The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[billd91]

Actually, though, this raises the question (yet again) of why a published setting (with it's own flavor) is held to a different standard than a homebrew setting (with it's own flavor)? The fact that a "professional" campaign is accepted as-is and that a GM's campaign is questioned shows a lack of trust towards the GM, and anyone that doesn't trust their GM shouldn't be at that GM's table to begin with.

I don't think it's a different standard at all. If you give your players the flavor text that the published settings do, even if it's a brief discussion or Q&A session, then you're pretty much adhering to the same standard. The difference is that with a home brewed world, you're more readily available for questions about the whys and design philosophies than the authors of published works (unless you happen to know that author personally).

Honestly, folks should just trust their GMs more... If he really does suck or is a jerk, it won't take long to figure it out. Come to think of it, "restrictions" or not, if he sucks or is a jerk, you're not going to hang out long anyways, so why make a fuss about it?
<snip>

And DMs should trust their players more to take what might be a banned option and make it fit with the DM's vision of the setting. Goes both ways. If the player isn't a jerk, he'll be able to do it with nearly anything.

 

[Belen]

And DMs should trust their players more to take what might be a banned option and make it fit with the DM's vision of the setting. Goes both ways. If the player isn't a jerk, he'll be able to do it with nearly anything.

And if a player wanted to play a gnome on a world with no gnomes? How about a player who wanted to play a city-concentrated rogue in a wilderness campaign? etc.

Sometimes there is a reason to ban races and classes. On my world, I have no desire to see someone play a mountain dwarf who is a smith. Why? Dwarves are nature lovers who work to keep the natural world healthy. They actually get a bonus to charisma.

I trust my players to play within the framework that I create. I give the same respect to any GM that I choose to game with. If there were no elves in said GMs game, then I would not whinge about the lack of elf.

I'd choose another race and enjoy myself.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I wonder if there is perhaps a vocal minority that enjoyed the older editions' "rule on the fly," concept? Certianly that did make it more important to trust the DM, since when there wasn't a rule, the DM had to be trusted to generate a fair one.....

Wow! Wish I had gotten in on this thread earlier. I got two pages into reading it and realized that I wouldn't have time to read all nine.

I for one DO prefer the older editions for just those reasons. Nobody in my old 1e & 2e groups questioned any of the DM's rules calls. Nowdays I can't run a single session without someone pointing out a rule in the book that contradicts something I said. You can point at Rule Zero all you like but most players like that answer as much as most kids like it when their parents say "Because I said so". Asking a DM to write up a document with EVERY change they want to make at the beginning is unfair because any rules savy player will find loopholes they can use to take their characters in a direction that the DM couldn't have predicted.
One of the reasons I use the Midnight setting in the first place is because the players go into the campaign KNOWING from the get-go that there will be several limits put into place that make it very different from a standard D&D game. The fact that there is no divine magic axes a great many feats and PrCs and so does some of the paring down work for the DM.
At the risk of bringing up something that will be called irrelavant I'm going to compare D&D to Rifts. One of the things that Palladium touted was that there were no limits to Rifts and Palladium catered to the munchkin in all of us by offering progressively more and more powerful character classes, races, and equipment in each book. Each book offered more options even if they were WAY unbalanced. I remember once volunteering to run a Rifts game and all my players were excited about it... until I told them to use only the core book. I very much believe that options are like an addiction to drugs. Once you get hooked on them it is only with great pain that you can reign them back in. People don't like to be told "No" (as in "No, I won't allow you to do that with your character") and that is really what it all boils down to.

Enough rambling for now...

And DMs should trust their players more to take what might be a banned option and make it fit with the DM's vision of the setting. Goes both ways. If the player isn't a jerk, he'll be able to do it with nearly anything.

Edit: Sorry... had to make a statement about this. If a player REALLY wanted to play a Cleric in Midnight, I'd let them. They'd be a Fighter with d8 for Hit Dice, slower attack progression, and a worse selection of weapons. No divine spells and no turning undead but if they STILL want to play one then more power to them. Then again, I've yet to find a player that would intentionally play a weakend class like that.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I don't nessecarily hold published settings to higher standards than homebrews. After all, it was a published setting's forbiddance/acceptance that started this whole thing. I'm not speaking for others, though.

I gotta agree with Belen on this... Your willingness to accept "flavor" seems to have a direct relation to replacement crunch. I also agree that one player can ruin the fun for the other players; I've experienced that first-hand several times over (indeed, such experiences shaped my philosophy as a GM as well as tempered my approach to other GMs in regards to both enforcing and accepting variance).

I guess I might view it backwards from some. Whereas Bendris has an interview process for players, I'd rather have an interview process for DM's. It's my view that a single bad player ruins the game most strongly for himself, a single bad DM ruins the game most strongly for 3-5 other people he's playing with. It's much more important for me to have a good DM than to have a good player.

