I don't understand one thing.

First let me tell you my history, I used to play 2nd ed. and 3rd ed. I looked at 4th ed.

I'm reading these forums and i'm seeing people complaining that "Power" has been given to the DM. I don't understand why this is a problem. The DM runs that game, sets the rules, and makes the judgment calls. If the DM wants to make a low magic world and have very few magic items then where is the problem? On the flip side if the DM wants to hand out magic and magic items out like candy, they should be able to.

Could some one please explain why people are so upset about the DM having being in control? 
First let me tell you my history, I used to play 2nd ed. and 3rd ed. I looked at 4th ed.

I'm reading these forums and i'm seeing people complaining that "Power" has been given to the DM. I don't understand why this is a problem. The DM runs that game, sets the rules, and makes the judgment calls. If the DM wants to make a low magic world and have very few magic items then where is the problem? On the flip side if the DM wants to hand out magic and magic items out like candy, they should be able to.

Could some one please explain why people are so upset about the DM having being in control? 



I'm with you on this one.  There should obviously be some player consent in as far as what kind of game they actually want to play, but the DM should have asked them about that ahead of time.  In the end, the DM still has to do the prep work that leads to the game so a lot is in their hands regardless. 

I think the issues lies in the idea that 4e tended to spell out (or attempt to for those who didn't want to stray outside the box) exactly what can or can't be done in a lot of cases.  This meant that the DM didn't necessarily have as much of a say in what a player could do.... whereas now they have to almost ask permission.  With that said, i don't see that as a problem with any game worth playing in.  The DM will probably work with you and determine how you want things to work as a group and everyone is happy.  For those who really distrust the DM for some reason the game will probably not be enjoyable with or without exhaustive rules.
A combination of the experiences I have at local game shops and my personal intuition tells me that at this time some very large percentage of current D&D players started with 3.x and have never played any version earlier than that. The 3.x iteration of the game, in my opinion, arguably bears more of a resemblance to war games and miniatures games than any other edition. And that's quite ironic because OD&D was based on Chainmail, which in turn was inspired by tabletop miniatures war games. (Edition trolls reading this: note that I said "arguably" so don't start a boring edition war here.)

My own long-running D&D campaign has a mixture of some old school players and some players who cut their teeth on 3.x. The 3.x'ers had the most difficult time accepting that I was in control of the game and that they had to trust that my goal was to create a great story and a great time for everyone. They wanted to dig into the rulebooks for however long it took to find solutions to complicated situations, where as the old schoolers in my group just shrugged and said, "We're wasting game time. Just let the DM decide."

Neither approach is right or wrong, they're just different. At my table, if a complicated situation arises that doesn't fit neatly into the rules I may allowed a minute or two of looking through a book to find a solution but in the end I make the best ruling I can that fits the story and the situation and move the game along. My 3.x'ers had a difficult time accepting that at first. Now, after having played in my campaign for more than 4 years and seeing that my goal is not to control them but to weave a good story and a good game, they trust my judgement calls and don't fight me on them. But it took time, whereas the old schoolers in my game wanted that right from the start.

================================================ "Your life is an occasion. Rise to it." -Mr. Magorium ================================================

So we are seeing where 3.x and 4th ed. had situations and rules laid out for them, and as such became rules lawyers. Thank you very much for  your replies, it makes more sense to me.
As a long time DM it endlessly frustrated me to have a player tell me I couldn't do something, the waste everyone elses time arguing with me about it.

I think the idea was to make it "easier" to be a DM by creating stricter rules and better defining things. So poor DMs could just act as a rules engine as well as "run the bad guys". 

Personally I prefer to be the storytelling type of DM. I lay out the world and the players react to it, the rules make a nice framework, but when they don't suit the situation I bend them for what I consider the betterment of the experience. For some this doesn't sit well, thats fine, they just need to find a differnt DM.

 
IMO, it's not the main problem what bearform laid out. The Problem ist not really players wanting to have a rule for everyting, but DMs, that are not able to justly rule everything. It needs a good DM to do that - as it was in the old days, there were NO rules on improvisation whatsoever, which tended to very strange houserules and codified rules for reuse.

