Also, around 16:40 Monte mentions that Fireball should be the best spell, which reeks of bias. I don't want any spells intentionally designed to be "better." You shouldn't have to sacrifice power level for being anything other than a blaster Wizard. I would be fine with something like Charm Person (the spell he compared Fireball to) to be more difficult to use in combat, but perhaps more effective out of combat. In that case the comparison would be a little murkier, with CP's lower power level being compensated for with utility elsewhere.
I believe that was Mike Mearls, not Monte, and I'm pretty sure he was joking when he was talking about fireball being the best spell.
Hmm, I had the opposite impression. I think he wants Fireball to go back to being awesome. Surprising a large group of foes or setting them up to get roasted together is IMO a pretty iconic D&D tactic.
I look at it in this light: one of the flaws of 3.5 were the absolute predominance of "You Suck" spells: walls, fogs, save or die, save or lose, no-save-just-lose, buffs... those spells were pretty much the only ones even considered by casters. There was no wizard worth his salt that would choose Fireball over Haste, because Haste was just better in every reasonable situation (subjective, but reasonably true). They want to get the reverse in place: sure, there will be spells that shape the battlefield, inflict conditions and stuff on opponents, that buff your allies and everything, but when all's said and done, a big old trusty Fireball will be slightly better in most situations.
I think two things contributed to the rise of "Save or Suck" spells in 3e:
1) The overall increase in hit points, both for characters and monsters.
2) The moving away from saving throws being easier to make as levels increase.
In 1e, it was far more effective to throw a damage spell at a creature than a Save or Suck spell if it was going to make it's save on a 4 or something of that nature. With the damage spell, even if the save was made, half damage was still damage and with lower hit points overall, still a significant contribution to the fight.
In AD&D you wasted an entire round if the monster saved vs your Flesh to Stone spell. A round that you could have used to cast a chain lightining. It was a big risk to cast a save or die spell in AD&D especially when many high level monsters had magic resistance. If anything it was more like 'Pray they Fail or You Die'
I believe that was Mike Mearls, not Monte, and I'm pretty sure he was joking when he was talking about fireball being the best spell. [/quote]Hmm, I had the opposite impression. I think he wants Fireball to go back to being awesome. Surprising a larg
In AD&D you wasted an entire round if the monster saved vs your Flesh to Stone spell. A round that you could have used to cast a chain lightining. It was a big risk to cast a save or die spell in AD&D especially when many high level monsters had magic resistance. If anything it was more like 'Pray they Fail or You Die'
I think it is difficult to avoid this problem. If you plan to lower a monster to 0 HP then a round spend on flesh to stone will always be a round wasted, but if you place all your bets on flesh to stone, then the fighters can arguably just as well spend their time on "full defence", because they will not be able to kill the monster before disaster strikes..
Here are some ideas to fix he problem
Perhaps a blodied monster could be more vulnerable to magic. That would change stone to flesh into a "finishing move"-spell, and it would force the wizard to wait for the fighters before he could cast his stone to flesh.
Similarly spells like bane or slow should be very difficult to resist. That would encourage the wizard to spend his initial spells weakening the monster, while waiting for the fighter to bloody it.
Hopefully these rules would make it more meaningful to use stone to flesh spells in a party full of fighters, but I don't know if they are too complicated. Does 4ed have something like this?
I think it is difficult to avoid this problem. If you plan to lower a monster to 0 HP then a round spend on flesh to stone will always be a round wasted, but if you place all your bets on flesh to stone, then the fighters can arguably just as well sp
IMO, spells like haste and charm person can't be compared to a spell like fireball. You can't balance them and they shouldn't be balanced. They should be 'magical' and shouldn't conform to any restrictive sense of balance. Spells should be capable of doing anything imaginable and include all sorts of quirky aftereffects and consequences. The test of a good spell for me is one that no video game can ever hope to duplicate.
The only balancing factor should be spell level.
The first and second parts are contradictory here. How can you have spells that can do anything and don't conform to any sense of balance and yet at the same time are balanced by spell level? How can you decide what level the spell should be if spells aren't limited by anything and aren't balanced?
While I'm sure playing in your style will be an option in D&D Next, I don't think it will be the core. The game is about more than just magic, and needs to support all styles. So people who want the fighter to be able to play alongside the wizard without needing a vorpal sword can do so.
The first and second parts are contradictory here. How can you have spells that can do anything and don't conform to any sense of balance and yet at the same time are balanced by spell level? How can you decide what level the spell should be if spe
I'm not a caster surpremacist, I'm a magic supremacist. I think that all classess find qualibriam via magic that is accessable to all. Fighters with vorpal swords, paladins with anti-magic holy avengers, rogues with arrows of slaying, clerics with boots of flying, and hobbits with the one ring.
The idea that classes need specific items - or any items at all - is a big turn-off for a number of people:
1) DMs who don't want players to feel entitled to specific items ("You have to give me a good sword so I can be balanced with the wizard.") 2) Groups that want a game without magic items. 3) Players who don't want disarm or rust monsters or thieves or anything else to strip them of their effectiveness far more easily than casters can be denied theirs.
Balancing through magic items doesn't solve problems at every table. I won't claim to have a D&D census in front of me, but based on posts and experience a lot of people fit at least one of those groups.
The idea that classes need specific items - or any items at all - is a big turn-off for a number of people:1) DMs who don't want players to feel entitled to specific items ("You have to give me a good sword so I can be balanced with the wizard.")2) G
would make it more meaningful to use stone to flesh spells in a party full of fighters, but I don't know if they are too complicated. Does 4ed have something like this?
A 4th Ed StF variant would take multiple turns to work; first slowing the target, then immobilizing it, then finally petrifying it. The target would end up with about three chances to "save" from the effect before it was too late and this had precious turns to still act or try to counter the effect some other way before the time ran out.
A 4th Ed StF variant would take multiple turns to work; first slowing the target, then immobilizing it, then finally petrifying it. The target would end up with about three chances to "save" from the effect before it was too late and this had precio
Disappointed to hear it was only around 10-20% through development, had hoped it was a bit further along!
I was very happy to hear this, because the less they have before the playtest goes live the more impact the playtest will actually have. I want to experience that "core kernel" before they even have a draft of most of the other modules (which I'm hoping they release for playtest as they work on them).
Regarding my Fireball concern, I didn't get the sense that Mearls was joking. I think he was reacting to the negativity surrounding the criticisms of 3E's SoD/SoS spells, as well as the fact that 4E has "too many status effects." While I'm certainly not a fan of 1 roll having such a huge consequence, I would be very disappointed to see control be marginalized. Control just opens up so many tactical possibilities and keeps combats from becoming hack 'n slash, and I fear that in an attempt at making combat as quick as possible (entire adventures in 2 hours!) that the system will make anything that doesn't deal high damage almost irrelevant. I like holding several guys back with spells like Web or Entangle while the party beats on whichever enemy was dumb enough to rush in first, and I don't want everyone else to say "yeah, that was cool and all, but you would have been better off just blowing them up instead." Ideally both options would be best under different circumstances, but would still be roughly balanced against each other.
Regarding the DM "fixing things" comments I did say I might be overreacting on that. It just called to mind that article that Monte (not a typo this time!) wrote about perfect balance being impossible, so why even attempt balance at all? The same faulty logic could concievably be applied to the game as a whole; no DM will like everything about a given system, so why make it the "best" it can be? I just want a game with math that works, and straightforward, easy to remember (or reference) in-play rules. No convoluted 3E style grapple rules that I need to overhaul (or ignore) in order to keep the game moving (for example).
I guess it really comes down to balance again; as a customer I expect the game designers to devise an internally balanced system that makes sense within the context of both the metagame "experience" and the game world itself. Because that's what I'm paying them for. If I wanted a system with a bunch of noticeable flaws and imbalances, I'd make my own system (because I don't have the time to make a perfect one). If it's a customizeable, modular system then great! All the better! But all of those modules had better "work" within the context of the core. That they might not achieve that is a concern, given how many different (often opposing) factions they're trying to please.
Just to clarify, that was totally a typo on my part. I meant to say "Mearls."I was very happy to hear this, because the less they have before the playtest goes live the more impact the playtest will actually have. I want to experience that "core ke
I'm not a caster surpremacist, I'm a magic supremacist. I think that all classess find qualibriam via magic that is accessable to all. Fighters with vorpal swords, paladins with anti-magic holy avengers, rogues with arrows of slaying, clerics with boots of flying, and hobbits with the one ring.
The idea that classes need specific items - or any items at all - is a big turn-off for a number of people:
1) DMs who don't want players to feel entitled to specific items ("You have to give me a good sword so I can be balanced with the wizard.") 2) Groups that want a game without magic items. 3) Players who don't want disarm or rust monsters or thieves or anything else to strip them of their effectiveness far more easily than casters can be denied theirs.
Balancing through magic items doesn't solve problems at every table. I won't claim to have a D&D census in front of me, but based on posts and experience a lot of people fit at least one of those groups.
Count me as one of those players who hates magic item dependency.
The idea that classes need specific items - or any items at all - is a big turn-off for a number of people:1) DMs who don't want players to feel entitled to specific items ("You have to give me a good sword so I can be balanced with the wizard.")2) G
would make it more meaningful to use stone to flesh spells in a party full of fighters, but I don't know if they are too complicated. Does 4ed have something like this?
A 4th Ed StF variant would take multiple turns to work; first slowing the target, then immobilizing it, then finally petrifying it. The target would end up with about three chances to "save" from the effect before it was too late and this had precious turns to still act or try to counter the effect some other way before the time ran out.
I could see Stone to Flesh in 4E a bunch of ways. It could be a mid-high level ritual to imprison a powerful being. It could be a monster ability as you describe. It could be a plot device of whatever kind as well.
If it were a PC ability, I don't think it would be ideal to rely on multiple saves, since 3 saves is less than a 1 in 8 chance to succeed even against standard monsters. Simply attacking would be superior. It would lead to weird tactics, since a monster that was failing saves would be a bad target (why attack it and waste damage if it might turn to stone in the next round or two?). Maybe it would work as close blast spell ("Gaze of the Medusa" or something) since the low success rate could be balanced by AoE. Of course, that makes it really swingy and still doesn't fix the odd tactical incentives.
A 4th Ed StF variant would take multiple turns to work; first slowing the target, then immobilizing it, then finally petrifying it. The target would end up with about three chances to "save" from the effect before it was too late and this had precio
would make it more meaningful to use stone to flesh spells in a party full of fighters, but I don't know if they are too complicated. Does 4ed have something like this?