Ah, but you are overlooking something: At any time during the "3 step interview", the player also has the opportunity to decide on his own that there isn't going to be a good fit and turn down that game at his own choosing. And I certainly feel no ill-will towards anyone that does so.

I don't think it's a different standard at all. If you give your players the flavor text that the published settings do, even if it's a brief discussion or Q&A session, then you're pretty much adhering to the same standard. The difference is that with a home brewed world, you're more readily available for questions about the whys and design philosophies than the authors of published works (unless you happen to know that author personally).

Except that I'm under no compulsion to explain the non-existance of something other than "it doesn't fit". Indeed, "this isn't Greyhawk" should be enough.

And DMs should trust their players more to take what might be a banned option and make it fit with the DM's vision of the setting. Goes both ways. If the player isn't a jerk, he'll be able to do it with nearly anything.

If the player's that imaginative, he can make his own setting and run it. As is, I don't feel obligated to shoehorn in something simply because it's in the Core Rules and a player thinks it should be. And, on top, the last thing I want is a well-meaning but imaginatively-inept player coming up with what he thinks is a kewl reason/exception to allow something when, in all reality, the idea sucks.

If it fit, it would be there already. A player that at that point really has only three choices:

1. Accept it.
2. Depart in a civil manner.
3. Whine about it and get the boot.

1 is preferred (and everyone that's gone this route has enjoyed themselves), 2 is unfortunate (but, hopefully, the individual will find another group that he fits into better), and 3 is a problem (which I will do everything in my power to avoid or, having failed to avoid it, eliminate in the most expediant means available).

And I remind folks: These standards I hold as a GM are also the standards I hold as a Player. If I am not willing to accept the campaign world conditions for a game I'm joining, I have no business being there. Thus, anyone not willing to accept the campaign world conditions for my game has no business trying to join it either. So, yes, it does indeed go both ways.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Your willingness to accept "flavor" seems to have a direct relation to replacement crunch

Well, I don't understand how that comes accross, but here's my position on the fluff/crunch issue:

Fluff is great. It adds dimension and deapth and turns the game into something better than just a wargame. It's not essential by any means to play a fun game, but I definately want it in my games.

Fluff should define the crunch that follows. However, fluff that is not supported by crunch is wonky. If you have a long history of orcish theater, but orcs, by the mechanics, suck at theater, I'm going to wonder: how did orcs get this when it's just not enjoyable for people in the setting to watch, including the orcs?

If the dwarves in your land are the greatest sorcerers around, that's great. But if there's no mechanics supporting that, no way for a PC or NPC to actually *be* a dwarven great sorcerer, it's something that's frustrating.

The Core Rules contain enough crunch to support a lot of very diverse flavor. If I want to play a warrior of honor and nobility, they give me a way to do it. Same thing if I want to play a blessed future king, or a mounted knight who follows a code, or the reincarnation of the national hero or someone who holds himself to a higher standard than a mercenary or a warrior beholden to the temple or 1,001 other character ideas, I have a class in the core rules to support that. And that's without really changing the flavor at all. If I change the flavor, even a smidge, I can support other things. Make the code one of Chaos and Evil, and you can have a defender of wickedness rather than an attacker. Say that the land grants these powers to those who rule it, and I have an enchanted noble. Describe them as following a stringent code of Bushido and I've got a samurai. Say that people are born into families with this class, and I've got Ksatrya. Describe their abilities as reliant on wearing the flayed skins of their enemies, and I've got something vastly different. Change the fluff to represent powers gained by meditation on the mysteries of the universe, and I've got a philosopher-warrior.

Now, that's all without changing any mechanics whatsoever. This is the first kind of alteration, the kind that most commonly happens on a character-by-character basis, or by a DM who doesn't want to muck much with the system to get what he wants out of it. Say I'm running this mesoamerican campaign setting. Paladins wouldn't usually fit there, right? They're knights in shining armor! But if a player comes to me and says "I've been thinking, the Paladin gets a lot of healing and defensive abilities -- can I change it to be a national defender of the Temple of the Sun, and wear the flayed skins of my enemies?", and my campaign can take the addition of something like that, I say "sure, why not. Don't expect many others to follow you, but you're a PC, you're an exception to the rule anyway, go for it. Most other defenders of the Temple of the Sun are not like that, and they don't wear the flayed skins of their enemies, but go for it. The God of the City has spoken to you specifically. Don't you feel special, ya weirdo?" Just by changing flavor, and not affecting the mechanics at all, I can get something vastly different out of the Paladin than the usual flavor would indicate. This is purely a change in fluff, and it's the lowest level of 'cooperation' that can be considered. I could have entire organizations of these 'flayed paladins' if I wanted, they could populate the world. And, if my world didn't have a place for knight-in-shining-armor types, but did have a place for this, it's a flavor change to something that already exists, that is still supporting it.