People on here always argue, that it's easy to just eyeball something, or to make up a ruling on the spot: trust me, it's not. You're just blinded by your experiences. A new DM, and we will always have those, will have the hardest time adjudicating a system like 1e,2e, while 4e will work like a charm. (e.g. you have improv. damage rules, standard DCs, etc)

NEXT is clearly trying to get those improv rules in place, without resorting to over-complicated powers to get these actions to the players... once a day/encounter.

NEXT-Playtest as written gives currently more than that back to the DM, which I see as a problem. Grab/Grapple/Trip are NOT exceptions or improvisations. Every DM would have a personal ruling on those things in place soon, and that's why its bad.
Here be dragons: IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cydyvkj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c54g6ac/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/csw6fhj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cbxbgmp/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cz7v5bd/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/ccg9eld/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c8szhnn/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cp68b5u/.gif)
56767308 wrote:
Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. [...] For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
57870548 wrote:
I think I figured it out. This program is a character builder, not a character builder. It teaches patience, empathy, and tolerance. All most excellent character traits.

I think the issues lies in the idea that 4e tended to spell out (or attempt to for those who didn't want to stray outside the box) exactly what can or can't be done in a lot of cases.

Are you kidding me?

It's the exact opposite. It came back to Advanced, instead of all those table given in 3rd edition.


I think the issues lies in the idea that 4e tended to spell out (or attempt to for those who didn't want to stray outside the box) exactly what can or can't be done in a lot of cases.

Are you kidding me?

It's the exact opposite. It came back to Advanced, instead of all those table given in 3rd edition.




I didn't say you couldn't do more with the system only that a lot of times  players and DMs tend to look for pre-defined ways of doing things rather than just adjucating something that makes sense given the system.  In most of the 4e games I've played in, the powers and skills (especially when applied to skill challenges) tended to put blinders on the participants.  I've been more likely to hear "no, the rules don't support that" or "it doesn't work that way so let me spend a half hour looking for the right supplement to prove it!" rather than just either coming to a group decision on how to improvise a solution or trusting the DM to come up with one quickly.
Well, it is sufficient to look for the first page on DM guide.

Could some one please explain why people are so upset about the DM having being in control? 



Easily.  Because if the DM is in control?  Then the player, or forum dweller, isn't.  They can't whip out a book & shake it at the DM & claim "But you're doing it wrong/See, I'M right - the book tells me so/According to page:x/ etc."



Could some one please explain why people are so upset about the DM having being in control? 



Easily.  Because if the DM is in control?  Then the player, or forum dweller, isn't.  They can't whip out a book & shake it at the DM & claim "But you're doing it wrong/See, I'M right - the book tells me so/According to page:x/ etc."





Not every player is a Rules Lawyer. For example, I know the Pathfinder rules very well, better than my DM, and I only oppose a ruling when it would otherwise break the game (No, Charisma-based saves for an undead creature does NOT force party members to use Charisma instead of Wisdom when making their saves. Yes, averting your eyes from a gaze attack DOES give you a chance of not having to make a save).

Every DM I've played with has made mistakes. So have I when I played. Sometimes a gentle reminder about what Nauseated does is a good thing.

A game where the DM adjudecates EVERYTHING is bound for failure.
Could some one please explain why people are so upset about the DM having being in control? 


Wow.  Count yourself among the lucky few.  The fact that you are even asking this means you haven't had a really bad DM.  A lot of games devolve into an adversarial relationship between DM and players.  The DM tries to force the story his way and the players have to arm themselves with the rules like a magical +5 cloak in order to have any say in what happens.  It can get really bad.  The comic Knights of the Dinner Table is almost entirely about this, you should check it out.

The rules swing control over to the players.  More rules = less DM fiat and interpretation.  3e gave more power to players and 4e even more still.  As someone mentioned above, it became more of a wargame than a roleplaying game, going so far as to suggest that players make shopping lists to give the DM of the loot they want to be dropped in dungeons.

I don't really want to get into an arguement on this point, but I think a lot of the people who loved 4e are people who had gotten burned by bad DM fiat and never wanted to go back.

