When did I stop being WotC's target audience?
- Thread starter Jeff Wilder
- Start date
DaveMage
Slumbering in Tsar
Uh, just a math correciton here...
There were approximately 600 2E products released from TSR/WotC, and less than 200 for both 3E and 3.5 combined.
There's no way you had anywhere near the "official" number of products in 3E that were released in 2E since, well, that amount is very different.
Windjammer
Adventurer
Is the page you cited is your base (or worse, sole) evidence for the fact that 4E encourages the DM to forego RAW on a particular occasion if, on that occasion, this would fit his understanding of where the "plotline" should be heading? If it is, then I think you risk confusing two things which have nothing to do with one another.
House rules are rules. Rules, by definition, aren't designed to cater for one-off needs (whether of the DM or the players) - 4E DMG p.189 explicitly warns you to avoid that temptation - but are intended to regulate all future occasions of relevant similarity.
Also, rules are for both parties to agree on and hence, by definition, cannot be decreed by the DM only and for the sole use (or worse, exploitation) by the DM. The DMG p.189 explicitly discourages the DM to shift the rules without consulting his players - which I think is a highly sane consideration (which doesn't compromise his final authority on the matter).
The thing you mention is rather 'the DM is allowed to make up stuff on the fly'. It's the thing I enjoy most as a DM, and I agree that the easy go grasp core mechanics of 4E provides for that to a much better degree than 3E did if you bring that mindset with you. Because that mindset doesn't come across to players, especially, who have just read the Players' Handbook. Heck, it's only the DM who actually knows he can allow in-game actions not covered by the rules. In my book, that should be in the players' book. But kudos to 4E for having a section on that (DMG, p.42) in the rulebooks at all. What should be clear to all involved, however, is that that aspect of the game doesn't apply to Graz'zt, and never intended to be so. Anyone who thinks so is bringing something to 4E that is (a) wonderful in my estimate and (b) not part of 4E (whether PHB or DMG or MM).
(Edit: Much of the following assumes access to the 3.0 DMG as I am not familiar with the 3.5 version).
I never had this problem. Nor, has anyone else that I personally know. I don't doubt it exists, because it comes upon the internet. However, it tells me that either:
a) there exists players that are selflish thinking of themselves and not the good of the campaign (a player problem)
b) many DMs are too afraid to tell their players no (which is a problem with the DM- not the game) ; and/or
c) the DM didn't read the DM guide, because the 3e DM tells the DM that is ok to deviate and make changes. From the 3e DMG :
- "Let's start with the biggest secret of all: the key to Dungeon Mastering. (Don't tell anybody, okay) The secret is your're in charge" (3e DMG/ p.6) and "You decide how the rules work, which rules to use, and how strictly to adhere to them. That kind of in charge" (3e DMG/ p.6).
- "Good players will alway recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superceding somethng in a rule book" (3e DMG/ p.9)
And, the answer to that question is in the DMG.
"Do you cheat? The DM really can't cheat. You're the umpire, and what you say goes. As such, it's certainly within your right to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or keep things running smoothly." (3e DMG/ p.18)
Then don't adhere to hit. If a player has a problem with it, take a rolled up newspaper (or the DMG) and smack them on the nose. Then, if necessary, show them
a) Rule 0 in the phb;
b) the above sections from the DMG; and
c) the following sections in the DMG:
"Every rule in the Player's Handbook was written for a reason. That doesn't mean you can't change them for your own game" (3.0 DMG p. 11); and
"As DM, you get to make up your own spells, magic items, races, and monsters!" (DMG/p. 11) (emphasis mine).
(Or , just show them the door and avoid battery charges).
And, there was nothing stopping you from doing this in 3e. How does the player know that this is not a new monster specific to your setting, that you didn't put a template (WOTC or otherwise) on it , add a class, or whatever. They don't!
The "permission" to make changes was in the DMG all long, you either didn't see it or chose to ignore it.
Last edited:
Ah, well that's true. I admit, I was just, on general principle, defending the ability of the GM to make plots happen without regard for the statblock. I hadn't really considered whether the scenario as presented made for satisfying adventure design, and you're right, it doesn't.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Not sure I agree with you there, Benimoto.
Powerful entities like demon lords, arch-devils, and the like have been around for millennia, and they've faced foes as powerful as the PCs (even epic PCs) before, and survived. Not only can they have means of escaping from deadly situations, they must, or they'd already be dead.
Now, if it's absolutely impossible for the PCs to kill Graz'zt, I agree with you; that can be an unsatisfying adventure. But neither should they be able to just wander into his domain and attack him, and expect to be able to kill him even if they're strong enough to beat him. There has to be a middle ground, wherein the PCs investigate and research their foe, figuring out if he indeed has such a means of escape, and if so, how to overcome it. PCs (and players) who do their due diligence should be rewarded by having a fair shot at accomplishing whatever they're trying to accomplish (within reason, of course). But PCs who don't, who expect to kill a demon lord as easily as any other monster, haven't earned a fair shot at success, IMO.