So while it would seem that dismissing Paladins in a Mesoamerican campaign would be sensible at first, but when you're willing to change the flavor to suit, it's not nessecary to ban the class at all. You just change it.

I could do that to a lot of classes, most of 'em, in fact. Just by changing the flavor text, I could have a "western archetype" fit quite comfortably into a decidedly atypical landscape, without doing much to it. If I'm going to advertise my game as "Mesoamerican D&D," or if I just want to accomodate a broader base of players, it's a very easy thing to do that doesn't ruin the setting and provides an outlet for those who like the phat powerz of the paladin.

I think that, if you don't want to re-design a class to fit, just think about changing the flavor to a different archetype that the mechanics still support. All the powers of a paladin can very effectively support a Flaying Templar. Suspend the alignment thing (flavor), hinge the powers instead on defence of the city (flavor), and say the powers are extentions of the Temple's energy itself (flavor), and perhaps hinge spellcasting on wearing the skins of the evil that threatens the temple (flavor), and you don't have to remove the "paladin class." It just changes the "noble, moral warrior" to fit a setting without Chivalry. Only if the class's abilities themselves aren't effective, or if the change overlaps something else, or if the class's 'role' is filled by something else should the class really be dropped. If I had a different "Flaying Templar" class, I don't need to change the paladin, and can either change the flavor to something else, or decide the niche of 'holy warrior with a code' is summarily filled and I don't need the Paladin's abilties, since there are other mechanics that support that flavor.

I originally thought that Dark Sun could've very easily done the same thing -- changed the paladin to fit the setting, rather than ditching it. It just so happens that in the process of changing the paladin to fit the setting (making the powers psionic instead of divine, mostly) it hits PsyWar territory, and, since a psywar can devote himself to a 'noble cause' related to an element as it is (perhaps even being a Psywar/Cleric), there's no real reason to keep the Paladin around.

Similarly, I thought DS could've done the same thing with the Sorcerer. But it doesn't matter, since the Sorcerer and the PSion have very similar *mechanics*, and the players of a Sorc would feel overshadowed by the Psion or the Wizard. Since a Sorc brings nothing 'exclusive' to the table, there's no reason to keep it.

On another note, Monks fit in the DS setting, flavor-wise, very well. It makes sense that unarmed combat would jump into a setting of fragile weapons and low tech. But because their mechanics would make them more potent in a world without powerful enough weapons, it's important to nix them for mechanics reasons. Their niche -- the unarmed warrior -- is served instead by Barbarians with high Strength, for instance.

 

[barsoomcore]

While it would seem that dismissing Paladins in a Mesoamerican campaign would be sensible at first, but when you're willing to change the flavor to suit, it's not nessecary to ban the class at all. You just change it.

Games are cooperative ventures in which everyone contributes, and where the DM and the players have different spheres of authority. The DM defines the setting and the players decide the actions and personalities of the heroes. Together they determine the nature of the story. Since the heroes necessarily EMERGE from the setting, things will usually go much smoother if the players make an effort to understand the setting and come up with characters who do in fact emerge from it and belong to it.

I said, good gravy!

Can we be repeating ourselves already? We're only on page nine, people!

Yeah, create characters that fit into the setting. I think that's what EVERYONE has been saying. If a player has an idea that the DM hasn't considered, the DM ought to consider before saying "Yes," or "No."

Your example is not insane. Neither was my example about halflings. There's very little possibility of somebody coming up with a "flavour" explanation for halflings in Barsoom. Little, quickfingered, sneaky guys? No. I mean, if somebody wants to float one past me, I'll listen, but I'll be skeptical.

Say it again with me, brothers and sisters:

Not everybody likes the same sort of games.
Everybody ought to play the sort of games they like.
It's not a stupid idea to sometimes try something you're not sure if you like or not.
Just because somebody likes or dislikes something you feel differently about doesn't make them (or you) stupid or a jerk.
Except Julie Andrews. If you dislike Julie Andrews, you're a jerk. And Golden Retriever puppies.

Corrollaries:
Find out what sort of game a DM is running before you decide to play it.
Decide what kind of game you're running before you recruit players -- unless you're willing to change things according to player ideas.
Watch Mary Poppins.

Did I miss anything?

Guess not.

 

[Staffan]

Similarly, I thought DS could've done the same thing with the Sorcerer. But it doesn't matter, since the Sorcerer and the PSion have very similar *mechanics*, and the players of a Sorc would feel overshadowed by the Psion or the Wizard. Since a Sorc brings nothing 'exclusive' to the table, there's no reason to keep it.

In the particular case of Dark Sun sorcerers, there's the matter of the setting's history to make me dislike them. Arcane magic was invented in Dark Sun. It's not a natural thing. Humans and the like just don't come with inborn magical abilities.