If the DM has earned the players' trust, giving him power is no big deal because he will only use it to make the game fun for everyone.  The players don't need to wield the rules as a defensive weapon because the DM wants to make it fun for everyone and he helps everyone play the character they want to play and have the adventure they want to have.
I think it's because the majority of DMs are actually pretty terrible. in nearly 7 years of roleplaying, i can count all the good DM's I've had on one hand that's been in a lawnmower accident.

1e and 2e are unplayable with a bad DM, but 3.x and 4e do a lot to prop up a bad DM and marginalize the room for error.

Happy to be back on the best D&D forum on the internet!

I think it's because the majority of DMs are actually pretty terrible. in nearly 7 years of roleplaying, i can count all the good DM's I've had on one hand that's been in a lawnmower accident.

1e and 2e are unplayable with a bad DM, but 3.x and 4e do a lot to prop up a bad DM and marginalize the room for error.



I wouldn't go that far at all. Un pleasant, sure, but far from unplayable. I started out in 2nd under a bad DM.
Here is reality, read and understand: Rangers aren't dull or underpowered, in any edition. Fighters aren't dull or underpowered, in any edition. Casters aren't "god mode" or overpowered, in any edition. The tarrasque isn't broken. And you aren't voicing your opinion by claiming otherwise, you're just being a pain. Now, stop complaining.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

i tried 1e adnd with an 'old school' DM and it was bad enough for me to drop out after the first session.

Happy to be back on the best D&D forum on the internet!

i tried 1e adnd with an 'old school' DM and it was bad enough for me to drop out after the first session.



Well, that's your choice, but it doesn't make the game unplayable. It just makes it playable in a capacity you choose not to tolerate.

I've had a number of really BAD DMs in my time. That doesn't mean they aren't still playing the game - they are - just not in a way I prefer. However, I don't think any amount of rules will fix that. People that suck will suck regardless of what restraints you put on them.
Here is reality, read and understand: Rangers aren't dull or underpowered, in any edition. Fighters aren't dull or underpowered, in any edition. Casters aren't "god mode" or overpowered, in any edition. The tarrasque isn't broken. And you aren't voicing your opinion by claiming otherwise, you're just being a pain. Now, stop complaining.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

I consider a bad DM to be one that is not creative. It's OK if the DM doesn't know the rules perfectly because lots of players know the rules very well, such as in Knight90's example.

If the DM wants to fiat something to make the game more interesting then s/he should be able to do that, I think. It does get annoying however, in the case of, "You broke the law in Wizard City. A level 20 wizard falls out of the sky and teleports you to an inescapable prison. No save."
"You broke the law in Wizard City. A level 20 wizard falls out of the sky and teleports you to an inescapable prison. No save."


The sad thing is, that doesn't sound at all like an exaggeration.
"You broke the law in Wizard City. A level 20 wizard falls out of the sky and teleports you to an inescapable prison. No save."


The sad thing is, that doesn't sound at all like an exaggeration.



I have known DM who would happily do things like that. I don't play in their games.

DMs have always had the power to do things that are not fun for their players.  Having the rules cover more situations helps can help DMs, especially the inexperienced ones, but there is no cure for a really terrible DM.
If the DM wants to fiat something to make the game more interesting then s/he should be able to do that, I think. It does get annoying however, in the case of, "You broke the law in Wizard City. A level 20 wizard falls out of the sky and teleports you to an inescapable prison. No save."



No rule book or DM counter can ever save you from this or the infamous rocks fall.

I hear tell that in the 1st edition DM manual DMs were actually encouraged to strike unrully player's characters with lightning, to keep the players in line. I actually just looked this up because is just sounded so silly.... I couldn't believe it but it is there in the 'Conducting the Game" part under "Dealing with troublesome players." In context it makes a lot more sense though.

I understand the fear of DM-fiat, but the truth is that no matter what the mechanics say a game a bad DM is running will still suck. You many now have a little card that says you hit the enemy hard enough to slide it, but your DM can still spawn 4 more if he chooses and for no better reason then he wants to.

I think the issues lies in the idea that 4e tended to spell out (or attempt to for those who didn't want to stray outside the box) exactly what can or can't be done in a lot of cases.

Are you kidding me?

It's the exact opposite. It came back to Advanced, instead of all those table given in 3rd edition.



It's funny, because it's true in both cases.