A 4th Ed StF variant would take multiple turns to work; first slowing the target, then immobilizing it, then finally petrifying it. The target would end up with about three chances to "save" from the effect before it was too late and this had precious turns to still act or try to counter the effect some other way before the time ran out.
I could see Stone to Flesh in 4E a bunch of ways. It could be a mid-high level ritual to imprison a powerful being. It could be a monster ability as you describe. It could be a plot device of whatever kind as well.
If it were a PC ability, I don't think it would be ideal to rely on multiple saves, since 3 saves is less than a 1 in 8 chance to succeed even against standard monsters. Simply attacking would be superior. It would lead to weird tactics, since a monster that was failing saves would be a bad target (why attack it and waste damage if it might turn to stone in the next round or two?). Maybe it would work as close blast spell ("Gaze of the Medusa" or something) since the low success rate could be balanced by AoE. Of course, that makes it really swingy and still doesn't fix the odd tactical incentives.
I actually lifted what I posted from the Medusa's gaze attack:
Close blast 5; blind creatures are immune; +14 vs Fortitude; the target is slowed (save ends). First Failed Save: The target is immobilized instead of slowed (save ends). Second Failed Save: The target is petrified (no save).
To make it stick home for PCs you could just have the effect add save penalties as well. (Imagine a cumulative -2 penalty tacked on after each failed save).
A 4th Ed StF variant would take multiple turns to work; first slowing the target, then immobilizing it, then finally petrifying it. The target would end up with about three chances to "save" from the effect before it was too late and this had precio
It would lead to weird tactics, since a monster that was failing saves would be a bad target (why attack it and waste damage if it might turn to stone in the next round or two?). Maybe it would work as close blast spell ("Gaze of the Medusa" or something) since the low success rate could be balanced by AoE. Of course, that makes it really swingy and still doesn't fix the odd tactical incentives.
How about giving the monster a minus to the save if it was hit while trying to avoid petrification. After all it must require some sort of concentration to avoid being turned in to stone and that concentration would be broken by the hit.
This rule would enable the fighter to be helpful, but somehow it feels a little too complicated.
How about giving the monster a minus to the save if it was hit while trying to avoid petrification. After all it must require some sort of concentration to avoid being turned in to stone and that concentration would be broken by the hit.This rule wou
Also, I was surprised by Mearls' scientifically accurate understanding of natural selection; when things "evolve" they don't get objectively "better," but are merely adapting to current environmental pressures, and I think a game system that mimics that (effectively) has a good chance of being successful.
I can't watch the video yet so I have no context for the comment, but I wonder if that's a mild knock in the 4e direction, claiming that even though 4e was an evolution of play, it wasn't necessarily a better version of play. Or at least a means of defending the idea of going back to the old-timer stuff.
I can't watch the video yet so I have no context for the comment, but I wonder if that's a mild knock in the 4e direction, claiming that even though 4e was an evolution of play, it wasn't necessarily a better version of play. Or at least a means of
would make it more meaningful to use stone to flesh spells in a party full of fighters, but I don't know if they are too complicated. Does 4ed have something like this?
A 4th Ed StF variant would take multiple turns to work; first slowing the target, then immobilizing it, then finally petrifying it. The target would end up with about three chances to "save" from the effect before it was too late and this had precious turns to still act or try to counter the effect some other way before the time ran out.
I'd like to see all Save or Suck/Die spells take multiple rounds and a continuous struggle between the caster and target to work. Instead of stone to flesh merely requiring 3 rounds of failed saves, the caster must spend an action each round as he forces his magical will against that of his opponent, slowly causing the spell to take effect if he wins each round. You could do a best out of 3 contest for powerful spells like this, with a caster's SoD going off if he wins and the defender shrugging off the conditions if he does. This way is more dramatic, more balanced than instant death and allows design space for effects/powers/items/features that can effect what happens in the rounds when casters have battles of will with their spell targets.
A 4th Ed StF variant would take multiple turns to work; first slowing the target, then immobilizing it, then finally petrifying it. The target would end up with about three chances to "save" from the effect before it was too late and this had precio
You could do a best out of 3 contest for powerful spells like this, with a caster's SoD going off if he wins and the defender shrugging off the conditions if he does. This way is more dramatic, more balanced than instant death and allows design space for effects/powers/items/features that can effect what happens in the rounds when casters have battles of will with their spell targets.
And meanwhile the enemy minions will try to blitz the caster to make him drop his spell. That sounds like fun.
But the rules should probably be written so that the caster makes a single roll each turn, and that attack roll decides whether or not he wins the round. We don't want to slow down the DM.
And meanwhile the enemy minions will try to blitz the caster to make him drop his spell. That sounds like fun.But the rules should probably be written so that the caster makes a single roll each turn, and that attack roll decides whether or not he wi
You could do a best out of 3 contest for powerful spells like this, with a caster's SoD going off if he wins and the defender shrugging off the conditions if he does. This way is more dramatic, more balanced than instant death and allows design space for effects/powers/items/features that can effect what happens in the rounds when casters have battles of will with their spell targets.
And meanwhile the enemy minions will try to blitz the caster to make him drop his spell. That sounds like fun.
Who said anything about spell disruption? In 4e there are plenty of spells that can be maintained, and being attacked/damaged by minions doesn't automatically prevent the spell from being maintained.
There is no reason this wouldn't work much different from the wizard casting 3 different spells on 3 different rounds anyway. Even if the wizard doesn't maintain the spell for a round, he's already gotten an effect off (perhaps Slow + damage on round 1) and we could always choose to simply let a lapsed round mean one auto-victory for the target instead of instant dismisal of the spell. If the wizard starts maintaining again, he still has a chance for his best out of 3 victory.
And meanwhile the enemy minions will try to blitz the caster to make him drop his spell. That sounds like fun.[/quote]Who said anything about spell disruption? In 4e there are plenty of spells that can be maintained, and being attacked/damaged by min
You could do a best out of 3 contest for powerful spells like this, with a caster's SoD going off if he wins and the defender shrugging off the conditions if he does. This way is more dramatic, more balanced than instant death and allows design space for effects/powers/items/features that can effect what happens in the rounds when casters have battles of will with their spell targets.
And meanwhile the enemy minions will try to blitz the caster to make him drop his spell. That sounds like fun.
But the rules should probably be written so that the caster makes a single roll each turn, and that attack roll decides whether or not he wins the round. We don't want to slow down the DM.
The "best 2 of 3" idea is suspenseful and not as drastic as a single roll, and the extended contest is actually pretty cool. There would still be a danger of making everyone into a wizard bodyguard though, if casters could load up on SoDs.
And meanwhile the enemy minions will try to blitz the caster to make him drop his spell. That sounds like fun.But the rules should probably be written so that the caster makes a single roll each turn, and that attack roll decides whether or not he wi
Who said anything about spell disruption? In 4e there are plenty of spells that can be maintained, and being attacked/damaged by minions doesn't automatically prevent the spell from being maintained.
Who said anything about spell disruption? In 4e there are plenty of spells that can be maintained, and being attacked/damaged by minions doesn't automatically prevent the spell from being maintained.
Ah I see, I didn't know that.
I just saw your disclaimer in your signature. lol
Ah I see, I didn't know that.[/quote]I just saw your disclaimer in your signature. lol ;)
Also, I was surprised by Mearls' scientifically accurate understanding of natural selection; when things "evolve" they don't get objectively "better," but are merely adapting to current environmental pressures, and I think a game system that mimics that (effectively) has a good chance of being successful.
I can't watch the video yet so I have no context for the comment, but I wonder if that's a mild knock in the 4e direction, claiming that even though 4e was an evolution of play, it wasn't necessarily a better version of play. Or at least a means of defending the idea of going back to the old-timer stuff.
Well, even the die-hard 4e fans won't claim that 4e is uniformly better than anything else that has come before it. Which is the point of the evolutionary interpretation: the strong parts from each edition survive, the weak ones die off.
I can't watch the video yet so I have no context for the comment, but I wonder if that's a mild knock in the 4e direction, claiming that even though 4e was an evolution of play, it wasn't necessarily a better version of play. Or at least a means of
I'm not a caster surpremacist, I'm a magic supremacist. I think that all classess find qualibriam via magic that is accessable to all. Fighters with vorpal swords, paladins with anti-magic holy avengers, rogues with arrows of slaying, clerics with boots of flying, and hobbits with the one ring.
The idea that classes need specific items - or any items at all - is a big turn-off for a number of people:
1) DMs who don't want players to feel entitled to specific items ("You have to give me a good sword so I can be balanced with the wizard.") 2) Groups that want a game without magic items. 3) Players who don't want disarm or rust monsters or thieves or anything else to strip them of their effectiveness far more easily than casters can be denied theirs.
Balancing through magic items doesn't solve problems at every table. I won't claim to have a D&D census in front of me, but based on posts and experience a lot of people fit at least one of those groups.
I also hate magic item dependency, at least the way 4e implimented magical items.
I would rather have a system in which all classes have access to magic in some way or another(boons, innate powers, rituals, items, etc). At the same time, I really can't imagine a 20th level fighter defeating Orcus with only a rusty short sword. At some point the fantasy demands that powerful magical items exist and that PCs require them.
1. I think that if you don't want players to feel entitled to magical items then don't use wishlists. 2. I don't think there are many groups who want to play without magical items. Magic is part of D&D, at least for the most common campaign settings. AD&D did have several historical campaign settings like the Crusades, Rome, and the Vikings. In those books they advised the DM that entire classes should be removed from play. In addition, many types of weapons and armor were made unavailable. 3. I think effectiveness is situational, but I accept that there are some players who always want to be effective in every situation.
My hope for 5e is that it is very versitile like AD&D. I should be able to run a historical viking campaign with no magic at all, and then play a high fantasy game inwhich my thief steals King Aurthor's sword.
The idea that classes need specific items - or any items at all - is a big turn-off for a number of people:1) DMs who don't want players to feel entitled to specific items ("You have to give me a good sword so I can be balanced with the wizard.")2) G
Disappointed to hear it was only around 10-20% through development, had hoped it was a bit further along!
I was very happy to hear this, because the less they have before the playtest goes live the more impact the playtest will actually have. I want to experience that "core kernel" before they even have a draft of most of the other modules (which I'm hoping they release for playtest as they work on them).
I agree. I've been guessing that open playtest comes out Gen Con and then the Game comes out next year when I think DnD is 40 years old. I would very much like that to be an incorrect guess, and that we'll have more time to playtest.
