times they are a changen....

[Forrester]

. . . Monte is talking about adventure design, not campaign design. He's talking about allowing a PC to earn an ability, and then systematically eliminating the PC's ability to use it.

Well, "nerfing" Commune would in fact be allowing a PC to earn an ability (seemingly), and then completely eliminating the PC's ability to use it, especially if the DM didn't have the foresight to tell the players that he was changing Commune ahead of time.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the column -- but I think that much of Monte's message is meant to be taken as not just tips for individual adventure design, but how DMs should deal with high-level campaigns in general. I'm also (perhaps unfairly) attributing to him some comment one of the Gaming Elite made SOMEWHERE about how DMs should be satisfied with changing the challenge they want to give to the party (i.e., a mystery) instead of feeling tempted to change the rules.

Maybe that's in the Mystery Passage . . . we must find it!

Regardless of what is floating through Monte's head, the fact remains that it seems there are a significant number of players out there who are ready to whine at full volume if the DM decides to employ Rule 0. I'm not saying that you can't have a good campaign WITH the rules as written (though it'll be silly sometimes). But again, there should be zero stigma -- and one would hope, zero resistance from players -- towards changing some of the rules that make "realistic" campaigns difficult.

 

[LokiDR]

[misinterpretation snipped]

You know what the problem is? In 3E, the players think that the PHB/DMG/MM triumvirate is God.

Guess what, folks. It's not. I think I speak for all the DMs where when I say that WE ARE GOD. DMs put ten times as much work into campaigns, if not more, than the players do. A little damn respect is in order.

I'm not saying that you can't have problems with your DM, especially if his rules changes are inconsistent or illogical. There are just gods and there are unjust gods.

But it's not the pile of books that is going to determine what you face next. It's not the pile of books that is going to figure out how to work all of your backstories into the plotline. It's not the pile of books that is going to be tailoring all of the encounters to give adequate challenges to your particular party. It's not the pile of books that is going to be trying to figure out how in the hell to entertain three or four or five or six different types of players at once.

Meaning it's the DM, not some pile of books, that is the Alpha and the Omega. And if you trust him enough to allow him to work ten times as hard as you do, crafting the campaign, maybe you should shut your yap when he decides that a particular spell, as written in the PHB, won't work well with the story he's creating.

Your DM is God. Remember that when you say your prayers at night .

You do not speak for most of the DMs I know. You do not speak for me. The book are not god, the players are not god, and most certainly you are not god. In the end, the only ultimate goal is EVERY person's enjoyment.

Edit: personal comment removed.

To clarify my position, I never agree with any person, for any reason, stamping their foot and saying they are right. I see rule 0 being used for this. A DM who likes to play god is not doing the job of a DM, they are being self serving. A DM uses rule 0 to make the game fun for every one is being a good DM.

If you run a game and know ahead of time that commune is going to be a problem, tell your players. I have never felt entitled to any ability, unless I already have it and have used it. Any game can chop the rules to shreds if its fun (yes, the DMG should have more on this). If this is the only way you can think to deal with a situation after a player has come up with it, maybe you didn't look hard enough. If you do decided to change an abilty that a PC already has, you should talk to the player. No one like having something taken from them, in game or otherwise.

But if you do chop the rules appart, you are not running a game that others would recognized as standard D&D. Who cares? If you like the rules you have, and the game is good, then no one can call it wrong. But it is not standard D&D and the players deserve to know that. If a person has played with you before and they already know, then they have no right to complain. If you tell the guy who has talked about casting commune since first level right after the first time he casts the spell, you are being a jerk.

All I say is that players should have more consideration in a game than "I don't like that rule, I'm changing it"

For the record, I am not the final athority or god either.

 

[jgbrowning]

well technically..

The book are not god, the players are not god, and most certainly you are not god.

He is god. Poor sod.

but then again so are you and me!


joe b.

(shaking his hindu butt)

 

[Piratecat]

*Insult removed.*

I don't agree with Forrester - heck, I never agree with Forrester, which is half the fun of being friends with him - but personal insults are not tolerated. Please edit your post to remove the insult, after which I'll remove it from this quote. Anyways, he's a damned consciencous DM, so your insult is technically wrong.

I'll add that I am pretty strict about not nerfing the spells that bug Forrester and others, at least in my own game. I know it's wrong, but I've always been pretty quick to leap to the conclusion of "lazy DMing" when I hear of people who have. One thing that this thread has taught me is that I'm being fairly foolish when I do. What works for me doesn't have to work for other people, as long as they're making an informed decision and not just having a knee-jerk reaction like some of the Rule 0-abusing DMs that other folks have mentioned.

- Piratecat

PS "Copout"? Phbbbbt!

