times they are a changen....

[LokiDR]

Rule 0 has a purpose. That purpose is keep the game fun. If a DM is running a game, and the game is no longer fun because the party is abusing a powerful spell, the DM should do something to make the game fun. Rule 0 is the last resort.

As a party gets higher level, the DM must adapt or not run higher level games. Teleport, scry, wish and other powerful spells are part of a high level game. They all have counters. If a DM has to Rule 0 this kind of spell, then he (or she) shouldn't run a game that has them in the first place. Just because you can run a really fun low level game doesn't mean that you can a high level game.

In the case of a whodonit, it is a different genre. That genre means the challenge is mental, not just finding the right spell. You should know ahead of time, not change genre in the middle of a game.

As for taking away an abilty a player has already by rule 0, I don't agree with it unless it is really bad. "you kill too many of kobalds with cleave, so I am removing it" is too reactionary. The character with cleave can keep going, that isn't a problem, but if the person like that feat you just took away his fun. You just made the game not fun. Now, if the wizard has some item that allows him to fight in melee better than the fighters, then you might try to fix it, but only if the fighter types are annoyed. When ever you take something away, you should talk to the player first, and try to explain the reasoning. Try to find other alternatives.

If you treat players like a kid with an annoying toy, don't complain when they whine like a kid that you took it.

 

[Forrester]

Teleport, scry, wish and other powerful spells are part of a high level game . . . If a DM has to Rule 0 this kind of spell, then he (or she) shouldn't run a game that has them in the first place.

I don't have access to Babelfish right now -- can you translate this ?

What, precisely, does the second sentence mean? A GM shouldn't be playing 3E if he wants to Rule 0 Teleport, Scry, or Wish? Or that he should make sure he Rule 0's them before the campaign starts?

 

[WizarDru]

I think Loki's point was that if you have to use Rule 0 to remove certain spells or other apects of the game to enjoy it, then you probably aren't playing the right type of game, as a high-level expects or depends on the availbility of such powers. While I'm not sure I agree with that, I can see his point.

Personally, I think if you intend to run a mystery in higher-level play, you need to think more precisely about how to run it, and compensate for the players abilities. Scrying is a powerful ability, but reasonably easy to thwart, as is teleport, or any number of abilities. If it bothers you that you have to set up all of your mysteries along those lines (and I could see why it would), then you need to decide how to approach the percieved problem.

On the extreme, you could have 'the Standing Stone', a module where the players are thwarted at every turn by a, IMHO, unfair module setup that defies logic at several points. Even so, a couple of high-level spells can thwart that. The problem here is that the game isn't really scaled to handling 'mystery' formats, which was Hong's point, I think.

Where do you stop, I guess is my question. Many of the cleric's more salient high-level spells are devoted to information gathering. Does Commune have to go? Legend Lore? Wish? If you and your players are comfortable with it, that's fine. To me, high-level play redefines D&D, as the game plays significantly differently in the 'teens than it does in the single-digits. DMs need to adapt to it and let players enjoy the fruits of their labors. Otherwise, there are plenty of options to work within a framework that allows for things like mysteries...but expect some common tropes to appear.

 

[Forrester]

I think Loki's point was that if you have to use Rule 0 to remove certain spells or other apects of the game to enjoy it, then you probably aren't playing the right type of game, as a high-level expects or depends on the availbility of such powers. While I'm not sure I agree with that, I can see his point.

Personally, I think if you intend to run a mystery in higher-level play, you need to think more precisely about how to run it, and compensate for the players abilities. Scrying is a powerful ability, but reasonably easy to thwart, as is teleport, or any number of abilities. If it bothers you that you have to set up all of your mysteries along those lines (and I could see why it would), then you need to decide how to approach the percieved problem.

On the extreme, you could have 'the Standing Stone', a module where the players are thwarted at every turn by a, IMHO, unfair module setup that defies logic at several points. Even so, a couple of high-level spells can thwart that. The problem here is that the game isn't really scaled to handling 'mystery' formats, which was Hong's point, I think.

Where do you stop, I guess is my question. Many of the cleric's more salient high-level spells are devoted to information gathering. Does Commune have to go? Legend Lore? Wish? If you and your players are comfortable with it, that's fine. To me, high-level play redefines D&D, as the game plays significantly differently in the 'teens than it does in the single-digits. DMs need to adapt to it and let players enjoy the fruits of their labors. Otherwise, there are plenty of options to work within a framework that allows for things like mysteries...but expect some common tropes to appear.

Let me address these points in turn:

1) I'm aware that high-level play is different from low-level play, but that is not to say that 3E collapses of its own weight without Commune, Scry, Wish, and Teleport. God forbid characters have to walk around, or, more likely, fly around. Or figure out things for themselves, instead of using a deific Cheat Sheet. There are plenty of fruits out there left after you take away God's home telephone number. Which they get at freaking 9th level.