In 4e combat actions were a lot more detailed rules-wise; there were actual powers describing things like aiming for the knees or kicking someone and then bouncing off of another guy. It likely stiffled combat imagination a bit, though it did made parties more tactically tighter.

But 4e also did away with rules describing world simulation; no rules lawyer could jump the DM for a lich of a given level controlling a zombie more than it was allowed to by his Hit Dice and appropriate wealth, because it wasn't in the rules. I remember how surprised people were about the Minions, arguing that a 1hp monster couldn't survive day-to-day life. But the rules weren't describing day-to-day life, they were describing a situation in which a hapless kobold is facing a party of trained adventurers.
Could some one please explain why people are so upset about the DM having being in control? 


Wow.  Count yourself among the lucky few.  The fact that you are even asking this means you haven't had a really bad DM.  A lot of games devolve into an adversarial relationship between DM and players.  The DM tries to force the story his way and the players have to arm themselves with the rules like a magical +5 cloak in order to have any say in what happens.  It can get really bad.  The comic Knights of the Dinner Table is almost entirely about this, you should check it out.



KODT is meant to be an exageration... taking bad play styles to the absolute limit.  I was shocked to discover someone that didn't like it because it was too close to actual experience.  While I recognise the play styles that the poke fun at it had never occured to me that anyone could actually be that bad.  (Although we have had situations that come up that cause a sigh acompanied by the 'Hydrogen is a rare element' comment... but those situations are unrelated to mechanics)
I think having a clear cut set of rules is a great idea for younger players. I started playing when I was 10(BECMI and 1E), and my group didn't have an older person to run the game for us. There were many shouting matches and a couple of fistfights.

For mature players, this may not be a problem, but remember that kids play this game, too. Sometimes without adult supervision.

Even as an adult I have had problems with DM fiat(ex. Every opponent my grappling character faced had a higher grapple score than me), but it is much easier to deal with now than when I was 10.

Just something to consider.
It's not only Bad DMs.

It's inexperinced DMs, and DMs who don't think things through. The DMG has to be very informative if Next is going back to 1e and 2e style.

I literally knew DMs who though Monks wer overpowered in 3E, thought wizards didn't get enough spells, and gave PCs unlimited downtime to craft items.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I think having a clear cut set of rules is a great idea for younger players. I started playing when I was 10(BECMI and 1E), and my group didn't have an older person to run the game for us. There were many shouting matches and a couple of fistfights.



Luckily, we did not have that problem with RP. But when we were 14, we bought Republic of Rome and played it. It almost ruined our friendship. Some people were still upset 4-5 years later about those first few games. Same things happens to young, new RP groups all the time. Or more often, player and DM decide that "this game sucks". We were close to that decision, when a teacher picked us up and showed us HOW it ought to be played.

Here be dragons: IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cydyvkj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c54g6ac/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/csw6fhj/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cbxbgmp/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cz7v5bd/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/ccg9eld/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/c8szhnn/.gif)IMAGE(http://tinyurl.com/cp68b5u/.gif)
56767308 wrote:
Sadly, I don't think this has anything to do with wanting Next to be a great game. It has to do with wanting Next to determine who won the Edition War. [...] For those of us who just want D&D Next to be a good game, this is getting to be a real drag.
57870548 wrote:
I think I figured it out. This program is a character builder, not a character builder. It teaches patience, empathy, and tolerance. All most excellent character traits.
I'm reading these forums and i'm seeing people complaining that "Power" has been given to the DM. I don't understand why this is a problem. The DM runs that game, sets the rules, and makes the judgment calls. If the DM wants to make a low magic world and have very few magic items then where is the problem? On the flip side if the DM wants to hand out magic and magic items out like candy, they should be able to.

Could some one please explain why people are so upset about the DM having being in control? 



The problem basically boils down to this: 

A good DM is good with a strict ruleset, and good with a very open, light ruleset.

A bad DM is bad with a strict ruleset, and worse with an open, light ruleset. 

Therefore, empowering the DM does not really affect the quality of games run by good DMs, but will make games run by bad DMs even worse.

In addition, having rules for 'situation X' can be a help for any DM. As we all know, every DM has some house rules and can choose to ignore certain rules. But even then, if there are written rules for a specific situation, they can be used as a guideline.