I was very happy to hear this, because the less they have before the playtest goes live the more impact the playtest will actually have. I want to experience that "core kernel" before they even have a draft of most of the other modules (which I'm ho
I was very happy to hear this, because the less they have before the playtest goes live the more impact the playtest will actually have. I want to experience that "core kernel" before they even have a draft of most of the other modules (which I'm hoping they release for playtest as they work on them).
Keep in mind as well that they're already doing NDA-bound playtests, even in that 10-20% state.
Keep in mind as well that they're already doing NDA-bound playtests, even in that 10-20% state.
While I consider it less than best as an approach, I do realize that fighter item acquisition is a valid balancing concept. It is probably the way 3e fighters were balanced against wizards. Most of the groups I know running 3e are definitely magic item heavy (at least in my opinion and I consider myself middle of the road on magic item quantity).
I'm not sure though if this is modularizable. Maybe in 5e it will be a minor nudge of balance as opposed to a major necessity for the most extreme magic case. I don't know. I think the things I've heard balance wise about 5e have sounded fine to me. No escalating spells but the ability to prepare them at higher levels. Thats a good idea.
While I consider it less than best as an approach, I do realize that fighter item acquisition is a valid balancing concept. It is probably the way 3e fighters were balanced against wizards. Most of the groups I know running 3e are definitely magic
At the same time, I really can't imagine a 20th level fighter defeating Orcus with only a rusty short sword. At some point the fantasy demands that powerful magical items exist and that PCs require them.
1. I think that if you don't want players to feel entitled to magical items then don't use wishlists.
Can't you see how these 2 statement are completely contradictory? If the system requires that some classes must have magic items to defeat level-appropriate threats, then players are quite rightfully going to feel entitled to magic items, wishlists or no. It was a matter of fact in any group i played in that PCs needed magic items to keep up before 4e ever formalized the wishlist.
Can't you see how these 2 statement are completely contradictory? If the system requires that some classes must have magic items to defeat level-appropriate threats, then players are quite rightfully going to feel entitled to magic items, wishlists o
I also hate magic item dependency, at least the way 4e implimented magical items.
I would rather have a system in which all classes have access to magic in some way or another(boons, innate powers, rituals, items, etc). At the same time, I really can't imagine a 20th level fighter defeating Orcus with only a rusty short sword. At some point the fantasy demands that powerful magical items exist and that PCs require them.
1. I think that if you don't want players to feel entitled to magical items then don't use wishlists. 2. I don't think there are many groups who want to play without magical items.
Magic item dependency went away in 4E. Dependency on bonuses was introduced and eventually patched with the inherent bonuses option, but items themselves are not needed. Try to play a martial character in AD&D without the right weapons and you literally cannot inflict any damage. In 3E DR will still make the magic-less suffer a bit, but the real issue is what happens when you lack magical defenses and fail an important Will or Fort save. I'm sure the DM can avoid this by picking weak foes, yadda yadda. Also, wish lists are for wishes - you expressed that powerful items were *needed* by certain classes, which is completely different. Anyway, magic item dependency is as old as the game, so that particular edition war topic doesn't make any sense to me.
While I agree that D&D is pretty likely to involve at least some cool items, that's not the same as saying classes should be designed weak with the assumption that the DM will somehow know to give the right items to the right players at the right times.
Magic item dependency went away in 4E. Dependency on bonuses was introduced and eventually patched with the inherent bonuses option, but items themselves are not needed. Try to play a martial character in AD&D without the right weapons and you litera
I also hate magic item dependency, at least the way 4e implimented magical items.
I would rather have a system in which all classes have access to magic in some way or another(boons, innate powers, rituals, items, etc). At the same time, I really can't imagine a 20th level fighter defeating Orcus with only a rusty short sword. At some point the fantasy demands that powerful magical items exist and that PCs require them.
1. I think that if you don't want players to feel entitled to magical items then don't use wishlists. 2. I don't think there are many groups who want to play without magical items.
Magic item dependency went away in 4E. Dependency on bonuses was introduced and eventually patched with the inherent bonuses option, but items themselves are not needed. Try to play a martial character in AD&D without the right weapons and you literally cannot inflict any damage. In 3E DR will still make the magic-less suffer a bit, but the real issue is what happens when you lack magical defenses and fail an important Will or Fort save. I'm sure the DM can avoid this by picking weak foes, yadda yadda. Also, wish lists are for wishes - you expressed that powerful items were *needed* by certain classes, which is completely different. Anyway, magic item dependency is as old as the game, so that particular edition war topic doesn't make any sense to me.
While I agree that D&D is pretty likely to involve at least some cool items, that's not the same as saying classes should be designed weak with the assumption that the DM will somehow know to give the right items to the right players at the right times.
I disagree with the comparision to needing magical weapons on the scope and scale in AD&D as is needed in 4e.
The math of 1/2e does not require bonus weapons as the AC does not scale the same way that 4e AC scales. This is also mitigated by the fact that Thaco improves with level, and creatures are not particularly "level-appropriate" in the same way they are in 4e.
In AD&D, there are creatures from time to time that are immune to non-magical weapons. That is far different than EVERY creature outpacing the non-equipped party member. At about 11th level or so, I had to give the players inherent bonuses in 4e Dark Sun because they were falling behind at an ever increasing rate after feats etc. had been exhausted and I was running low magic.
The 2e DarkSun campaign I ran never had such conundrums, although yes, at times the party ran into a monster that had mundane weapon immunity.
Magic item dependency went away in 4E. Dependency on bonuses was introduced and eventually patched with the inherent bonuses option, but items themselves are not needed. Try to play a martial character in AD&D without the right weapons and you litera
Mike talks early on about how DnD sprung up in the middle of nowhere and then is now an interational thing.
It seems like he missed the part where that international recognition didn't happen with the basic set.
I think looking at when things really blew up, and what was new when that happened could be very informative.
Mike talks early on about how DnD sprung up in the middle of nowhere and then is now an interational thing. It seems like he missed the part where that international recognition didn't happen with the basic set. I think looking at when things really
NExt is going to really "DM as god" friendly, isn't it?
I hope I'm wrong on that. If it is, I'm probably going to be stuck with just playing 4e. "DM as god" is terrible.
The DM has all the power they need in 4e. There's some misconceptions that the core books could have avoided with some different/clearer wording, but that's it.
And no game should rely on DM skill for the game to just work, on a basic level.
I think looking at when things really blew up, and what was new when that happened could be very informative.
Wasn't that around the same era as the Fall of Communism (89-92), when everyone in Europe suddenly had a bunch of new friends and free time?
That's possible, but was DnD even a big deal in the US before then?
I think 2e was probably the edition that made DnD famous, as it were.
I mean, even the so called renaissance of old school gaming is a lot of 2e clones, and basic/1e hacks, taking the basic gameplay and then fixing a bunch of things.
I think they need to look at the conceptual stuff from basic and 1e, but only really try to pull mechanics from 2-4e, and straight up steal a few things from pathfinder while they're at it.
NExt is going to really "DM as god" friendly, isn't it? I hope I'm wrong on that. If it is, I'm probably going to be stuck with just playing 4e. "DM as god" is terrible. The DM has all the power they need in 4e. There's some misconceptions that the c
NExt is going to really "DM as god" friendly, isn't it?
Hopefully, only as far as worldbuilding, and maybe module-selection.
I hope so.
I mean, my group will always replace DM fiat with Group Will, but I'd still rather not have to work against rules that try to tell me that DMs should be an absolute authority.
Hopefully, only as far as worldbuilding, and maybe module-selection.[/quote]I hope so. I mean, my group will always replace DM fiat with Group Will, but I'd still rather not have to work against rules that try to tell me that DMs should be an absolut
I mean, my group will always replace DM fiat with Group Will, but I'd still rather not have to work against rules that try to tell me that DMs should be an absolute authority.
At the very least, we have Playstations and XBoxes now. Those things didn't quite exist yet in 1974. As long as DMs know "screw this, I'm just gonna go play Torchlight or something!" is always a player option, they will be benevolent gods.
At the very least, we have Playstations and XBoxes now. Those things didn't quite exist yet in 1974.As long as DMs know "screw this, I'm just gonna go play Torchlight or something!" is always a player option, they will be benevolent gods.
Sure, but the DM isn't a god. The only way the DM has absolute power is if the group allows it. That is inherently non deific. :P
Every DM, in every campaign, in every edition of D&D has absolute godlike power.
It doesn't matter if we have Rule 0 to change the rules like we did in prior editions. I can make a custom monster, following the monster building guidelines of 4E, and give him an Aura 10 light-years that modifies a rule (for example, flanking in the aura does not grant combat advantage). And this is 100% legal RAW. Or I can do the same with fantastic terrain covering the entire game world. Or any number of other things.
There is literally nothing that I cannot do as a DM, in any edition of D&D, with or without the support of my players, and accepting this fact is a fundamental necessity of being able to design a new edition of the game. Of course, being a GOOD DM requires knowing how to use this power to increase the fun of everyone at the table.
DMing is hard. It will never stop being hard. In order to make DMing easy, you need to take away the ability to write new monsters, to write modules, to design encounters, to design terrain, and so on. At that point, you're not playing D&D; you're not even playing a TTRPG. At that point, it truly would be a board game. And that's why it's a change that will never be made.
Every DM, in every campaign, in every edition of D&D has absolute godlike power.It doesn't matter if we have Rule 0 to change the rules like we did in prior editions. I can make a custom monster, following the monster building guidelines of 4E, and
That's possible, but was DnD even a big deal in the US before then?
D&D was hugely popular when I was in high school, which was 87 and earlier. There wasn't a book store, toy store, comic book store, where you couldn't find D&D material. It spawned a cartoon from 83 to 85, for crying out loud. You don't make that leap if you are not incredibly popular.
That's possible, but was DnD even a big deal in the US before then?[/quote]D&D was hugely popular when I was in high school, which was 87 and earlier. There wasn't a book store, toy store, comic book store, where you couldn't find D&D material. It
That's possible, but was DnD even a big deal in the US before then?
D&D was hugely popular when I was in high school, which was 87 and earlier. There wasn't a book store, toy store, comic book store, where you couldn't find D&D material. It spawned a cartoon from 83 to 85, for crying out loud. You don't make that leap if you are not incredibly popular.
Yes, as I remember, D&D's heyday was the early to mid 80s (they were playing it in E.T., that Mazes & Monsters movie with Tom Hanks etc).
2nd Ed (1989) actually drove some away.
