-20 hours per week outside the actual game session preparing for said game session, then they can have equal voice. Players act as if denying one single race or class is the end of the world and they do nothing but show up and update their sheets.

For instance, on my world there are no half-orcs. Why? Orcs cannot breed with non-orcs. However, I just happen to have an entire race that fills the niche of the half-orcs.

In your worldview, someone should be able to play a half-orc because the example I just gave is "GM arbitrary fiat."

Well, if said player wants half-orcs in the world, then said player should be the GM. That player should spend a LARGE portion of their week trading their time in order to provide pleasure for a group of people rather than whinging because one class or race is not allowed.

A player has equal say when they spend equal time on the campaign. If they show up, play, and update a character sheet, then do not expect me to hand them the keys to the car and free passes to Disney.

But the D&D (or any role-playing game for that matter) is a game! Not a competitive conflict between the DM and the players. It looks like your game has evolved into a power struggle between you and the players for control. It should be about the fun and providing a memoriable and enjoyable experience.for everyone involved. While the DM puts alot of time and effort in the game and he/she should be appricated for his effort, that does not make the players second hand citizens at the gaming table. Heck if a player wants to play a certin class or race that you have cut from the game. Talk to the guy/gal and see what can be done. A game is not a dicatorship try a compromise that both can live with.

 

[I'm A Banana]

GM's and Players are supposed to be partners in having fun, not GM's as dictators handing down arbitrary rulings, and Players are supposed to enjoy the world, not find ways to trick or rules-lawyer the GM. A friendly, cooperative atmosphere is the best way to an enjoyable game. If a GM wants to have lots of restrictions, a friendly explanation of Why (especially if there is a story/plot reason why that class/race/feat/skill/whatever doesn't exist on that world) will go a lot further than just saying "Because I"m the DM".

Bingo.

And this:

When the players start spending 10-20 hours per week outside the actual game session preparing for said game session, then they can have equal voice.

I think is unfair to the players. Now, admittedly, this is just my personal opinion, but I'm under the impression that the majority of DM's *choose* to be DM's. They like it. That 10-20 hours per week is part of their enjoyment of the game, especially when they see it played out on that 4-6 hour session at the end of all of it. I know that's why I DM -- I enjoy the process of making a story to send the characters through. No one makes me do it, so I should not really expect everyone to bend to my indomitable will just because I spend more time on it. I'm not entitled to unquestioning loyalty just because I spend more time doing it, I believe. If there is a problem with spending those 10-20 hours per week, and then having players who have their own desires and ways to have fun disagree with me, for my milage, it's time to give them the reigns and see what they can do with the DM helm for a while. If I can't give them an explanation, I've gotten far to caught up in the sacred flavor of my game that it'll quickly stop being fun for them (my players, like me, enjoy an explanation for things).

Not every group is like that, of course. But it's not *bad* to be like that.

An' finally:

Now, how do I, as GM, present an explaination for not allowing Druid PCs that...

A. Doesn't give away the plot.
B. Isn't a flat-out lie.
C. Doesn't come across as arbitrary?

Well, you could try being honest: "Druids are integral to the plot I'm developing, and I'd rather not have players have easy access to all the secrets."

Or you could try that if any player wanted to play a druid, they were not party to the secrets and evil happening within the organization. Perhaps they hail from a bumpkin part of the organization that doesn't get as much info (such as a small-town police officer vs. the FBI), or they're just not in the inner circle as much (being an adventurer and all is not really conducive to keeping up with the inner politics of Druids), or even just roll with it -- let them find out the villainous secrets of the organization they claim to be a part of, and see what happens as they are pulled in two different directions.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Heck if a player wants to play a certin class or race that you have cut from the game. Talk to the guy/gal and see what can be done. A game is not a dicatorship try a compromise that both can live with.

See, this conversation keeps coming back to this point, and it's been acknowledged: A concept is almost always viable, it's a matter of how it's done.

Now, if a player wants to play a Paladin in my game, it ain't going to happen cause they don't exist (actually, there are 12, but they are all Prestige Classes and, as indicated earlier, Prestige Classes are to be learned about in-game). However, saying that "there are no Paladins" doesn't prevent the player from creating a heavily armored, mounted combatant with Lawful Good alignment that fights for honor, virtue, and justice. What is available is laid out rather clearly (well, in my non-OGL friendly houserules they are, the OGL friendly pdf still has things being written up, but you get my point, I think) and doesn't need me to hold his hand to get as close to his concept as he wants.

Now note: There is one fiat to this, and only one. When an established group has a GM say, "I'm starting a new campaign, what's everyone want?" This is the time for players to speak up and for concepts to be agreed upon and established as being part of the game. And, I'm betting that if you focus in on these times, this "problem" is virtually non-existant. In most cases where this problem does arise, it is usually with a new group (often a GM has a campaign he wants to run and gathers players to his table) or a new player is joining an already established group with already-agreed-upon parameters (this being the case for most of the issues I've had and have related in this thread).