2) Scry/Teleport is NOT something that is easy to work around unless you add a bunch of spells that protect large areas (like home bases) against scrying. That's one solution, but it's not great. Again, the party in my campaign has high-level enemies, and is going to be making enemies that are even higher level. Scry/Teleport would kick their sorry asses if they were EVER adventuring in the field. I could create a bunch of magic items that gave permanent protection from Scrying, of course, but that's another kludge. The point is that there's lots of ways of trying to get around the problem; I fail to see why changing a few rules is considered to be a worse solution than adding a bunch of Scry-hating spells and magic items, or a worse solution than the GM changing the challenge he wishes the PCs to endure.

In sum, I don't think that DMs should feel forced (or even be encouraged) to adapt to scry/teleport, scry/teleport or Commune spells every week (the 100xp cost is a joke at that level) by changing their story and plotlines to fit those spells.

The spells are supposed to be secondary to the plotline. Not the other way around.

3E can scale to mystery formats just fine . . . all you have to do is weaken or remove or change the Divination spells. It's not rocket science.

--------
By the way, I'm not familiar with The Standing Stone, so I can't comment on its cheesiness. What rules, exactly, do they break?

 

[WizarDru]

2) Scry/Teleport is NOT something that is easy to work around unless you add a bunch of spells that protect large areas (like home bases) against scrying. That's one solution, but it's not great. Again, the party in my campaign has high-level enemies, and is going to be making enemies that are even higher level. Scry/Teleport would kick their sorry asses if they were EVER adventuring in the field. I could create a bunch of magic items that gave permanent protection from Scrying, of course, but that's another kludge. The point is that there's lots of ways of trying to get around the problem; I fail to see why changing a few rules is considered to be a worse solution than adding a bunch of Scry-hating spells and magic items, or a worse solution than the GM changing the challenge he wishes the PCs to endure.

I never said that it was a worse solution, just that not everyone agrees it's necessary. I can easily see how it would break the verisimilitude of the game for you...I'm just saying that there are plenty of ways to deal with the problem, both magically and non-magically.

There are plenty of ways to have the players protected from high-level NPCs without giving them items, not the least of which are political and social conventions. Just because the NPCs know information 'X' doesn't always mean they can act upon it.

In sum, I don't think that DMs should feel forced (or even be encouraged) to adapt to scry/teleport, scry/teleport or Commune spells every week (the 100xp cost is a joke at that level) by changing their story and plotlines to fit those spells.

3E can scale to mystery formats just fine . . . all you have to do is weaken or remove or change the Divination spells. It's not rocket science.

I agree, to a point. However, some kinds of mysteries work much better in D&D (not just 3E) than others. I'm merely pointing out that you've chosen (rightly so) what works for your group...but that others have found ways to work within the system.

By the way, I'm not familiar with The Standing Stone, so I can't comment on its cheesiness. What rules, exactly, do they break?

They don't break any rules...the module just goes WAY out of it's way to try and mislead the players...to the point where I couldn't use it because it didn't make sense. All of the evil NPCs (you know, the ones who practically have neon signs over their heads reading "EVIL HERE") have non-detection amulets, so that characters of appropriate level to the module can figure out that they're up to no good. There are bunch of grugach in the area, who are angry at the "humans" in the area for a slaughter of their kind (part of the bad guys plot)...and the module specifically gives you no choice but to fight them. Period. Got an elven cleric of Correlian with you? Too bad. An Arcane Archer, champion of the elven people (and keep in mind, the Grugach HAVE ONE)? Nope, kill 'em all. Oh, and then there's that maruading ghost who's really a Paladin, and so on. It gets tedious. The module is full of mcguffins like this, and it bugs me. So I can easily accept what you're saying.

Understand, I'm not saying you've violated some sacred taboo. I think it works fine. You're hardly the first DM to modify or remove something. I just think there's more than one approach.

 

[Desdichado]

Forrester, I completely am sympathetic to your point of view, as it is entirely my own as well.

However, my solution is different than yours: I simply don't like playing above about 10th level or so. After that, character abilities really make the campaign setting get all "wonky" in my opinion. The things that characters can do makes the setting seem extremely forced and unnatural, as presumably NPCs can do them as well. The only explanation is, as in Fritz Leiber, wizards become extremely rare, almost god-like entities rather than just another NPC.

So what's my solution? Two-fold, really, depending on how much work I want to go to. 1) Play straight-up D&D at lower to "mid" levels and then rotating to a new setting where we start all over from scratch (preferable for several reasons, including the fact that we get bored with doing one setting for too long, and we have more than one budding DM in our group who wants to take a shot at it) or 2) alter the rules substantially to something more "d20"-ish, utilizing classes borrowed from the Wheel of Time, Star Wars or Call of Cthulhu games. In particular, I like magic users that use a Star Wars-like mechanic, and modified non-magical classes that don't give spell-progressions to 75% of all the classes available. This solution is preferable for different reaons, including the fact that we like to change the flavor of the game sometimes, we like to tinker with rules, and it makes more logical sense.