That's possible, but was DnD even a big deal in the US before then?[/quote]D&D was hugely popular when I was in high school, which was 87 and earlier. There wasn't a book store, toy store, comic book store, where you couldn't find D&D material. It
At the same time, I really can't imagine a 20th level fighter defeating Orcus with only a rusty short sword. At some point the fantasy demands that powerful magical items exist and that PCs require them.
1. I think that if you don't want players to feel entitled to magical items then don't use wishlists.
At the same, I think every D&D player, unless they are playing a non standard D&D campaign, expects to find magical items. Magical items have always been one of the rewards for playing D&D.
For that reason, I think the DM is the one who hands out magical items and not the player. Players shouldn't be entitled to any magical item in particular. In fact, they should be thankful when they find one. In addition, a player shouldn't require specific magical items in order to complete his/her character build concept.
I like the way AD&D handled magical items and immunities. In particular, I like the fact that the DM controlled what magical items made it into the game. For me, that was part of the fun of DMing. For example, if I wanted to use a zombie that was immune to +2 magical weapons, then it was my responsibility as a DM to insure that the party had a means to defeat the creature. I might decide to have the ghost of a paladin lead the PC’s to his +3 dagger, but only after a failed initial encounter with the zombie. There is nothing more fun than making the players sweat a little and force them to find alternative solutions to their problems. I think AD&D naturally facilitated these kinds of scenarios far more than 3e and 4e ever did.
IMO, the mistake that 4e made was that magical items are required to keep pace with the monsters. I also got the impression that magical items didn't really make you any more or less powerful than characters without magical items. Personally, I hate that design concept. That design contributed to the sense that magic is insignificant, which spawned many complaints about how magic disappeared in 4e.
oh and before I forget, remove the magical items from the PHB! Magical items have nothing to do with building characters.
[/quote] At the same, I think every D&D player, unless they are playing a non standard D&D campaign, expects to find magical items. Magical items have always been one of the rewards for playing D&D. For that reason, I think the DM is the one who
IMO, the mistake that 4e made was that magical items are required to keep pace with the monsters. I also got the impression that magical items didn't really make you any more or less powerful than characters without magical items. Personally, I hate that design concept. That design contributed to the sense that magic is insignificant, which spawned many complaints about how magic disappeared in 4e.
I think things would have worked out great if they had just made the math to include inherent bonuses as introduced in Dark Sun and just left the +'s off of all the magical weapons and gear. That way a burning blade could be a fun find because it can catch fire and cause fire damage instead of caring how many pluses it had.
I think things would have worked out great if they had just made the math to include inherent bonuses as introduced in Dark Sun and just left the +'s off of all the magical weapons and gear. That way a burning blade could be a fun find because it ca
Sure, but the DM isn't a god. The only way the DM has absolute power is if the group allows it. That is inherently non deific. :P
Every DM, in every campaign, in every edition of D&D has absolute godlike power.
It doesn't matter if we have Rule 0 to change the rules like we did in prior editions. I can make a custom monster, following the monster building guidelines of 4E, and give him an Aura 10 light-years that modifies a rule (for example, flanking in the aura does not grant combat advantage). And this is 100% legal RAW. Or I can do the same with fantastic terrain covering the entire game world. Or any number of other things.
There is literally nothing that I cannot do as a DM, in any edition of D&D, with or without the support of my players, and accepting this fact is a fundamental necessity of being able to design a new edition of the game. Of course, being a GOOD DM requires knowing how to use this power to increase the fun of everyone at the table.
DMing is hard. It will never stop being hard. In order to make DMing easy, you need to take away the ability to write new monsters, to write modules, to design encounters, to design terrain, and so on. At that point, you're not playing D&D; you're not even playing a TTRPG. At that point, it truly would be a board game. And that's why it's a change that will never be made.
The abillity to create a world isn't what people are talking about when the talk about DM as god. That isn't something that has decreased in any way in newer editions, either.
In relation to the players, DM is not god. The DM does not have absolute power, unless the group agrees to give the DM absolute power. Then he is no more than an elected monarch.
And that's how it should be. The DM should be an elected/chosen leader amongst a group of equals. More like a prime minister than a god.
That's possible, but was DnD even a big deal in the US before then?
D&D was hugely popular when I was in high school, which was 87 and earlier. There wasn't a book store, toy store, comic book store, where you couldn't find D&D material. It spawned a cartoon from 83 to 85, for crying out loud. You don't make that leap if you are not incredibly popular.
Fair enough. I'd still like to see actual market research and the like, but you make an interesting point.
One last thing I wonder about, since we're reaching the point where hard data is required to converse any further on this point, is what amount of competition existed before 2e.
Every DM, in every campaign, in every edition of D&D has absolute godlike power.It doesn't matter if we have Rule 0 to change the rules like we did in prior editions. I can make a custom monster, following the monster building guidelines of 4E, and
That's possible, but was DnD even a big deal in the US before then?
D&D was hugely popular when I was in high school, which was 87 and earlier. There wasn't a book store, toy store, comic book store, where you couldn't find D&D material. It spawned a cartoon from 83 to 85, for crying out loud. You don't make that leap if you are not incredibly popular.
Fair enough. I'd still like to see actual market research and the like, but you make an interesting point. One last thing I wonder about, since we're reaching the point where hard data is required to converse any further on this point, is what amount of competition existed before 2e.
There was a point?
D&D has been very popular and has been a big deal for a long time. I don't think there is any relevancy other than that. So what if it was a big hit long before you had originally thought. But if you feel the need to research 30 year old market research, good luck to you.
D&D was hugely popular when I was in high school, which was 87 and earlier. There wasn't a book store, toy store, comic book store, where you couldn't find D&D material. It spawned a cartoon from 83 to 85, for crying out loud. You don't make that
The abillity to create a world isn't what people are talking about when the talk about DM as god. That isn't something that has decreased in any way in newer editions, either.
In relation to the players, DM is not god. The DM does not have absolute power, unless the group agrees to give the DM absolute power. Then he is no more than an elected monarch.
And that's how it should be. The DM should be an elected/chosen leader amongst a group of equals. More like a prime minister than a god.
The fact is simply that you are wrong.
I can dictate which races and classes my PCs can play in 4E. I can alter rules at my whim. I can strike them dead with bolts of lightning or falling rocks without bothering to roll dice. All of this completely RAW.
What power do you fear will be ascribed to a DM in Next that we do not already have? Pretty much the only power I don't have in 4E is the ability to make the actual players at the table do things with their physical body (i.e, get up and grab me a soda), and even that can happen through threats made to their characters.
(Of course, I don't do any of these things unless it will make it more fun for the players, and I don't know any DM who does. But the fact is that I CAN.)
The fact is simply that you are wrong.I can dictate which races and classes my PCs can play in 4E. I can alter rules at my whim. I can strike them dead with bolts of lightning or falling rocks without bothering to roll dice. All of this completely
I liked the idea that Turning Undead should be an immediate part of the Cleric. I liked the idea that Fireball and Lightning Bolt should do obscene amounts of damage (preferably less at lower levels, and more at higher levels).
What I didn't like was the idea of butchering Haste spells and other buffs. In AD&D you didn't want to cast Haste, and you definitely didn't want to cast it on yourself. Most of us allowed it to Double your number of attacks and movement - not add +1. What does that do for team work??
Well, a Wizard or Cleric of Time who gets Haste is going from 1 attack per round to 2 attacks per round, likely with a craptastic attack bonus and shite damage - say, 1d6+2, twice per round with a 35% chance of hitting.
When you cast haste on your fighter buddy, with his two attacks per round, he has something like 1d10+8 four times per round with a 95% chance of hitting. Cast it on the Monk and you have something closer to 5d4 six times per round with a 75% chance of hitting (too bad monks were immune to haste in early editions).
In other words, casting haste on other people makes a lot more sense than casting it on yourself. It contributes to the party. But Haste also aged the target by a full year. Since Clerics and Wizards also got aged by Wishes and powerful healing spells, they would probably not want to suck away even more of their lives for a measily +1 attack with a high chance of missing, whereas Fighters don't get aged when using their abilities, and who knows, you might find a potion of youth once in a while to make it worth that extra damage in a critical battle with a Titanic Foe or Massive Hordes.
If it was me, I'd probably rewrite Haste to age characters 1 month, and bump it to 5th level, while the Lesser Haste spell (Swiftness?) provided +1 attack and +5 Movement (AD&D scale) with no aging, probably at level 3. By level I mean spell levels 1-9, not character level.
I'd probably also put a cap on these different versions of Haste. Like Swiftness cannot raise your base attacks above 3/round, while "Haste" cannot raise your attack total above 4 or maybe 6. Improved Haste might have a cap equal to half the spell caster's level, so a level 18 wizard couldn't provide an ally with more than 9 attacks per round.
Buffs that add % are more effective on specialists than bonuses, when it comes to promoting Team Work. Strength and Dexterity buffs used to add bonuses based on the target's character class, for instance, the fighter would get +1d8 strength, the wizard would get +1d4, but this was too directly classist.
If your bless spell improves armor modifiers by 25% instead of +1, then for every 5 points of AC you gain +1 more. This kind of thinking says the smart caster is going to try to Buff someone besides themselves, instead of making the other classes irrelevent.
I liked the idea that Turning Undead should be an immediate part of the Cleric. I liked the idea that Fireball and Lightning Bolt should do obscene amounts of damage (preferably less at lower levels, and more at higher levels).What I didn't like was
I disagree with the comparision to needing magical weapons on the scope and scale in AD&D as is needed in 4e.
The math of 1/2e does not require bonus weapons as the AC does not scale the same way that 4e AC scales. This is also mitigated by the fact that Thaco improves with level, and creatures are not particularly "level-appropriate" in the same way they are in 4e.
In AD&D, there are creatures from time to time that are immune to non-magical weapons. That is far different than EVERY creature outpacing the non-equipped party member. At about 11th level or so, I had to give the players inherent bonuses in 4e Dark Sun because they were falling behind at an ever increasing rate after feats etc. had been exhausted and I was running low magic.
The 2e DarkSun campaign I ran never had such conundrums, although yes, at times the party ran into a monster that had mundane weapon immunity.
At this point you're praising early editions for their *lack of math and planning*. Yes, 4E made assumptions about what monsters the players would fight at a given level, which lead to other assumptions about the numbers that would make combat work. Just don't read any encounter guidelines, randomly select monsters and treasure, and you can have some of that old-school feel back.
At this point you're praising early editions for their *lack of math and planning*. Yes, 4E made assumptions about what monsters the players would fight at a given level, which lead to other assumptions about the numbers that would make combat work.