And why should I spend money on a rulebook that doesn't contain rules (or not enough rules)?
Most people dont like this because as many others said, they like bitching about the rules. Also they want to have greater controll over the game, than what they need to actually play it!
I dont know why, but I thnk it also has to do with the video game - mmo cyndrome that makes you want to have an opinion on how the game should play so the dm (game company) fixes it, but in every way dnd is different! 

Wow.  Count yourself among the lucky few.  The fact that you are even asking this means you haven't had a really bad DM.  A lot of games devolve into an adversarial relationship between DM and players.  The DM tries to force the story his way and the players have to arm themselves with the rules like a magical +5 cloak in order to have any say in what happens.  It can get really bad.  The comic Knights of the Dinner Table is almost entirely about this, you should check it out.



The rules of chess don't change because someone can be a jerk.  Neither do the rules of less directly confrontational games.

The solution to playing with jerks is not to play with jerks.  How has this escaped so many people over the years to the point that they crave systems laden with DM restriction? 
Rules don't incentivize jerks.  Tolerance incentivizes jerks.  Don't do it.

NEXT-Playtest as written gives currently more than that back to the DM, which I see as a problem. Grab/Grapple/Trip are NOT exceptions or improvisations. Every DM would have a personal ruling on those things in place soon, and that's why its bad.



Action types like these that in one edition or another had charts and specific actions that you could perform. 

Current itteration is to make them all contests.  
MY DM COMMITMENT To insure that those who participate in any game that I adjudicate are having fun, staying engaged, maintaining focus, contributing to the story and becoming legendary. "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gary Gygax Thanks for that Gary, so now stop playing RAW games. Member of the Progressive Front of Grognardia Suicide Squad
First let me tell you my history, I used to play 2nd ed. and 3rd ed. I looked at 4th ed.

I'm reading these forums and i'm seeing people complaining that "Power" has been given to the DM. I don't understand why this is a problem. The DM runs that game, sets the rules, and makes the judgment calls. If the DM wants to make a low magic world and have very few magic items then where is the problem? On the flip side if the DM wants to hand out magic and magic items out like candy, they should be able to.

Could some one please explain why people are so upset about the DM having being in control? 


I think a lot of people simply don't like to feel powerless.  This may be especially true in a fantasy game that revolves around the PCs being bigger than life heroes.  Having to ask "DM may I" for everything you want to do feels a lot like Red from Shawshank redemption asking if he can take a leak.  Heroes pee wherever and whenever the heck they want to.  Not really, but you get the point.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

There is a great divergence in RPG game design over who gets more power: the player or the DM.

Both are viable. They accomplish different things and are better at different situations, but I am tired so I will paint it as simply as possible.

If you have a good DM, then giving more power to the DM is likely the best thing.

But if you have a bad DM, giving more power to the DM will only hurt the game.

There is no flat-out *better* answer. 
Perfect example... Watch the movie "The Gamers: Dorkness Rising" on youtube (used to be on netflix but they canned it ).  There is a great case of the DM bending the rules to fit the campaign he had set up.

I like to point to Pirates of the Caribbean, when Ms. "Turner" calls for Parley and Captn Barbosa says, they are more like guidlines.

Plus I'd like to know 1 person that has played a straight up true rule game of Monopoly without changing something about it????

I know this doesn't really provide a relevant answer to the OP, but just some amusing fodder for the cannon. 
Plus I'd like to know 1 person that has played a straight up true rule game of Monopoly without changing something about it????

Me?  My freinds and I always preferd to play by the rules.  Made things simpler.

First let me tell you my history, I used to play 2nd ed. and 3rd ed. I looked at 4th ed.

I'm reading these forums and i'm seeing people complaining that "Power" has been given to the DM. I don't understand why this is a problem. The DM runs that game, sets the rules, and makes the judgment calls. If the DM wants to make a low magic world and have very few magic items then where is the problem? On the flip side if the DM wants to hand out magic and magic items out like candy, they should be able to.

Could some one please explain why people are so upset about the DM having being in control? 


