times they are a changen....

[barsoomcore]

While I certainly agree with all that's being said about how it's perfectly okay (nay, fun and an important part of the game) for DMs to mangle any and all rules to their liking (my campaign doesn't use one BIT of standard D&D magic. Not one!), I have to admit some surprise that folks like Monte Cook have in fact expressed the blistering attitudes attributed to them in this thread.

Can anyone provide references to these sorts of comments? Everybody's going on as if this were well-known stuff so perhaps I just missed it, but honestly, it's hard to imagine.

 

[Forrester]

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.

So the wizards in my campaign can cast Meteor Swarms, but because they can't Teleport to places that they have only Scryed, it's not a "high level D&D game"?

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.

No, that is Loki whining like a three-year old being told he can't eat a candy bar before supper .

You can't be serious. It's abuse because he wants to change a spell?! Because he thinks that if you have God's phone number, the campaign might suffer?!

Suck it up. Be a man. Endure. I think you might find that 9th level clerics aren't underpowered, even if they can't Commune normally.

Under 3e, if you rule 0 these things you are going against written material.

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

NOT AGAINST WRITTEN MATERIAL!!

Oh, wait. From page 11 of the DMG:

"Every rule in the PHB was written for a reason. That doesn't mean you can't change them for your own game . . . The ability to use mechanics as you wish is paramount to the way roleplaying games work -- providing a framework for you and the players to create a campaign" (italics mine).

So basically, the DM decided to change the framework by making the ghastly horrible change of . . . making Commune less cheaty. Ohmygod.

Anyone have Monte Cook's home phone number?

 

[Umbran]

[color=aliceblueI 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. [/color]

Right. So some of the first things he does on his own is put out new classes, new spells and a whole new bardic spell system....

Yah. That's what guys who feel the system shouldn't be touched do all the time.

Don't turn the fact that the guy gives some well-meaning advice into the idea that he thinks his system is inviolable.

 

[icebreaker]

I have to agree with a few of the words of wisdom in this thread.

I really do believe there is an evolution of play styles in roleplaying games and that earlier on a larger focus is on "what your Character can do and what you can make him be"..and later after some years when thats all second nature and alot of people wish to explore other features of their character in depth "who your character is and why he is who he is"

Its not based on which edition or anything its just an evolution of your love for this type of game.Its certainly not a rule or anything not everyone follows that path but its a generality thats probably pretty realistic.

All ways of play can be fun as long as everyones in sync and agrees whats enjoyable for everyone.

Also i do believe that at least in NorthAmerica the drive to excell to achieve..to win.. is more prevalent as the years go by and i'm sure that does play into ones play styles.

OH and pet peeve:
MMORPGS like EQ and AC and DAOC are so not Roleplaying games at all they are Tacticle combat simulators with a variety of settings and persistant player characters.
You can try to roleplay in a MMORPG but the games challenges and goals and how you are rewarded thru progression is based upon how you can thru your combat abilities(spells or melee) overcome a set challenge.
It is a failing of game design that these are the sole ways to reward players but thats all they could figure out to do.

How else to you explain an encounter with a Mob with so many hp regen per second that can Deathtouch(insta kill with no save) a player every 30seconds as anything other then a game about numbers and tatics...beat the AI thats all EQ is.
It can be fun but a Roleplaying game it is not.

 

[LokiDR]

So the wizards in my campaign can cast Meteor Swarms, but because they can't Teleport to places that they have only Scryed, it's not a "high level D&D game"?



No, that is Loki whining like a three-year old being told he can't eat a candy bar before supper .

You can't be serious. It's abuse because he wants to change a spell?! Because he thinks that if you have God's phone number, the campaign might suffer?!

Suck it up. Be a man. Endure. I think you might find that 9th level clerics aren't underpowered, even if they can't Commune normally.



NOOOOOOOOOOO!

NOT AGAINST WRITTEN MATERIAL!!

Oh, wait. From page 11 of the DMG:

"Every rule in the PHB was written for a reason. That doesn't mean you can't change them for your own game . . . The ability to use mechanics as you wish is paramount to the way roleplaying games work -- providing a framework for you and the players to create a campaign" (italics mine).

So basically, the DM decided to change the framework by making the ghastly horrible change of . . . making Commune less cheaty. Ohmygod.

Anyone have Monte Cook's home phone number?

Grow up. I stated an opinion about the use of the rules. I stated a plausible example. I stated that the rules were writen for a reason, something you quoted from th DMG. I am neither whining nor failing to "suck it up". I am stating what I believe.

If all you get is meteor swarm, you are just getting bigger fireballs. I believe this is not a high level game. I believe this is low level game with bigger spells.

If a DM can't deal with commune, or scry, or teleport, or anything else, he should say so before hand. If you get pissed because a player found a good use for a spell, and banned or nerfed the spell, you should not DM. If the only thing you can think of to deal with these spells is nerf them, you have proven you are a bad DM.

 

[hong]

I never knew that alice blue was a distinct named colour in HTML. You learn something new every day.


Hong "and wouldn't Alice Blue be a great name for a cyberpunk character?" Ooi

 

[Nightfall]

Mm I don't mind progression in to higher levels than 12th. Just means more opportunities for the party to die.

 

[Forrester]

If a DM can't deal with commune, or scry, or teleport, or anything else, he should say so before hand. If you get pissed because a player found a good use for a spell, and banned or nerfed the spell, you should not DM. If the only thing you can think of to deal with these spells is nerf them, you have proven you are a bad DM.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Desdichado]

Right. So some of the first things he does on his own is put out new classes, new spells and a whole new bardic spell system....

Yah. That's what guys who feel the system shouldn't be touched do all the time.

Don't turn the fact that the guy gives some well-meaning advice into the idea that he thinks his system is inviolable.

Well-meaning, yet in my opinion, ill-considered. The idea that in the DMG the authors feel it more important to point out that system integrity is more important than the DMs preferred type of game is ridiculous in a book that purports to be a book of options (which in most cases it is) or a game that is to work across multiple settings (which it only does well if the settings strongly resemble Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms.) In the same amount of space, some advice on tweaking some of the more outlandish spells and class abilities could have been given to handle the DMs problem, but instead, we are told that players need to get their stuff as written and the DM should just come up with some other kind of challenge for the players. Worst advice in the book. Almost made me laugh out loud incredulously when I read it.

You may not think that passage indicates the authors took their system a little too seriously, but I certainly do. Especially when it contradicts the quoted part of the DMG on page 11 here. It's as if the authors feel they have to tell you that the system isn't inviolable, but then they really hedge all the aspects of their system up as you get into the details of it, because they don't actually want you to be able to do so easily. :shrug: I don't know what it means, but that's my take on it anyway.

 

[Umbran]

You may not think that passage indicates the authors took their system a little too seriously, but I certainly do. Especially when it contradicts the quoted part of the DMG on page 11 here.

Um, I'm sorry, but "that passage" does not seem well defined. Which passage, exactly? Can you give a page reference? Barsoomcore over there is choimping at the bit looking for attributions....