In other words, casting haste on other people makes a lot more sense than casting it on yourself. It contributes to the party. But Haste also aged the target by a full year. Since Clerics and Wizards also got aged by Wishes and powerful healing spells, they would probably not want to suck away even more of their lives for a measily +1 attack with a high chance of missing, whereas Fighters don't get aged when using their abilities, and who knows, you might find a potion of youth once in a while to make it worth that extra damage in a critical battle with a Titanic Foe or Massive Hordes.
You perfectly explained the problem with what they are trying to do to the haste spell. If they nerf it and make it a personal spell then it becomes completely useless. No self respecting wizard is going to use it.
Haste should double your attacks per round and increase your AC a bit. Aging is also a good mechanic I wish 3e never removed.
You perfectly explained the problem with what they are trying to do to the haste spell. If they nerf it and make it a personal spell then it becomes completely useless. No self respecting wizard is going to use it. Haste should double your att
The abillity to create a world isn't what people are talking about when the talk about DM as god. That isn't something that has decreased in any way in newer editions, either.
In relation to the players, DM is not god. The DM does not have absolute power, unless the group agrees to give the DM absolute power. Then he is no more than an elected monarch.
And that's how it should be. The DM should be an elected/chosen leader amongst a group of equals. More like a prime minister than a god.
The fact is simply that you are wrong.
I can dictate which races and classes my PCs can play in 4E. I can alter rules at my whim. I can strike them dead with bolts of lightning or falling rocks without bothering to roll dice. All of this completely RAW.
What power do you fear will be ascribed to a DM in Next that we do not already have? Pretty much the only power I don't have in 4E is the ability to make the actual players at the table do things with their physical body (i.e, get up and grab me a soda), and even that can happen through threats made to their characters.
(Of course, I don't do any of these things unless it will make it more fun for the players, and I don't know any DM who does. But the fact is that I CAN.)
No, you can't, no matter what the rules say, unless the group gives you that authority.
GM authority, in any game, is entirely contingent on the will of the group. Period. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact.
You also don't have the authority to choose options for your players (you're playin a dwarf, with axes, and these feats and powers. His name is Ragnar). You don't have the authority to tell the players what actions their character takes, how their character feels about anything, what they say or any other decision they make/thing they do.
And if you shoot lightning at a PC, and the player thinks it's BS? He or she can take their sheet, and walk out, and play that character in another game.
Of the group can say, sorry man, you're out of line. Take it back. And if you refuse, they can simply say, "Sorry, it didn't happen. Jim is going to DM next time. You're welcome to roll a character and join us, but you've lost the DM seat."
The DM is just a player with a different role at the table.
The fact is simply that you are wrong.I can dictate which races and classes my PCs can play in 4E. I can alter rules at my whim. I can strike them dead with bolts of lightning or falling rocks without bothering to roll dice. All of this completely
DM's are usually thrust into the posiiton, or else they take the lead in assembling a gaming group, purchasing/designing the adventures, and serving as the "enemy" to the players. I provide the only location that my group plays at. If they didn't like me as DM, there is no way in hell they would be able to oust me from the position and tell me what I am going to do in my own house. They would be free to disband, leave, or choose another game and location, but the idea that they could unilaterally overrule the DM fiat is absurd.
Any drivel about the DM being "just another player at the table" or having an "equal say in the game" is just imaginitive thinking and is not a supported concept.
If the DM loses the power to judge, adjuticate, fudge, etc. then it becomes a boardgame. If everyone at the table has an equal say, or results via vote, then the players are going to vote against the DM when it benefits the party, irregardless of narrative or DM concept.
This debate over DM power serves no purpose in a game with a referee/judge. You may as well be arguing how much "power" a baseball umpire has, or a line judge in tennis. It does no good to rage against the machine in a game with refereed rules. You just play the game by their rules and if you have a good umpire, they are making fair and honest calls.
DM's are usually thrust into the posiiton, or else they take the lead in assembling a gaming group, purchasing/designing the adventures, and serving as the "enemy" to the players. I provide the only location that my group plays at. If they didn't lik
No, you can't, no matter what the rules say, unless the group gives you that authority.
GM authority, in any game, is entirely contingent on the will of the group. Period. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact.
You also don't have the authority to choose options for your players (you're playin a dwarf, with axes, and these feats and powers. His name is Ragnar). You don't have the authority to tell the players what actions their character takes, how their character feels about anything, what they say or any other decision they make/thing they do.
And if you shoot lightning at a PC, and the player thinks it's BS? He or she can take their sheet, and walk out, and play that character in another game.
Of the group can say, sorry man, you're out of line. Take it back. And if you refuse, they can simply say, "Sorry, it didn't happen. Jim is going to DM next time. You're welcome to roll a character and join us, but you've lost the DM seat."
The DM is just a player with a different role at the table.
So, you agree with me.
I can do anything except control the actions of the physical players. Just like any DM in any edition of D&D can.
Because yes, I CAN tell a player what his character does, by RAW. Dominated.
So would you mind actually answering the question? What are you afraid of? If the rulebook said "the DM can do X", what X makes you afraid that it will ruin the game?
So, you agree with me.I can do anything except control the actions of the physical players. Just like any DM in any edition of D&D can.Because yes, I CAN tell a player what his character does, by RAW. Dominated.So would you mind actually answering
Maybe if you used something that was charming or dominating the character somehow. If a DM tried to just tell me what my character does, the one thing that I control in the game, I'd be pretty upset. I'd really discuss it with the DM and be like come on, man. Unless he made it clear he had a reason, and it was going somewhere. Then I'd play along, for fun.
But really, controlling the players' actions is lame.
Maybe if you used something that was charming or dominating the character somehow. If a DM tried to just tell me what my character does, the one thing that I control in the game, I'd be pretty upset. I'd really discuss it with the DM and be like co
I've removed content from this thread because Baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
You're welcome to disagree but please do so in a respectful way!
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the "Report Post" button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Thanks!
I've removed content from this thread because Baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain fro
Maybe if you used something that was charming or dominating the character somehow. If a DM tried to just tell me what my character does, the one thing that I control in the game, I'd be pretty upset. I'd really discuss it with the DM and be like come on, man. Unless he made it clear he had a reason, and it was going somewhere. Then I'd play along, for fun.
But really, controlling the players' actions is lame.
Agreed. There is a significant difference between 'your character is subject to mind control' and 'I'm telling you what your character is doing or thinking when he should be operating of his own free will'.
Agreed. There is a significant difference between 'your character is subject to mind control' and 'I'm telling you what your character is doing or thinking when he should be operating of his own free will'.
I completely agree that it is lame, annoying, and no one should ever do it without a very, very, very good in-game reason.
But RAW the DM CAN. Which is my entire point.
I completely agree that it is lame, annoying, and no one should ever do it without a very, very, very good in-game reason.But RAW the DM CAN. Which is my entire point.
I can do anything except control the actions of the physical players. Just like any DM in any edition of D&D can.
Because yes, I CAN tell a player what his character does, by RAW. Dominated.
So would you mind actually answering the question? What are you afraid of? If the rulebook said "the DM can do X", what X makes you afraid that it will ruin the game?
No, I don't agree with you, as I clearly showed. As DM, you cannot pick feats for you players, or all the other things I listed, unless the group gives you that authority. Most gamers I know would look at you like you'd grown a new head if you tried to tell them what feats to pick, skills to train, race to play, what their character says or does, etc.
And dominated is a false example and you know it. It's not at all the same thing. It's a game effect which allows one character to control another character's actions. The fact that players can use it on monsters doesn't suddenly mean that individual players have godlike fiat powers over DMs, either.
Lastly, opposition does not have to arise from fear, so don't assume that I fear anything. The rule books don't say that the DM is god anymore, and that's a good thing. "Player entitlement" is a good thing. I don't have to fear anything in order to support it. I just have to think that it's good.
I've been playing and GMing various RPGs for over half my life, and my groups have never featured a tyrannical GM. We've had GMs that were that way before playing with us, and GMs who started to veer of course into that direction, until we corrected them, but never one that actually tried in a serious way to act like they were god at the table.
They're the puppet master of the npcs and game world, and the person that makes calls during the game so that things can keep going. In my groups, and most groups I know, even houserules have to be ok with the group. Groups don't just sit there, hating the houserules but using them anyway because the Almighty DM says so! That would be completely crap.
The DM suggests a houserule, and we discuss it. Sometimes someone other than the DM suggests a houserule, and we discuss it. The DM has complete control of NPCs and monsters, but shares some of that control in the case of companions, background related NPCs, etc, depending on the situation, and players have absolute inviolate authority over their characters. DM can make suggestions, and the DM, or another player, can affect them within the game with in game effects, but that's it.
Sort of like how an elected leader amongst equals leads the group that elected them, but isn't magically made into a god over them.
And, just like a group of real people can accept the concept that a ruler is a god, and worship them, and follow their commands without question, even though that ruler is not a god, and derives all of their authority from the willingness of the people to be ruled by them, a DM can have absolute authority if the group allows it.
Maybe if you used something that was charming or dominating the character somehow. If a DM tried to just tell me what my character does, the one thing that I control in the game, I'd be pretty upset. I'd really discuss it with the DM and be like come on, man. Unless he made it clear he had a reason, and it was going somewhere. Then I'd play along, for fun.
But really, controlling the players' actions is lame.
Agreed. There is a significant difference between 'your character is subject to mind control' and 'I'm telling you what your character is doing or thinking when he should be operating of his own free will'.
The answer, IMO, to "I'm telling you what your character is doing or thinking..." is "No, you aren't."
DM's are usually thrust into the posiiton, or else they take the lead in assembling a gaming group, purchasing/designing the adventures, and serving as the "enemy" to the players. I provide the only location that my group plays at. If they didn't like me as DM, there is no way in hell they would be able to oust me from the position and tell me what I am going to do in my own house. They would be free to disband, leave, or choose another game and location, but the idea that they could unilaterally overrule the DM fiat is absurd.
Any drivel about the DM being "just another player at the table" or having an "equal say in the game" is just imaginitive thinking and is not a supported concept.
If the DM loses the power to judge, adjuticate, fudge, etc. then it becomes a boardgame. If everyone at the table has an equal say, or results via vote, then the players are going to vote against the DM when it benefits the party, irregardless of narrative or DM concept.
This debate over DM power serves no purpose in a game with a referee/judge. You may as well be arguing how much "power" a baseball umpire has, or a line judge in tennis. It does no good to rage against the machine in a game with refereed rules. You just play the game by their rules and if you have a good umpire, they are making fair and honest calls.
