|
2 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2011 - 10:44AM
#421
|
|
|
I've always felt that if a PC doesn't die every other level then the DM isn't doing their job.
That stopped being a mainstream D&D attitude back during 1E.
And it was archaic and ridiculous then.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2011 - 10:44AM
#422
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2003
|
Well two things. First, the GM cannot cheat, by the rules he defines what the rules are, how they work and when they do and don't work. It says that on the first page, first paragraph of the GM Guide. Second thing its not arbitrary because as a GM I only take advantage of that first rule when it serves the story (thats not an arbitrary decesion, that is a decesion I informed the players of before we ever start the game), which coincidently is another rule of the game, that the story is paramount to the rules.
4th edition players have become too attached to their precious mathboo... I mean players handbooks. Let it go.. its a collaborative storytelling game and the GM is the narrator, if he decides a spell doesn't work for the benefit of the story the "players are expected to go with it" (another of many golden role-playing rules). Role-play off of it, the spell didn't work.. now what happens... Not "your cheating!!!! I quit this game.. x effect can't be countered by Y rule"... If my players behaved like that I would have quit GMing ages ago.
Arbitrary:
Unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority
Definition #2 if you type define: arbitrary into google. # 1 mentions outside system/reason.
Let me point out that a character of level x using it's highest level spell (especially banishment on a cleric) is likely to be it's only use of that level spell for that day. That the player chose a "save or die" option instead of a damage dealing power is meaningless if the choices are there. the player took a gamble, used a resource in the framework of the system, and the player won his gamble. Or maybe win is bad phrasing, but the odds swung in his favor.
Now and this is key, if a DM disregards the player's use of the agreed upon system and risk/reward that he/she is allowed simply because of "story" then it is arbitrary, both by being unrestrained in his authority and also because he is breaking the social contract upon which the rules/system of the game function.
That the player is unaware of the decision is irrelevant to the nature of the decision. The Dm has acted in a fashion that disregards the social contract that the rules matter. that they are like gravity, or thermodynamics, only in the game world instead of real life.
It may not make that DM a "dick" but it does make him authoritarian, and less trustworthy.
My Blog, mostly about D&D. I imagine that Majestic Moose plays a more "A team" type game than most of us. By that I mean he allows his players to make tanks out of a backyard playground set since the players have more "fun" that way.
Actually I much prefer The Losers.Spoiler:
Show
When I and my friends sit down we want a game of heroic fantasy. Rare is the moment when I have cried out in a video game or RPG "that's unrealistic." (Unless there is no jump button. Seriously makes me mad, single handedly ruined the N64 zelda series for me, but that's a digression of a digression.)
I mean, we play games with the force in galaxies far, far away, with supernatural horrors, dragons and demi-gods, alternate cosmologies, etc.
Reality and it's effects hold little sway to what makes a Heroic fantasy game fun IMO.
Just repeat after me:
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake.
You are not how much you've spent on WotC products.
You are not whatever RPG you play.
You are one of tens of thousands of people that spend money on a hobby.
You will not always get what you want
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2011 - 11:22AM
#423
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2009
|
Now and this is key, if a DM disregards the player's use of the agreed upon system and risk/reward that he/she is allowed simply because of "story" then it is arbitrary, both by being unrestrained in his authority and also because he is breaking the social contract upon which the rules/system of the game function.
That the player is unaware of the decision is irrelevant to the nature of the decision. The Dm has acted in a fashion that disregards the social contract that the rules matter. that they are like gravity, or thermodynamics, only in the game world instead of real life.
It may not make that DM a "dick" but it does make him authoritarian, and less trustworthy.
Um: forgive me, I don't have my 4E DMG on hand to look up the page number, but don't the rules specifically state that the DM is allowed to disregard the rules for the sake of the current game?
Yes, whether or not this particular case would be beneficial to the game is debatable, but at least the core concept of DMs being allowed to ignore written rules is part of the D&D "social contract."
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2011 - 11:51AM
#424
|
Date Joined:
Feb 23, 2006
|
Oh boy. Here it comes. Calling a play style that we don't like or adhere to stupid, archaic, absurd, and notfunlawl (or insert any other negative, derrogatory word attacking something). Quickest way to destroy a thread.
To see my campaign world visit http://dnd.chrisnye.net
My music -> www.myspace.com/Incarna
My music videos -> www.youtube.com/Auticusx
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2011 - 11:53AM
#425
|
|
|
Haven't the last three DMGs, for 2E, 3E, and 4E instructed the DM not to run the game that way?
...whatever
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2011 - 11:57AM
#426
|
|
|
To put it simply, if the DM is going to ignore the rules and invalidate an action taken by a player, the DM needs a damn good reason. The example given is not a good reason. Save or Die spells, are well... Save or Die. That's what they do. If the sole monster fails the save on round one, it ends there. If you as a DM have an issue with that, you need to deal with it before, not after it has happened.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2011 - 11:59AM
#427
|
Date Joined:
Feb 23, 2006
|
No. The DMG has been vague and can go both ways. 3rd and 4th ed DMGs discuss player fun and some things you may want to avoid, but also advocate changing rules to fit the game and story.
It really boils down to who you choose to play with and making sure that your goals for the game are the same as are what you find acceptable and what you find not acceptable.
To see my campaign world visit http://dnd.chrisnye.net
My music -> www.myspace.com/Incarna
My music videos -> www.youtube.com/Auticusx
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2011 - 12:00PM
#428
|
Date Joined:
Feb 23, 2006
|
To put it simply, if the DM is going to ignore the rules and invalidate an action taken by a player, the DM needs a damn good reason. The example given is not a good reason. Save or Die spells, are well... Save or Die. That's what they do. If the sole monster fails the save on round one, it ends there. If you as a DM have an issue with that, you need to deal with it before, not after it has happened.
that is true as well.
To see my campaign world visit http://dnd.chrisnye.net
My music -> www.myspace.com/Incarna
My music videos -> www.youtube.com/Auticusx
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2011 - 12:02PM
#429
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2009
|
It really boils down to who you choose to play with and making sure that your goals for the game are the same as are what you find acceptable and what you find not acceptable.
Amen to this. If you want to play D&D 100% in compliance with the rules then be my guest, and save yourself some trouble by making sure that everyone else in your group wants to play that way too.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 17, 2011 - 12:07PM
#430
|
|
|
To put it simply, if the DM is going to ignore the rules and invalidate an action taken by a player, the DM needs a damn good reason. The example given is not a good reason. Save or Die spells, are well... Save or Die. That's what they do. If the sole monster fails the save on round one, it ends there. If you as a DM have an issue with that, you need to deal with it before, not after it has happened.
This.
If the DM is going to arbitrary nerf something to make it useless, he needs to tell the player BEFOREHAND that he is nerfing it. That's a houserule, and houserules need to be told to the players before character creation so they can make informed decision.
In this case, the houserule is 'save or dies won't work if there's only one monster in the encounter'. Tell the player this so he won't try casting one at the only monster there, so he isn't wasting his time, or just outright ban the spell.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
