Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6407871" data-attributes="member: 1465">You may be right. Perhaps rather than rules, what has the biggest effect is the edition's approach to material availability.For instance, 3e had strongly standardized magic items, each coming with an official price tag. This IMXP meant that a lot of players just assumed they were entitled to buying anything as long as they paid the written price. There were guidelines about magic items availability, including for example an actual rule IIRC about buying equipment for a character created at higher level, that said you couldn't buy a single item worth more than half your budget. This was a double-edge rule, because while it said you CAN'T buy such item, it implied you CAN buy anything costing below that limit, and most people just equated "CAN" with being entitled.IIRC, 4e even put magic items in the PHB, which made magic items perceived as being part of the PC itself, rather than part of the story. Choosing to add a Cloak of Resistance to your character was not different than choosing Fireball as your next spell or choosing Strength for your next ability score increase.Then 3e had an enormous amount of splatbooks published, and it kind of feeled like those books were meant to often "fill the gaps" of the core books. Thus a feat to cast spells while in wildshape, metamagic rods to bypass preparation, and prestige classes that combined two base caster classes, were seen as "fixes" to flaws of the core books and thus necessarily allowed.OTOH, I think 4e even went as far as saying "everything is core". With that as a starting claim of the whole edition, how can a DM feel more entitled than the players in choosing what is allowed?---------I have been both a player and a DM, and I have to admit that when I am the DM, I really want to feel entitled about storytelling, and that includes being entitled to choose what exists in the fantasy world.I feel like a cook, who is the one who chooses what's on the menu. Sometimes I want a story or campaign that focuses on classic foes like orcs, sometimes I want a world that's dark and sinister, sometimes I want more horror and gore, sometimes I want holy/unholy themes, sometimes I want an oriental setting...... I really don't want to leave these elements up to the players, because then it almost certainly means that each player will go into a different direction (one chooses a middle-aged inspired paladin, another a kung-fu monk, another a warforged, another an evil modern-horror werewolves...). I love almost everything fantasy, but NOT on the same dish!!! That's to me like putting icecream, pickles and popcorns on a pizza :/This is why as a DM I demand to be in control of character material, even tho I still often just go with "everything core is fine" for simplicity, particularly because often I already have the feeling that it's going to be a short campaign anyway.As a player, I am really fine with going with whatever the DM has chosen. I believe nearly every character is worth playing, so I never feel like "oh, I really want to play a warforged werewolf paladin/monk, you MUST let me do it!". Instead I want the cook to set the theme, then take a look at the menu, and choose from there. I am confident that I will always find more than one exciting option, and I will still have the chance to play that warforged werewolf paladin/monk another time.</blockquote>

Verification