That's fine for your group.
More and more groups in recent years have multiple DMs, however, and others just don't accept that anyone in a group of friends playing a game gets to be god.
And you know what? My group has never voted against the DM to make the party's life easier, or make success more likely, or any of that.
because we're a group, and the rest of the group would respond to anyone trying that with a, "Dude, shut up. We're not cheating at DnD, that's ridiculous." and that would be the end of it.
We also don't put up with the DM trying to shanghai us into playing in a world we don't like the look of.
"Sorry, man. I know you're really stoked about that tolkein races only, low magic, everyone is a common joe at level one that's pushed into extraordinary blah blah blah thing, but the rest of us have been dying to play eberron for over a year, and even if we weren't you know we don't like campaigns that are that limited. What else ya got?"
It's a discussion, not a unilateral decision by the DM. You like to play in a game where the DM just makes unilateral decisions, and if anyone else doesn't like it they can either ignore their dislike or leave, with those being literally the only options, that's...what it is. I find the idea repugnant, but luckily we don't have to play together.
Don't try to force DnD as a whole into your playstyle, though.
Luckily, what the devs have said on the subject suggests that they will try to put more of the world and campaign building into the DM's hands, and things like that are really easy for groups like mine to ignore, but they won't be rolling back player entitlement to the days of DMs being told they should tear up character sheets of annoying players.
I saw a fistfight start over that once, at a game store about 12 years ago. Really lame occurrence, on both sides. story, for the curiousShow
DM told the player that his character couldn't do what the player had just declared, because the DM didn't feel that it made sense. Don't remember the details, but it was along the lines of "Dwarves and elves hate eachother, your elf isn't hitting on the dwarf maid." then, "No really, yes he is. He doesn't hate elves, because he's a metropolitan person, and has just spent the last year traveling with an elf that has saved his life more than once."
DM: No, it just doesn't work like that in my campaign. This is my world, and my rules.
Player: Great, but this is my character. I decide what he does.
DM: Grabs character sheet. "Your character is dead. Make a new one or leave the game." He went to rip the sheet, the player grabbed his arm and told him very firmly to give him his sheet, the DM refused, and pushed the player, and the player decked him solidly in the jaw.
It was very, very stupid, on all sides. They'd been arguing off and on for half the session, and someone should have been smart enough to defuse the situation before it got out of control.
I just laughed, though. Didn't much like either of them.
No, I don't agree with you, as I clearly showed. As DM, you cannot pick feats for you players, or all the other things I listed, unless the group gives you that authority. Most gamers I know would look at you like you'd grown a new head if you tried
No, I don't agree with you, as I clearly showed. As DM, you cannot pick feats for you players, or all the other things I listed, unless the group gives you that authority. Most gamers I know would look at you like you'd grown a new head if you tried to tell them what feats to pick, skills to train, race to play, what their character says or does, etc.
Action of a physical player. And I CAN RAW tell them what race to play or not to play. It is not required that every race be available in every campaign world; it is suggested. Similarly, I can tell them what their character says or does through any number of plot effects.
And dominated is a false example and you know it. It's not at all the same thing. It's a game effect which allows one character to control another character's actions. The fact that players can use it on monsters doesn't suddenly mean that individual players have godlike fiat powers over DMs, either.
I was referring to the fact that I can use the dominated condition with a monster who has an infinite-range aura to force any PC to take any action, RAW. Dominated does not have to be (save ends).
Lastly, opposition does not have to arise from fear, so don't assume that I fear anything. The rule books don't say that the DM is god anymore, and that's a good thing. "Player entitlement" is a good thing. I don't have to fear anything in order to support it. I just have to think that it's good.
That depends how you define "player entitlement", of course. I'm simply saying that you believe the DM is not omnipotent in 4E, and I'm here to tell you that you are factually incorrect.
Players have been empowered in many ways, and none of it required taking away the DM's omnipotence.
I've been playing and GMing various RPGs for over half my life, and my groups have never featured a tyrannical GM. We've had GMs that were that way before playing with us, and GMs who started to veer of course into that direction, until we corrected them, but never one that actually tried in a serious way to act like they were god at the table.
Tyranny is a matter of how you use your power, not a matter of what power you have. Dictatorship is a matter of what power you have, and the DM has always been a dictator. They have the final say on everything.
They're the puppet master of the npcs and game world, and the person that makes calls during the game so that things can keep going. In my groups, and most groups I know, even houserules have to be ok with the group. Groups don't just sit there, hating the houserules but using them anyway because the Almighty DM says so! That would be completely crap.
I agree absolutely. This is a matter of Wheaton's Law, however, not one of game rules. In 99% of gaming groups, it's made up of friends. And most people, when playing a game with their friends, are willing to listen to them when they make a suggestion.
And, just like a group of real people can accept the concept that a ruler is a god, and worship them, and follow their commands without question, even though that ruler is not a god, and derives all of their authority from the willingness of the people to be ruled by them, a DM can have absolute authority if the group allows it.
Again, this is a matter of the actions of the physical players. I am referring to the DM's authority over the game, not suggesting that he suddenly controls the minds of every player.
Action of a physical player. And I CAN RAW tell them what race to play or not to play. It is not required that every race be available in every campaign world; it is suggested. Similarly, I can tell them what their character says or does through a
No, I don't agree with you, as I clearly showed. As DM, you cannot pick feats for you players, or all the other things I listed, unless the group gives you that authority. Most gamers I know would look at you like you'd grown a new head if you tried to tell them what feats to pick, skills to train, race to play, what their character says or does, etc.
Action of a physical player. And I CAN RAW tell them what race to play or not to play. It is not required that every race be available in every campaign world; it is suggested. Similarly, I can tell them what their character says or does through any number of plot effects.
And dominated is a false example and you know it. It's not at all the same thing. It's a game effect which allows one character to control another character's actions. The fact that players can use it on monsters doesn't suddenly mean that individual players have godlike fiat powers over DMs, either.
I was referring to the fact that I can use the dominated condition with a monster who has an infinite-range aura to force any PC to take any action, RAW. Dominated does not have to be (save ends).
Lastly, opposition does not have to arise from fear, so don't assume that I fear anything. The rule books don't say that the DM is god anymore, and that's a good thing. "Player entitlement" is a good thing. I don't have to fear anything in order to support it. I just have to think that it's good.
That depends how you define "player entitlement", of course. I'm simply saying that you believe the DM is not omnipotent in 4E, and I'm here to tell you that you are factually incorrect.
Players have been empowered in many ways, and none of it required taking away the DM's omnipotence.
I've been playing and GMing various RPGs for over half my life, and my groups have never featured a tyrannical GM. We've had GMs that were that way before playing with us, and GMs who started to veer of course into that direction, until we corrected them, but never one that actually tried in a serious way to act like they were god at the table.
Tyranny is a matter of how you use your power, not a matter of what power you have. Dictatorship is a matter of what power you have, and the DM has always been a dictator. They have the final say on everything.
They're the puppet master of the npcs and game world, and the person that makes calls during the game so that things can keep going. In my groups, and most groups I know, even houserules have to be ok with the group. Groups don't just sit there, hating the houserules but using them anyway because the Almighty DM says so! That would be completely crap.
I agree absolutely. This is a matter of Wheaton's Law, however, not one of game rules. In 99% of gaming groups, it's made up of friends. And most people, when playing a game with their friends, are willing to listen to them when they make a suggestion.
And, just like a group of real people can accept the concept that a ruler is a god, and worship them, and follow their commands without question, even though that ruler is not a god, and derives all of their authority from the willingness of the people to be ruled by them, a DM can have absolute authority if the group allows it.
Again, this is a matter of the actions of the physical players. I am referring to the DM's authority over the game, not suggesting that he suddenly controls the minds of every player.
The DM cannot decide what feats a PC has. That isn't an issue of the DM forcing the physical person to do something, that is a matter of the DM picking options for the player, and telling the player that's what they get.
And your dominate thing is completely homebrewed. It may not be directly against an explicitly stated rule, but nothing in the rules say that you can make a creature that just dominated PCs, with unlimited range, no roll required, indefinitely. At the very least, you're rules lawyering to say that technically you can get away with something RAW, when clearly it's nothing more than a technicality loophole.
And even then, it's still not the same thing as telling the player, "your character dances with the barmaid. Because I said he does. End of discussion."
You don't have that authority. You also, unless you only allow one race and class, don't get to tell the players what race and class they each will play. You can limit the list, but as I've pointed out, that's something that you can only get away with if the group lets you, as choosing the tone and scope of the campaign is a group decision that can be, and often is, deferred to the DM. With anything other than a "the only race available is elf, and the only class available is swordmage", you don't get to tell a player, "You're playing an elven swordmage."
Action of a physical player. And I CAN RAW tell them what race to play or not to play. It is not required that every race be available in every campaign world; it is suggested. Similarly, I can tell them what their character says or does through a
With anything other than a "the only race available is elf, and the only class available is swordmage", you don't get to tell a player, "You're playing an elven swordmage."
Conversely, when a DM says something like "the party really needs a cleric", it's probably going to be a good idea to listen.
Conversely, when a DM says something like "the party really needs a cleric", it's probably going to be a good idea to listen.
You also don't have the authority to choose options for your players (you're playin a dwarf, with axes, and these feats and powers. His name is Ragnar).
Every single time a DM shows up with an adventure that includes pre-gen characters, then he or she is doing exactly this. The DM runs the campaigns, and the Players either play along or go home.
Every single time a DM shows up with an adventure that includes pre-gen characters, then he or she is doing exactly this. The DM runs the campaigns, and the Players either play along or go home.
The DM cannot decide what feats a PC has. That isn't an issue of the DM forcing the physical person to do something, that is a matter of the DM picking options for the player, and telling the player that's what they get.
"Picking options" is something the physical person is doing. It's a completely metagame act. Your PC didn't decide to take the Improved Initiative feat; the player did.
And your dominate thing is completely homebrewed. It may not be directly against an explicitly stated rule, but nothing in the rules say that you can make a creature that just dominated PCs, with unlimited range, no roll required, indefinitely. At the very least, you're rules lawyering to say that technically you can get away with something RAW, when clearly it's nothing more than a technicality loophole.
Of course it's homebrewed. Using the RAW monster building guidelines. I don't know any DM who doesn't tinker with their monsters or with their campaign world, and I consider it a completely ordinary part of the D&D experience.
And even then, it's still not the same thing as telling the player, "your character dances with the barmaid. Because I said he does. End of discussion."