Most other published settings do have a certain amount of "magical talent" that shows up in people from time to time, but not so in Dark Sun.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

In the particular case of Dark Sun sorcerers, there's the matter of the setting's history to make me dislike them. Arcane magic was invented in Dark Sun. It's not a natural thing. Humans and the like just don't come with inborn magical abilities.

Exactly. That's really the role of psionics in the setting. To which, Paladins aren't a part of Dark Sun because "Good vs Evil" isn't the main theme of the setting; Rather, it was "Destruction vs Preservation" of the ecology/environment, for which Defilers/Preservers and (at higher levels) Dragons/Avignions (sp?) were the ideal representatives of the themes in play.

Paladins are just extra baggage.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Can we be repeating ourselves already? We're only on page nine, people!

Actually, we've been repeating ourselves since page four. This is actually the point where I start to throttle down on my own participation in a discussion, especially since the "opposing" side has pretty much had to resort to contradictory answers to side-step questions, as well fall back on the falacy argument that homebrews aren't as "legitament" as published settings, which is pretty funny when you consider...

1. Forgotten Realms was Ed Greenwood's homebrew that he used as a "backdrop" for Dragon articles long before it was a published setting.
2. Greyhawk was EGG's homebrew world when D&D was still only available in Diaglo's favorite edition.
3. D&D was a set of homebrew rules made for Chainmail.

So, I've read all the nonsense about a dozen times over now, being that it was nonsense on page 1 and it's still nonsense on page 9.

 

[ph0rk]

Ever encounter a player who took a challenge the wrong way because it did not fit the rules?

there should ever be a 'wrong way' for a player to meet a challenge - if they choose to burn down the building of the magistrate rather than pay a fine, so be it! (of course, there may be issues with that choice down the road...)



I think the point of the system is for the DM to provide restrictions, as others have said. Just because there are all these base classes and PrC's and feats floating around doesn't mean they're all viable. I wouldn't think its always inherently bad to restrict things, but it is however very important to make all the restrictions known at the beginning of a campaign.


As for players 'trumping' a DM with rules, in the cases where I have seen it (or unwittingly done it) it was because the DM DID NOT KNOW THE RULE IN QUESTION.

Now, not everyone can memorize the core books cover to cover, but if a DM gets in a spot where a spell he or she is trying to use doesn't work like they thought, they either need to a: fess up and deal with it. If its combat, rectify it later. or b: wield the rule 0 wand.

however: DMs can get into sticky situations when they end up having to give NPC's extra 5-foot steps and other weirdness to fix their mistakes. The players can end up feeling like the rules don't work the same way all the time, and that can be frustrating. Thats when the DM has perhaps gone too far, and if the players aren't speaking up, they're confused or irritated silently.

I want to float a metaphor and see if it brings any clarity to the discussion:
<snip>

What I think is that the process of campaign creation must, on some level, be colaborative between the GM and players. It's not just common courtesy, it is a way to solve a TON of problems before they happen.

I have to agree there. Every DM must remember its not much a game if they play it alone - the players are in it too. Thats not to say their say so is worth more than anyone elses; but if you're going to exclude blue from your paint choices, make sure the guy who -loves- blue knows why, and is given a suitable selecion of aqua and turquise.

When a player insists that this or that rule, class, feat, ect. must be included in every DM's game he or she is essentially saying to the DM " I am a player. You are my EQ server. Play by the established rules and gimmie my XP.

Not to take your example too far out of context; there is a difference between dms/campaigns with different rules (different games, as it were) and sessions and even COMBAT ROUNDS where the rules change. That ain't cool, man. Flagrant disreguard for movement rules and other such things to prevent the early death of a BBEG is just wrong, imho. Different rulesets for different games though are just groovy, provided the DM knows what they are and can list/explain them beforehand.

BN: I have had some similar experiences since the advent of 3e. Mainly, some players use the rules as an excuse to avoid roleplay entirely, such as "I'm a fighter, I cannot be diplomatic" etc.

Don't misquote me or I'll come down on you like a ton of hot smelly bricks!

It was "I'm a fighter-type, I can't be as diplomatic as [the bard with a cha of 30 and max ranks in diplomacy] can!"

I find it slightly annoying. However, I will not explain why I banned class y nor am I willing to change my campaign to suit one person. Luckily, the person is a good friend who has been gaming with me since I began GMing. He usually trusts my judgement, and I can depend on him to speak up if he thinks I am wrong or made a mistake, even if there is a less than healthy paranoia that any and all "GMs are out to get you."

You have no concept of the rightious fury of flame I had prepared to call down upon your head before I read that bit

(To be fair though, I -did- say I wouldn't be able to pick a class until the new psionics book came out and you told me what you were allowing from that, still holding out for that psychic warrior.)