Satisfying adventure design--again, IMO--allows the possibility of both; it makes the PCs earn their victories in whatever method is going to create the most interesting game-play experience and story, and the rules are followed, or broken, as best serves that goal.
Andor
First Post
Good, I'm glad to see it's there, although I think page 189 of the DMG applies less emphasis than page 1 of the PHB.
Monsters and NPCs did not have to do anything, but the tools were there to allow them to operate by them same rules as the PCs beause this adds depth and verisimilitude to the world.
I've been gaming for a long time and one of the things I always hated about 'Old school' rpgs were that there were frequently things that NPCs could do that PCs could not. Not monsters, nobody expects to be able to learn to imitate a beholder's anti-magic eye or a medusa's gaze. But I never understood why some 3rd lvl putz of a necromancer could have a hoarde of undead following them around but my PC never could no matter how powerful he got, or what he tried to learn.
In 3e I at least had the expectation that if a human NPC from the same town as my human PC could do something I could not that there would at least be some kind of in game explanation like "He sold his soul to the demon prince Bubba-Joe."
But I've never even heard of any player anywhere demanding the right to audit the NPCs that you seem to fear. If an NPC does something unusual asking if they could do that? Yes. GMs have to remember a lot and it's easy to forget you didn't mean Joe the Bartender to have Improved Disarm. The GM either says Yes or No and either way that's the end of the story. Demanding to know how many feats an NPC has? That they were constructed with the appropriate number of skill points? Never.
In any event I don't think either of us are claiming that a GM cannot do whatever he needs to to a monster in either edition.
cougent
First Post
Coming full circle back to the OP message it also seems to be a strong perception that the group you mentioned and I emphasized becomes the new target audience. I know I felt that way early on, but after a while I adopted more of this attitude:
No one held a gun to my head and said "You must buy it all or else!", I became a collector out of my own free will, so there really is no one to blame for this sense of loss other than myself. Also the sense of loss is only that the material I already own is now not current, yes it can be converted, and yes it can still be played, so no it has not really lost anything. It is just a perception of loss.
I have also made a choice to follow TK's other wisdom for financial reasons in the future as well, which is also ironic because it will now move me from the group who fully support the game (buys everything) to the group that marginally supports the game... and quite possibly move me back towards that target audience for future editions.
This reminds me of the model for software products. I have some brand new stuff and some that is several years old that newer versions are available, but the old version is still working just fine. [My ability to "word process" is hampered far more by my typing than any software]
I agree completely with this, and see a close paralel here to music. I still like the music I liked 30 years ago as a teenager, and that is still the bulk of the music that I do like and own. That does not in any way make it better or worse than music produced within the last 30 years, in fact I like much of that as well. I don't expect a new group to try and sound like a 30 year old group, even on a remix or cover. I think of 4E as the latest trend in music, neither good nor bad, just not my interest at the moment.
Exactly! I may buy 4E sometime, just as I may buy a new group's CD tomorrow, but until then I will enjoy my 3E and my old LP's.
I accept that what WotC does and what significantly smaller 3PP do have to be very different in scope and scale. It may just be that the target audience I am a part of has become too small for WotC, but may be perfect for a 3PP market (PF/AE). That doesn't make WotC evil, but neither does it make me bad for not following along.
The problem will occur when it happens with this one person to an excess.
I feel most times if BBEG shows up he should be able to be taken down then, or otherwise should be able to kill the whole party. The party should not be presented with BBEG until they can fight the final battle.
Now once before the final battle may be ok, but many continued times of BBEG teleporting away to safety in the nick of time cheeses me off. Don't even put BBEG there if he is just going to run away. Leave any message from him in some other manner.
So IF there is not during combat a chance for BBEG to teleport away without using the teleport rules: LOS, etc, then the players should have options also to be able to violate those rules when not in combat as well.
I could come up with a hundred reasons for BBEG to "appear" to have teleported away, but you have to keep the view for the players consistent even if the PCs don't realize what is going on. When the PCs can realize what is going on with a powerful teleport that violates their own capabilities or those of other people, then questions arise and the game can break down.
It is a problem with magic, and the new edition both. In the past it was a new spell that was created by BBEG and no one else knew it, and he would take it to his grave. Now I wouldn't even know how to make a new spell/ritual for it for during combat.
In the case of a device, then odds are BBEG dies and the players inherit that device and then what happens?
Consistency is important to me during the game from both perspectives. When something seems to violate known concept, and answer is needed as to why. That reason being so BBEG can just get away "this time" isn't always enough and sometimes offensive. So the DM needs to use caution when breaking from standard conventions.
Simon Atavax
First Post
The fascinating thing about pre-4e editions of D&D is that they did, in fact, have a range of both combat and non-combat roles.
They term they used back then was "Class".
Similar Threads