There is no effective difference, and given that it involves something the character could not possibly know, I don't know many DMs who would explain that it's actually because the Mother of all Aboleths is dominating them for the night.
You don't have that authority. You also, unless you only allow one race and class, don't get to tell the players what race and class they each will play. You can limit the list, but as I've pointed out, that's something that you can only get away with if the group lets you, as choosing the tone and scope of the campaign is a group decision that can be, and often is, deferred to the DM. With anything other than a "the only race available is elf, and the only class available is swordmage", you don't get to tell a player, "You're playing an elven swordmage."
Sure you can. There's nothing stopping you from limiting the race and class choices based on arbitrary limits; like which player is playing them. The player, of course, can walk. But the fact is that in the end, it's up to the DM. The player's choice is 'play' or 'don't play'. Other than that, it's all up to the DM, in every edition.
The whole point I'm trying to make is trust your DM. If you don't think he's making his choices based on maximizing the fun for everyone in the group, talk to him. No problem. This is Wheaton's Law as an issue. The rules do not need to limit the DM in any way. And they don't do that, in any edition of D&D. There's nothing wrong with expecting the DM to have absolute power, because he does, and he always has, and he probably always will. If he's running the campaign in a way you don't like, don't play with him. This is no different from if a player wants to play a PC you can't get along with and you're not having fun playing with him. Talk to the guy, if it can't be resolved, one of you leaves the group.
I'm pretty sure we actually agree on the major point and you're just resisting the idea that 4E is no different from 1E in this regard.
"Picking options" is something the physical person is doing. It's a completely metagame act. Your PC didn't decide to take the Improved Initiative feat; the player did.Of course it's homebrewed. Using the RAW monster building guidelines. I don't
Rule 0 should stand, because the bottom line is you can always vote out the DM you don't like, but you are never going to stop popular people from getting their way.
A good DM should be able to bend and warp rules at will, though they should duly note to players when the rules have changed, and should generally wait until sessions are over before Nerfing something players are depending on. I once had a DM approve a character for play, then complain about how powerful some ability appeared to be - probably Armor Class or some such - then Nerf the character, then kill the character. He was completely confused as to why my character was unable to defeat his raiders and noted it ended the adventure suddenly and perspicuously.
I had another DM blow A fuse while demanding (against objections) to inflict severe falling damage to a character who was essentially under the effects of feather fall.
Then again, I've had times where Rule 0 helped keep confusing scenarios calm, and the plot later revealed why said rule seemed violated - like my Players who swore they knew the stats of a monster and tried to defend against powers the monsters never had.
Rule 0 should stand, because the bottom line is you can always vote out the DM you don't like, but you are never going to stop popular people from getting their way.A good DM should be able to bend and warp rules at will, though they should duly note
No, you can't, no matter what the rules say, unless the group gives you that authority.
GM authority, in any game, is entirely contingent on the will of the group. Period. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact.
You also don't have the authority to choose options for your players (you're playin a dwarf, with axes, and these feats and powers. His name is Ragnar). You don't have the authority to tell the players what actions their character takes, how their character feels about anything, what they say or any other decision they make/thing they do.
And if you shoot lightning at a PC, and the player thinks it's BS? He or she can take their sheet, and walk out, and play that character in another game.
Of the group can say, sorry man, you're out of line. Take it back. And if you refuse, they can simply say, "Sorry, it didn't happen. Jim is going to DM next time. You're welcome to roll a character and join us, but you've lost the DM seat."
The DM is just a player with a different role at the table.
The bolded quote in red, is that a revelating typo? Humm, I sense some hesitation. I'm sure you realize how unlikely this kind of situation would be, the player overruling the DM....
You will have a hard time convincing people that the DM isn't some kind of god (with a undercase "g") when it has been one of the most important advertised features of the role, for years.
The game/rules/guidelines do their best to create "benevolent" and caring DMs, but it stands nonetheless that if a DM want to be a jerk and god-mode (literally) your character, he has every rights to do it.
Of course you are always free to call him on that and/or leave the table, still the DM is still able to do it without you being able to do anything, and even if you do, the DM can counter it anyway.
EDIT: Oh and as D&D mythos shows, DMs, like gods (especially evil/bad ones), can be overthrown and are limited. They are still gods however and therefore hold a LOT of power in the game (way more than the players).
The bolded quote in red, is that a revelating typo? Humm, I sense some hesitation. I'm sure you realize how unlikely this kind of situation would be, the player overruling the DM....You will have a hard time convincing people that the DM isn't some k
I think this player entitlement attitude has gone a bit too far (not that I'm a fan of control-freak DMs), are some actually suggesting that if the DM had homebrewed a Hyperborean/classical age type world, and he said the only choice for Race was Human, Deva and Minotaur; and the Primal and Psionic power source do not exist, that is unreasonable?
What about banning certain feats, spells?
I think this player entitlement attitude has gone a bit too far (not that I'm a fan of control-freak DMs), are some actually suggesting that if the DM had homebrewed a Hyperborean/classical age type world, and he said the only choice for Race was Hum
With anything other than a "the only race available is elf, and the only class available is swordmage", you don't get to tell a player, "You're playing an elven swordmage."
Conversely, when a DM says something like "the party really needs a cleric", it's probably going to be a good idea to listen.
Just as it's a good idea to listen if the other player at the table tells you that the feat you're about to pick is a trap, and completely made irrelevant by another feat, or similar.
Those are suggestions, not examples of authority.
But then, if you read my posts you might remember that I didn't say that the DM has no authority. I compared him to an elected leader amongst equals, remember? He or she leads, because someone has to, but how much authority the DM has is a matter of group preference, unless the rules try to give the DM the unlimited power that the rules gave DMs back in the day, with the "you can rip up character sheets if a player is uncooperative" stuff.
Which would be a very bad idea.
Steely_Dan: If the rest of the group finds that sort of campaign boring, but the DM is insisting on it? Yes, that's unreasonable. Feats and spells and the like depend on the system, and whether they're actually problematic or if the DM just has low system mastery.
Like DMs that banned all kinds of martial stuff in 3.5, ignoring how broken casters were, when those martial options didn't even come close to bringing fighters and such up to par with casters.
Of a DM banning...really most things in 4e, since the game is balanced well enough that very few single options can break the game.
Or banning dragonborn simply because he or she just does't like the cut of their jib.
BeastSoulEyes: That whole post is just wrong. The DM tries to take over my character, I simply tell him no. End of discussion. My authority over my character is absolute.
The whole point I'm trying to make is trust your DM. If you don't think he's making his choices based on maximizing the fun for everyone in the group, talk to him. No problem. This is Wheaton's Law as an issue. The rules do not need to limit the DM in any way. And they don't do that, in any edition of D&D. There's nothing wrong with expecting the DM to have absolute power, because he does, and he always has, and he probably always will. If he's running the campaign in a way you don't like, don't play with him. This is no different from if a player wants to play a PC you can't get along with and you're not having fun playing with him. Talk to the guy, if it can't be resolved, one of you leaves the group.
I'm pretty sure we actually agree on the major point and you're just resisting the idea that 4E is no different from 1E in this regard.
The idea that players only get to choose whether or not to play, and everything else is up to the DM, is complete BS. Your group might play that way, but I have never interacted with a group that did.
And it has frak all to do with trust. When I was younger, I trusted the government, and cops, etc. I still encrypted my computer, wouldn't allow a cop to enter my home or search my possessions without a warrant, etc. There's a huge difference of scale, but the type is unchanged. Trust does not mean allowing someone to do whatever they want, and hope for the best.
If the DM is running a game that I don't like, and I'm the only one in the group that doesn't like it, I'll either play along anyway or leave, because the group of people I'm playing with all want to do the same thing, and I'm not a drama queen or a control freak.
If I'm in the DM seat, which I am more and more often lately, as one of my other DMs just got married and another is in texas for a few months, and I'm the only one that wants to play eberron, I'm not benevolently allowing the players to influence my decision when I come up with something else. The group has spoken, so the campaign changes. Period.
An individual player doesn't overrule the DM, unless it's concerning the actions of his or her PC, but the group always can, on anything. Full stop.
The fact that 4e gives players more leverage in debates by putting more of the rules in their hands isn't what creates that situation. It's been that way for as long as I've played DnD (and similar games. started with heroquest, then skipped 1e and basic and went straight to 2e, then went back and played basic a few times later), and it always will be.
Conversely, when a DM says something like "the party really needs a cleric", it's probably going to be a good idea to listen.[/quote]Just as it's a good idea to listen if the other player at the table tells you that the feat you're about to pick is a
Steely_Dan: If the rest of the group finds that sort of campaign boring, but the DM is insisting on it? Yes, that's unreasonable.
Wow, because the DM wants to focus the campaign for flavour/vibe, or is it becaue the players are throwing their toys out of the pram because they can't play their Warforged Battlemind/Druid or what have you?
Wow, because the DM wants to focus the campaign for flavour/vibe, or is it becaue the players are throwing their toys out of the pram because they can't play their Warforged Battlemind/Druid or what have you?
An individual player doesn't overrule the DM, unless it's concerning the actions of his or her PC, but the group always can, on anything. Full stop.
This is simply not true.
I'm glad it's the way you've always played. It's the way I've pretty much always played too. But it's not the rules, and it never has been.
This is simply not true.I'm glad it's the way you've always played. It's the way I've pretty much always played too. But it's not the rules, and it never has been.
Steely_Dan: If the rest of the group finds that sort of campaign boring, but the DM is insisting on it? Yes, that's unreasonable.
Wow, because the DM wants to focus the campaign for flavour/vibe, or is it becaue the players are throwing their toys out of the pram because they can't play their Warforged Battlemind/Druid or what have you?
Who cares if the DM has a flavour/vibe he or she wants to focus on, if that's not the flavour or vibe that the rest of the group is interested in?
If the group hates Eberron, or even if they're just bored by it, they're not going to play Eberron. There's no reason to expect them to play Eberron, and it's unreasonable to try to push them to play Eberron just because the DM doesn't feel like coming up with something else.
Wow, because the DM wants to focus the campaign for flavour/vibe, or is it becaue the players are throwing their toys out of the pram because they can't play their Warforged Battlemind/Druid or what have you?[/quote]Who cares if the DM has a flavour/
@DoctorBadWolf In my world, the DM rules. The players do have the ultimate nuclear veto. If they exercise that veto then the DM finds another group if he wants to continue DMing. I've never had that problem. I do exercise 100% control over my campaigns. No I do not tell the players what they can play or what they can do. But if I say this time there are no dwarves in this world then there are no dwarves in the world.