 

[Voneth]

1980s

"And there was the time my 15th level level elven ninja/ranger/monk took on the Pit Feinds ..."

2000s

"And there was the time my 6th level dwarven wizard/ranger/ex - monk took this army of outsiders ..."

Nope no real change from what I see, other than 3E makes what was techincaly illegal, legal now and provides a framework that defines the limits of the flexiblity to kick more butt, as a lot of people have always wanted.

 

[LokiDR]

I'm not sure about a passage in the DMG, but there's this from Monte:

http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly16.html

He starts by talking about his recent module:

"In my adventure Demon God's Fane, the scenario begins with a murder mystery. So I thought of all the ways the PCs could use spells to solve it and presented a summary for the DM:

The PCs can call upon a number of divination spells to help them solve the murders. In fact, after only a little investigation, the spells they possess should make short work of the "mystery." That's fine -- do not feel that the players are "cheating" by doing this."

and then kindly gives us some tips on How To Be A Good DM In A High-Level Campaign:

"Don't Negate, Embrace.
It's a tendency for DMs (and module writers) to do everything mentioned in Step 1 and then systematically eliminate the possibility of the PCs using those abilities. If they have a clever trap in the adventure that requires the characters to be on the ground, they make it impossible to fly. That's lazy design."

and concludes by saying

"The whole point of these suggestions is to avoid punishing characters for being high level."

This, combined with comments I have read elsewhere, strongly suggest that DMs shouldn't change ("negate") high level spells, because it would be "punishing" the characters.

Which directly implies that Monte thinks the characters are entitled to any and all spells in the PHB, exactly as written . . . yes, changes made to these spells in order to help the DM tell his story are "lazy design" and "punishment". You want to do a murder mystery? Too f'ing bad. LokiDR is entitled to his Commune spell, as written. Shame on you for even thinking about changing it.

I'll add that it's possible that I'm overinterpreting Monte's column here. It's possible. But I doubt it. And certainly, there are plenty of players out there (not that I'm mentioning any names) that whine like hell any time the GM thinks about taking or changing any of their toys.

I have hear very similar statments from a number of academics and engineers. People who are consider smart in their field who created some process or another. One such figure is professor Watts Humphrey.

Watts is one of (in my opinion) most boring people on the face of the earth. He created something called the Personal Software Process. It is a bunch of statical methods to help you be a better programer. He stated that you should not just change the process at a whim because you think it would work better another way. After you have experience in process, he said, you can improve it based on your experience. I see Monte saying something very similar, in a very different field.

The rules had a lot of thought put into them. It would be foolish to think you can just snip out some spell or ability and not have to change more. The rules may not be perfect, but off handed decisions are bound to be less reliable. If you have played with the normal rules for a good period of time, found a problem, and fixed it with a rule 0 that is thought out, you are doing a good job as a DM. If you knee jerk react to any abilty that seems powerful by banning or "nerfing" it, you are abusing rule 0. I don't see the quoted article as being any sort of personal attack on a person's DM style.

 

[Piratecat]

Thanks for making the change, Loki.

 

[Ilen]

My thoughts on Rule 0 are:

Tell me before hand, preferably as far before hand as possible, but at the very least before I do something that is affected of the change, and take note you may have to 'warn' me a couple of time, I spent a lot of time learning the rules as they are in the PHB, I'm unlikely to instantly unlearn them.

Also if you are rule 0ing due to experience gained in the current campaign and thus want to change the rules then, explain why and let the players have a say, you need not heed them, but they are playing the game as well. Also try to avoid making these decisions mid session, while it may not be what you are doing it looks like you are pulling rule changes out of your but for no real reason when you make them mid-session, or even worse, mid combat.

Also if you change a feat drastically or some such give the person a change to reselect, it's harsh to say take Craft Wand and then find out before you create your first item that the DM has decided to change the rules so that all gold and experience costs are quadrupled, let the poor guy reselect Empower or some such instead.

 

[Voneth]

From the "Up on a Soapbox" column by Gary Gygax
Dragon #287, pg. 26

"Much of what was taken as standard and hackneyed in th eD&D game was all new back in 1972 and 1973. .... Even with outdoor adventuring forays into the City of Greyhawk, the many PCs involved in the campiang wanted to dugeon crawl above all else. As a result, I populated levels hastily, generaly without regard for "ecology," with an aim toward challenge, fun and diversity.

So if times are ah change'n, it seems to be a swing back to the old days. Take that as you will.

 

[LokiDR]

Thanks for making the change, Loki.

I'm not here to cause a problem, only get my point across. I do not consider the comment any worse than:

Originally posted by Forrester
Suck it up. Be a man. Endure.

or

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

but opinions vary.