Your argument would be stronger if it responded to mine instead of making things up and responding to them instead.
Sundragon2012 said:
However, the arrow analogy falls flat as a comparison to spell componants because any DM who allows a wizard to cast 300 fireballs without even the appearace of componant aquisition is IMO crazy.
Then require the archer to make an "appearance" of arrow collection. Whenever he's in town, he announces, "I'm going to buy more arrows," and tosses away a trivial handful of gold coins. That's
exactly what the wizard does,
if the wizard does anything at all, and the wizard doesn't even get charged a handful of gold coins.
See? Verisimilitude gets its nod, and a 12th level archer doesn't have to count backwards from 300 just to know when its time to shell out 15 gp for 300 arrows.
What is so darned difficult with keeping track of such simple things when you having nothing but your character to worry about?
Its not about how difficult it is in a vacuum, its about how difficult it is in comparison to what the game is getting out of it. We could track degradation of the fighter's sword, too. After 300 hits it starts needing repair work that costs about 15 gp. It wouldn't be difficult per se, but it would be annoying. There are a lot of things we could require players to account. Armor damage, caloric intake, fruit consumption tied to a rule that gives you scurvy if you eat nothing but iron rations for too long... just because we can count them doesn't meant that we should.
Random saves are a vital part of the game as are hopefully rare save or die effects.
Try to keep on topic. There's a difference between liking random saves, and liking random saves that you couldn't avoid taking and which force you to go play on the DM's xbox for the rest of the night if things go badly.
This is a dice based game and there is an element of randomness. If someone doesn't want that they can hang out with their friends and play make believe without dice, rules or danger.
There is a difference between hating randomness, and hating extremely long shot randomness which, when it goes bad, kills (or long term disables) you instantly. People who want to avoid instant random death do not necessarily want to destroy all elements of randomness. This should be self evident.
The DM can never, ever be forced to provide anything.
If the DM 1) wants to be a DM, and 2) doesn't restrain his players in a hole he dug in his basement, yes he can. If he isn't providing a game the players want, they leave. He either gets new players, changes his mind, or gives up being a DM. His ability to get new players, willingness to change mind, and desire to remain as DM will be major factors in which one happens. I used to play exclusively as part of a gaming club. If I wanted to run a game, there were about 80 people who might play. So if one set of my friends didn't want to play in a game I created, I'd ask a different set. No hard feelings were had, as there were lots of different games available. Now I live in an area where I haven't got a gaming club, and if I want to play, there's basically five guys who will be playing with me. Now its much more important that a setting and a campaign I create appeal to those particular guys' taste. Capisce?
Setting consistancy requires limits, period. Anything goes, kitchen sink D&D is fine for the nebulous, undefined core setting but not for anything that exists as a published setting. If the player knows that his DM runs a Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Midnight or Hyborian campaign then they aren't entitled to a warforged monk. Can't accept it find another game.
There is a big difference between "some limits are necessary for consistency" and "every particular limit I have thought up is 100% necessary for consistency and cannot have any exceptions."
Having said that, the DM decides what is allowed and disallowed in his or her game. There is no struggle for control, there may be rational discussion and disagreement, but the DM is the final arbiter of what is exists in the world. The players have a right to come up with a character concept that fits in the setting. With rights come responsibilities. If the DMs obligation is to create a fun setting and guide a quality campaign for his players, then the player's have an obligation to respect his or er decisions and the integrity of the setting.
Or not play. And if the DM needs them to play, he'll bargain with them and suddenly he's not the final arbiter anymore. The struggle is begun once again.
On the DM's side, he's got the following leverage: his friendship with the player in question, other players who take his side, the ability to quit DMing and leave them without a game, and a social norm that gives DMs control over settings.
On the players side, they've got the following leverage: their friendship with the DM, other players who take his side, the ability to quit playing, and the ability to play disruptively just beneath the level at which they'd be ejected from the group.
Notice that the rules don't matter? What's the DM going to say?
"The rules say I'm in charge! ME! I'm in charge! Get back here! Where are you going? Don't get in that car and drive away! You HAVE to play! The rules say so! Why are you starting up your own gaming group next door? YOU CAN'T DO THAT! The rules put me in charge! I have the right to make these decisions! You have the right to obey! Get back here!"
