Community

Players haven't changed. DMs haven't changed. Conventions and gamedays haven't changed.

My assertions are game-agnostic. They apply for any campaign where you have players that can move from DM to DM, from game to game, mixing and matching the party makeup. They call it "massively multiplayer" these days, I think, and it's not a bad moniker.

In such systems, it is unfair to the players to have the rug yanked out from under them if they are using what is completely legal and aboveboard, just because you, one single DM, have an opinion that it's "abusive".

Rules changes in such systems MUST be clearly outlined and documented, and happen on a regular schedule, posted in an easily accessible location.

Not 20 minutes into a game, and only for that one table, cos that DM didn't like something.


-karma

I was making these assertions in 2E, and in Star Wars, and in Shadowrun, etc. I've watched dozens of "living" style campaigns over the years.

"Making things fun" is entirely possible to do without twisting rules you don't like.

More problematic than any abused rule, however, is the idea of punishing players for following the rules.

This is ALWAYS a bad idea.

Understand where I come from. I take a long view of game systems. I tend not to be concerned with individual tables or players. I look at things filtered through game theory and the behavioral tendencies of people in large numbers.

If there is a problem with the rules, fix the rules, do not punish the players for following the rules.

And do it so the players have plenty of forewarning about the upcoming changes.

If there is a particular rules combo that is significantly more powerful than other options, a large portion of the player base will use it. This is inevitable, and you cannot blame the players for using it. It is just how people will act.

If a rule is broken, it's not the fault of the players. If anything, it is the fault of the person that wrote the rule. (Not that assigning blame actually solves anything, really.)

As such, it is simply unfair to a player, who is following said rules, to be punished for it.

Players should not have to worry that their particular legal choices will be invalidated by their next DM simply because that DM thinks differently.

This isn't a philosophy tied to any edition of any game. It is based on larger forces that come into play in large populations, forces that won't change no matter what any developer intentions hapen to be.


-karma

KarmaInferno wrote:

I was making these assertions in 2E, and in Star Wars, and in Shadowrun, etc. I've watched dozens of "living" style campaigns over the years.

"Making things fun" is entirely possible to do without twisting rules you don't like.

More problematic than any abused rule, however, is the idea of punishing players for following the rules.

This is ALWAYS a bad idea.

Understand where I come from. I take a long view of game systems. I tend not to be concerned with individual tables or players. I look at things filtered through game theory and the behavioral tendencies of people in large numbers.

If there is a problem with the rules, fix the rules, do not punish the players for following the rules.

And do it so the players have plenty of forewarning about the upcoming changes.

If there is a particular rules combo that is significantly more powerful than other options, a large portion of the player base will use it. This is inevitable, and you cannot blame the players for using it. It is just how people will act.

If a rule is broken, it's not the fault of the players. If anything, it is the fault of the person that wrote the rule. (Not that assigning blame actually solves anything, really.)

As such, it is simply unfair to a player, who is following said rules, to be punished for it.

Players should not have to worry that their particular legal choices will be invalidated by their next DM simply because that DM thinks differently.

This isn't a philosophy tied to any edition of any game. It is based on larger forces that come into play in large populations, forces that won't change no matter what any developer intentions hapen to be.


-karma

Replacing chillborn zombies or rotwings with wights is hardly "twisting" the rules. It is entirely within the domain of DME. Again, if you don't like the system as it is setup let the LFR administration know. I was a staunch objector to DME in the beginning. I've just come to accept the fact that it is the judge's responsibility to make the system work, both mechanically and from a fun perspective, in 4e.

For someone who has so much experience with living campaigns you should recognize the phrase, expect table variation. I grew to accept it in LG and you should learn to live with it in 4e. If your judge denies you something you can make your appeal and if he still denies it you accept his/her ruling and move on. This is especially true in 4e where is seems the wording on rules is purposely poorly worded in many cases.

KarmaInferno wrote:

Depends.

Are you putting in wights just to smack down a player who's using a rule you don't like?

Well, you posted asking other people's opinions on what's right or wrong in dealing with players and 'problem' rules.

In my opinion, it's wrong. You are using DME, but in a manner to punish a player to stop him from using a legal rule you don't like. Your intent matters.

As for Table Variation, yes. I have had long experience with this. I just deal with it, as a player.

As a DM, I refuse to subject my players to it. As long as you came to the table with a legal build, I'll roll with it. Play ball.

I do so without regret, and will continue to do so.

At least I never have had to go asking others if what I did was wrong.


-karma

By no means do I think I was wrong. There is no "wrong" when you are a filling a role where you can do no wrong. Ultimately, I am trying to be the best judge I can be and in this case I believe that doing so requires me to find the best solution to dealing with this problem.

I do this because:

You are empowered to make adjustments to
the adventure and make decisions about how
the group interacts with the world of this
adventure. This is especially important and
applicable outside of combat encounters, but feel
free to use the "scaling the encounter" advice
(usually for adjusting to different-sized groups) to
adjust combat encounters for groups that are
having too easy or too hard of a time in an
adventure.

and...

Don't make the adventure too easy or too
difficult for a group. Never being challenged
makes for a boring game, and being
overwhelmed makes for a frustrating game.
Gauge the experience of the players (not the
characters) with the game, try to feel out (or ask)
what they like in a game, and attempt to give
each of them the experience they’re after when
they play D&D. Give everyone a “chance to
shine.”

Sometimes it is necessary to nerf the few for the benefit of the many.

So far it seems split. Some people like the less aggressive method of using DME to balance things out. Others, at least a couple in this thread (myself included), prefer a direct approach.

Mirtek wrote:

The question is whether you first asked the many or simply assumed that since you don't like it they won't like it either.

I don't think that anyone (not even a healing specialized leader) would feel outclassed by annother character providing unlimited OOC healing if the group rests a hour instead of 5 minutes. But if you asked them and they told you these power disturbed them if fine.

After the game we had a short discussion about the power in question. 3 players agreed that allowing infinite uses of the power outside of combat was out of the question (the fighter, cleric, and wizard). 2 of them didn't really voice an opinion (the druid didn't seem to care either way and the warlock was too new to have an opinion).