 

[Forrester]

Understand, I'm not saying you've violated some sacred taboo. I think it works fine. You're hardly the first DM to modify or remove something. I just think there's more than one approach.

I think we're seeing eye to eye here. I completely agree that there's more than one "correct" approach. It's just that I've seen some Higher Ups (not Piratecat, actually -- more Monte -- but maybe PC feels the same way) come forcefully out against changing spells and in favor of changing the problem you want the characters to overcome. As if you'd be "cheating" the players in some way if they didn't have access to all of the Official 3E Toys.

And (to tie things back to the original purpose of the thread) it seems to me that players are more rules-lawyerly, and thus more resistant (for *whatever* reason), to Rule 0 than they were Back In The Day. I think we've seen plenty of evidence for that in this thread. The fact that they have support for their position from the Gaming Elite just encourages them even more, and that's a shame. A DM should NEVER feel guilty for Rule 0'ing things pre-campaign, and as long as he is being fair and thoughtful, he shouldn't feel guilty about doing it mid-game either, when he feels he has to.

-----------
A side note: my campaign started as a Freedom Fighters vs The Encroaching Army battle, and from the outset it seemed obvious that this had to be a world in which 5th and 6th level characters (PCs and NPCs) were not rare (given how easy advancement is at lower levels).

Obviously, tough to find any political reason for the elves to not kill the party if they knew where they were .

I managed to come up with a good reason why there were no 5th level+ wizards or 7th level + clerics opposing the party (who started at 1st level), thus allowing them a chance for survival (no casters w/fireball or clerics w/Divination or Scry). What I couldn't do is figure out why, if you can create a Wand of Fireballs at 5th level, why the army wouldn't be churning out said wands like crazy -- at least one or two wizards in the army (of 500+ elves) would have them, if not more.

Did I pull my hair out? No. Did I change the problem? No. Did I make it so that wand manufacture in my game is more difficult than that suggested in the DMG? Yep. Was this a bad call? Some would say it was . . . that I've taken away some important Wizardly power, and I need to make it up to the class somehow for it to stay balanced. Of course, that's baloney.

The party didn't defeat all the elves, but in the end killed 100+, including an outpost leader. (Damn 1st level NPC clerics and their Command spells!) The party escaped into the Underdark.

Would the elves have Scry'd them and Teleported in a high-level party to kill them all if they could? Absolutely! Did they? No . . . because to tell the story I wanted to tell, I had to kill Scry/Teleport. So I did.


Summing up:

1) I agree that there are many methods DMs can use to make 3E fit their campaign goals, but

2) I wish that there was less of a stigma for using Rule 0 to make the changes the GM thinks he needs to make.

--------
Re Standing Stones: If YOU were an Evil Guy in a world were Divination Spells Were King, woudn't YOU invest in an amulet of non-detection?

 

[Desdichado]

"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force. " -- Darth Vader

I think Monte's reaction comes from an over-reliance on his system; he thinks too highly of it. It's his technological terror! He probably (and the other designers, and many players as well, I'd wager) that it is so finely balanced that tinkering of that nature will screw it up. So we get advice in the DMG that DMs should just change their adventures to challenge the PCs other ways, instead of suggestions for how the system could be modified for other genres.

It's kinda odd, really, considering that Monte also wrote CoC, which eliminates this and many other problems with multi-genre d20. Maybe he just thinks so highly of his game that he doesn't think the actual players should be mucking around with it? I dunno.

 

[apoptosis]

Been playing since (ouch....1979 maybe..) so have been with all versions.

I think some posters brought up some good points in that the numbers are more visible, there are more of them and more ways to add/subtract bonuses than before so it appears to be more munchkiney.

When i first got the book and looked over it, after haveing played Magic:TG... it seemed to have some MTG points to it, especially in the buffing area. Maybe my old games were different but it just didnt seem that buffing was quite as ubiquotous as it is in 3E and that 3E reminded me a lot more of MTG than the previous. editions......

Apop

 

[LokiDR]

@Forrester If the scry/teleport would cause the NPCs to slaughter the party, by all means, rule 0 away. I never meant to say that you should not make the game make sense.

What my earlier cryptic comment meant was that "high level D&D" is a genre to itself. If you never had the abilty, and will never get it, fine. But you can not really say you are playing a "high level D&D" game. Rule 0 to keep the story going, yes. Rule 0 just because the PCs seem to be getting their way, no.

Example: I have been gaining levels and trying to make the most of all my abilities and the DM and other players were having fun with this. Then I get Commune, and the DM just says it doesn't work like it is written because that would be too much. Now you have to go on a personal quest for every answer and pay 1000 xp. That is abuse. What you said earlier was a chang in setting (with the rules to back it up). I would have no problem with that, unless I was just about to craft a wand myself and you didn't tell me ahead of time.

I think this whole disscussion proves that there are people who want to powergame and people who don't. There are more specific rules now, to cover more circumstances. This is where a lot of old Rule 0s came from before, IMO. Under 3e, if you rule 0 these things you are going against written material. The player can argue the point with rules, and it isn't all just opinion.