I think a lot of people simply don't like to feel powerless.  This may be especially true in a fantasy game that revolves around the PCs being bigger than life heroes.  Having to ask "DM may I" for everything you want to do feels a lot like Red from Shawshank redemption asking if he can take a leak.  Heroes pee wherever and whenever the heck they want to.  Not really, but you get the point.

Also, this is a true thing.  Thank you for saying this better then I could, Mecha.
Plus I'd like to know 1 person that has played a straight up true rule game of Monopoly without changing something about it????



alway play monopoly by the rules. I am the Monopoly rules lawyer. You don't get money for landing on free parking!!!!

That said, I tried to apply this same concept to D&D. I think it probably can be done but it inhibited the fun. Lucky for my groups, by the time I got to DMing I had broken this habit. 
Perfect example... Watch the movie "The Gamers: Dorkness Rising" on youtube (used to be on netflix but they canned it ).  There is a great case of the DM bending the rules to fit the campaign he had set up.

Which is totally cool.  Change the rules as much as you want.  I just want to have actual rules that I can change or not at my discretion.  What I don't want is an absence of rules disguised as "freedom to improvise".  I can always improvise with any amount of rules.  But when I want rules, or at least guidelines, then no amount of "Come up with some yourself" helps.

I like to point to Pirates of the Caribbean, when Ms. "Turner" calls for Parley and Captn Barbosa says, they are more like guidlines.

And guidelines are better than nothing.

Plus I'd like to know 1 person that has played a straight up true rule game of Monopoly without changing something about it????

Right here.  Every time.  Monopoly is bad-ass when played by people who understand the nuances and strategy of the game.  Love Monopoly.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.
Could some one please explain why people are so upset about the DM having being in control? --Easily.  Because if the DM is in control?  Then the player, or forum dweller, isn't.  They can't whip out a book & shake it at the DM & claim "But you're doing it wrong/See, I'M right - the book tells me so/According to page:x/ etc."

The DM should always have the final word adjudicating.  That being said, a player should have control of their actions & what they play and how they play it... without dragging the game to a screecing halt arguing when things don't go their way.  Whenever I DMed, I gave players pretty wild lattitude... but if they played a Drow character, they had best be prepared for some unwelcome treatment in the surface civilizations...

Ok Ok I will eat the Monopoly quote....  But I wil NEVER give up my free parking money!!

But yeah, that's what separates all games apart from one another, the rules.  Each game needs its own set of rules to be able to call itself D&D or Pathfinder or RIFTs or whatchamacallit, as Foxface said we at least need rules to be able to change them.  It all comes down to fun.  If allowing the DM to run the game as he/she see's fit then kudos.  If you want the rules lawyers to chime in on every single decision kudos as well.  As long as whatever decision made doesn't hinder the fun.

For example, I played in a D&D game where everytime the DM made a conflicting decision, we had another guy that DM'd alot and he is a rules lawyer to the definition.  It dragged the game out and we wasted a lot of time.  The game fell through eventually cause of conflicting schedules.  Eventually we all got back together on a different night and one of the other players DM'd us in game of Nightbane, a system that the rules lawyer from the previous D&D game new nothing about.  Man we are having a blast cause things are moving along and he is basically going on what the DM says to be true. 

I like to point to Pirates of the Caribbean, when Ms. "Turner" calls for Parley and Captn Barbosa says, they are more like guidlines.
 



i hope later playtest editions have more guidelines.
a page with examples of improvides actions like trip and disarm, and how they could be handeld.
so players and Dm have a guidline about what they can do or alouw to be done with a improvised action.

some of these entries could be very short.
knock prone : contested strength roll if atacker wins target is knocked prone.
Like I said the bigger problem is not Jerk DMs

It's New DMs (who NEED rules to help them)

And DMs who accidentally make horrible mistakes (who want guidelines to help them).

It's for DMs who don't see that 3.5 grappling and disarm rules are terrible bad as they grind the game to a screeching halt.
Or DMs who don't know they should give Paladins and Monks boosts in 3rd ed as they are rather weak.
Or a DM who doesn't realize it is a good idea that you hand out more potions to a party with no healer.
Or a DM who makes a house rule that makes tripping better than normal attacking
etc
etc
etc

Not every DM is a 15 year veteran.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

The Dungeon Master's Guide should be filled with how-tos.
Sign In to post comments