Otherwise, it is the GM's world. I believe I read a Dragon article that indicated that 2-3 hours of planning was the average per hour of play time that is spent by the GM preparing for a game. For a 6 hour session, that's anywhere from 12-16 hours on average. Now add the 6 actually playing, and now the GM has spent 18-24 hours to the players' 6.

Now, can someone explain why on Earth anyone would spend that much time building and running a game they don't like just for the sake of catering to every little whim or fancy that a player comes up with? After all, if the player doesn't like the game, he's not going to put in the 6 to begin with, so why should the opposite be expect of the GM that, by far, puts far more time and far more work into the campaign. I mean, the maps, the towns and cities, the NPCs, the monsters, the politics, even the friggin' weather. Every adventure. Every magic item. Everything.

Compared to a player with 1 PC that they wrote up in an afternoon and now plays 6 hours per week.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Well, you could try being honest: "Druids are integral to the plot I'm developing, and I'd rather not have players have easy access to all the secrets."

Promotes metagame thinking. Every time the PCs hear about or encounter a Druid, they'll be wondering about it. Best game-wise to just keep the info off the table.

Or you could try that if any player wanted to play a druid, they were not party to the secrets and evil happening within the organization. Perhaps they hail from a bumpkin part of the organization that doesn't get as much info (such as a small-town police officer vs. the FBI), or they're just not in the inner circle as much (being an adventurer and all is not really conducive to keeping up with the inner politics of Druids), or even just roll with it -- let them find out the villainous secrets of the organization they claim to be a part of, and see what happens as they are pulled in two different directions.

Or perhaps the character concept doesn't have him as a bumpkin. Should I force him into that situation?

Or perhaps The Order would overlook a "rising star" like the PC Druid and not see him as an ally or threat until it was too late? Don't think so.

Or perhaps, working against the Druids, the PC Druid now looses his powers and now I've got an upset player because he's an Ex-Druid? Yes, that's a way to keep the player happy.

Remember, the idea of the Druid's being Neutral (in part) is because they, as protectors/guardians/curators of nature, are faced with the "hard choices", meaning that regardless of their individual views, the dictates of The Order are paramount in order to ensure that the world remains balanced.

As such, "No Druid PCs" would be, in the long run, the most viable option for the GM and, even if they don't realize it, for the players as well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Now, can someone explain why on Earth anyone would spend that much time building and running a game they don't like just for the sake of catering to every little whim or fancy that a player comes up with?

First of all, this is the straw man -- no one is saying that DMs have to cater to every whim of a demanding player. No one is asking a DM to play in a game they don't enjoy.

Second, the DM spends that much time building a campaign setting and plot because, presumably, they enjoy doing it. If it stops being fun for them, they should give up the reigns to someone who will have fun doing it, I think. This is assuming that the group is compatible to begin with, of course.

Promotes metagame thinking. Every time the PCs hear about or encounter a Druid, they'll be wondering about it. Best game-wise to just keep the info off the table.

You can't stop metagame thinking, really. Just by banning druids from player choice, but allowing them as NPC's, they know there's a reason you did it, if they still trust you as a DM not to be arbitrary. And if they don't trust you, they probably wouldn't play to begin with, so there ya go. Either they're thinking metagame anyway, or they're not playing with you.

Or perhaps the character concept doesn't have him as a bumpkin. Should I force him into that situation?

Well, I don't know many druids who are in big cities....and if they have a problem with being on the outskirts of the organization (maybe they thought they'd be a political druid?), you can talk it out with them. Present your reason for enforcing that (as above, explaining yourself).

Or perhaps The Order would overlook a "rising star" like the PC Druid and not see him as an ally or threat until it was too late? Don't think so.

This is a common Fantasy and Heroic motif -- the nobody that the badguys overlook until it's too late.

Or perhaps, working against the Druids, the PC Druid now looses his powers and now I've got an upset player because he's an Ex-Druid? Yes, that's a way to keep the player happy.

Remember, the idea of the Druid's being Neutral (in part) is because they, as protectors/guardians/curators of nature, are faced with the "hard choices", meaning that regardless of their individual views, the dictates of The Order are paramount in order to ensure that the world remains balanced.

The Order supercedes the edicts of the faith itself? Why would he loose the powers unless he violated his oaths? Or does a cleric loose their powers because they don't play well with others, too? Is it impossible to be a rebellious divine spellcaster without loosing your divine spellcasting powers? So inter-faith arguments are impossible? I don't think you'd really want all the ramifications of putting the Order as the source of the power, right?

As such, "No Druid PCs" would be, in the long run, the most viable option for the GM and, even if they don't realize it, for the players as well.

No, it's not. It's much more important IMHO to value players as essential for the DM's enjoyment.