Now given all that. And by the way thats how we all work with each other. We all know the DM has ten times more committment to the campaign effort wise than the individual players. So we go with him when it is possible. It's not like as a player I'm different than when I'm DM. I wouldn't want a disempowered DM to be my DM for anything. Anyway. As a DM you are of course trying to please your players. When I run a campaign it is generally very popular because I don't make my players angry to do silly stuff. But we all agree that is the DMs perogative.
@DoctorBadWolfIn my world, the DM rules. The players do have the ultimate nuclear veto. If they exercise that veto then the DM finds another group if he wants to continue DMing. I've never had that problem. I do exercise 100% control over my camp
If the group hates Eberron, or even if they're just bored by it, they're not going to play Eberron. There's no reason to expect them to play Eberron, and it's unreasonable to try to push them to play Eberron just because the DM doesn't feel like coming up with something else.
Or, to put into fake conversation form:
"Hey, Bill, we're doing Eberron this weekend, have your character ready. Ususal Eberron stuff, standard array." "Eberron? Again?" "Yeah. That's what I'm running." "I'd rather not, and we both know Ted never did like those robot guys." "Yeah, well. I'm running Eberron Saturday night and that's it." "That's nice. I'll just stay home and play videogames. Hmmm... maybe I'll invte Ted over for co-op Gears..." "But, but, that just leaves Fred and Laura!" "Oh, yeah. Laura got bored to death of Eberron when Fred was running it last year. That's why he gave you his books."
Or, to put into fake conversation form:"Hey, Bill, we're doing Eberron this weekend, have your character ready. Ususal Eberron stuff, standard array.""Eberron? Again?""Yeah. That's what I'm running.""I'd rather not, and we both know Ted never did
This whole discussion is completely context-free. All of this DM-player stuff depends on context. If I spend some time working on a campaign or a world, my friends ought to give it a shot. If my players all want to try a new campaign world, I should see what it's all about. If a player is tired of always being the defender (or cleric or party face, etc) then let him try something else. If a player hogs one role, let someone else have a go unless that's really OK with everyone. There isn't a right answer that's going to satisfy everyone every time.
This whole discussion is completely context-free. All of this DM-player stuff depends on context. If I spend some time working on a campaign or a world, my friends ought to give it a shot. If my players all want to try a new campaign world, I should
This argument's getting a bit ridiculous; do actual groups behave this way in practice? Yes, the DM theoretically has god-like power and players theoretically might argue that they can use anything that's been printed, but ultimately it's going to come down to a compromise. After all, the DM wastes all of his efforts planning of the players are so disenchanted by his vision that they don't want to play, so he shouldn't try to upset them too much.
I signed up to play a new game back in college that the DM simply described as a "3rd edition game that's a bit of a hybrid between 3.0 and 3.5." When I got there the game ended up being not even remotely close to any D&D game that I'd ever played; everyone got a pre-gen character, half of which were humans in leather armor and with short swords and hand crossbows, and the other half were dragons. Not half-dragons, dragonborn, whatever other name you might call dragon-like humanoids, but actual dragons. And not little baby dragons either. Apparently there was this fantasy book that he'd read where human "dragon trainers" (or something) weave about their dragon's feet when they're fighting (I'm paraphrasing, but that's basically how he described it). Yeah....not only does that not really work all that well as a tabletop game, but he definitely should have been up front about that before recruiting for the game (perhaps he figured he wouldn't get any players?). Needless to say, I didn't play for more than that first session.
I figured this was at the very extreme end of the spectrum, and haven't encountered anything like it since. This was also notably a group of random people, not a bunch of existing friends. With friends a DM can run a basic idea by his group, gauge their interest, and proceed from their. If he wants to run a no-magic game but half the players are set on playing spellcasters then some type of compromise needs to be made. I find the notion that any details concerning such pre-game compromise is/isn't "RAW" to be absurd, quite frankly.
Ultimately, when DM empowerment is discussed I think it has less to do with "x, y, and z race/class/etc. is banned" and more to do with "do the rules support the flexibility for making this call in-game?" or "do the rules facilitate me easily realizing my vision?" In other words, is advice given on how/when to break or modify rules to suit the current situation or event?
This argument's getting a bit ridiculous; do actual groups behave this way in practice? Yes, the DM theoretically has god-like power and players theoretically might argue that they can use anything that's been printed, but ultimately it's going to c
I think the distinction is the campaign. The campaign is under the control of the DM. He sets the groundrules for that campaign including any houserules. The players opt in or opt out. If no one plays in the campaign then it's not much of a campaign. If a DM runs a good campaign he will have players. In fact in some towns if he shows up and is average he'll have players. So he offers something and the players buy or don't buy in.
DMs often run many groups through the same campaign world. So the ongoing long term campaign has to be the DMs. When another player runs a game he will run it in his campaign. Obviously in those cases where a group has shared DMs that is not the case but thats the exception not the rule.
Some DMs may easily cave to any wish that his group tries to impose on him. I would definitely consider what they say. Even so if I still felt strongly about it I would not change. For me at least DMing is a major time and energy commitment. I'm not being any groups slave and running something I have no interest in running. Not unless they pay me and well.
I think the distinction is the campaign. The campaign is under the control of the DM. He sets the groundrules for that campaign including any houserules. The players opt in or opt out. If no one plays in the campaign then it's not much of a camp
If the group hates Eberron, or even if they're just bored by it, they're not going to play Eberron. There's no reason to expect them to play Eberron, and it's unreasonable to try to push them to play Eberron just because the DM doesn't feel like coming up with something else.
Or, to put into fake conversation form:
"Hey, Bill, we're doing Eberron this weekend, have your character ready. Ususal Eberron stuff, standard array." "Eberron? Again?" "Yeah. That's what I'm running." "I'd rather not, and we both know Ted never did like those robot guys." "Yeah, well. I'm running Eberron Saturday night and that's it." "That's nice. I'll just stay home and play videogames. Hmmm... maybe I'll invte Ted over for co-op Gears..." "But, but, that just leaves Fred and Laura!" "Oh, yeah. Laura got bored to death of Eberron when Fred was running it last year. That's why he gave you his books."
Wait, Laura's a dude? :o
I notice that Bill did not step up to the plate to try DMing after totally blowing off all the time that was spent developing a Eberron campaign.
Nice.
Or, to put into fake conversation form:"Hey, Bill, we're doing Eberron this weekend, have your character ready. Ususal Eberron stuff, standard array.""Eberron? Again?""Yeah. That's what I'm running.""I'd rather not, and we both know Ted never did
@DoctorBadWolf In my world, the DM rules. The players do have the ultimate nuclear veto. If they exercise that veto then the DM finds another group if he wants to continue DMing. I've never had that problem. I do exercise 100% control over my campaigns. No I do not tell the players what they can play or what they can do. But if I say this time there are no dwarves in this world then there are no dwarves in the world.
Now given all that. And by the way thats how we all work with each other. We all know the DM has ten times more committment to the campaign effort wise than the individual players. So we go with him when it is possible. It's not like as a player I'm different than when I'm DM. I wouldn't want a disempowered DM to be my DM for anything. Anyway. As a DM you are of course trying to please your players. When I run a campaign it is generally very popular because I don't make my players angry to do silly stuff. But we all agree that is the DMs perogative.
And because you've all agreed that it's the case, the DM in your group does have that perogative. That's how loosely organized groups work.
All the rules can actually do is encourage one or the other (or neither, by just leaving it alone). The rules can't actually make either way of doing things the case in a given group.
My point is that the game shouldn't encourage god DMs, and should instead encourage a sense of cooperation and group storytelling. Rather than a, "There's the players, and then there's the DM" , the focus should be, "There's a group, and in that group one player is chosen to run the game, which entails certain responsibilities and thus a certain authority. The exact relationship between members in the group will naturally vary from group to group, and is something groups should probably discuss before beginning their first campaign together."
I wouldn't even be opposed to a concise, useful breakdown of this whole argument in the PHB and DMG, discussing different views on how groups should be run, and their pros and cons, along with all the other player and DM advice that I think the books need to include.
If the group hates Eberron, or even if they're just bored by it, they're not going to play Eberron. There's no reason to expect them to play Eberron, and it's unreasonable to try to push them to play Eberron just because the DM doesn't feel like coming up with something else.
Or, to put into fake conversation form:
"Hey, Bill, we're doing Eberron this weekend, have your character ready. Ususal Eberron stuff, standard array." "Eberron? Again?" "Yeah. That's what I'm running." "I'd rather not, and we both know Ted never did like those robot guys." "Yeah, well. I'm running Eberron Saturday night and that's it." "That's nice. I'll just stay home and play videogames. Hmmm... maybe I'll invte Ted over for co-op Gears..." "But, but, that just leaves Fred and Laura!" "Oh, yeah. Laura got bored to death of Eberron when Fred was running it last year. That's why he gave you his books."
And in my experience that conversation is followed (not always right away) by either the DM or someone else in the group coming up with something else, because most people will compromise with their friends. Some people instead choose to pout, of course. :P
Who cares if the DM has a flavour/vibe he or she wants to focus on
Yeah, that pretty much says it all about your attitude; I wouldn't say: who cares about the player's characters and what they are going for.
I would. As a player even.
Of course, that's only in a situation where one player is being a metagaming min/maxer, or creating a character that will inherently create party conflict, or trying to loophole a character that breaks with the tone of the campaign that we've all decided to play, etc.
If you ignore context, you can make pretty much anyone sound as awful as you want.
This whole discussion is completely context-free. All of this DM-player stuff depends on context. If I spend some time working on a campaign or a world, my friends ought to give it a shot. If my players all want to try a new campaign world, I should see what it's all about. If a player is tired of always being the defender (or cleric or party face, etc) then let him try something else. If a player hogs one role, let someone else have a go unless that's really OK with everyone. There isn't a right answer that's going to satisfy everyone every time.
Completely.
To the rest: THose points are a large part of why I posit that the truth of power in a DnD group is that final authority lies with the group as a whole. Some groups stick to some words written in old DnD manuals about DMs being absolute authorities, and players being nothing more than along for the ride, but I've only ever seen that dynamic be remotely true in any practical sense in a group with one very strong alpha and a bunch of little follower types, and generally that alpha "rules" the group in pretty much all that group's activities.
I will admit to a small compulsion to trip those types of people, tie their shoelaces together and make rude remarks about the moral character of their mothers.
This argument's getting a bit ridiculous; do actual groups behave this way in practice? Yes, the DM theoretically has god-like power and players theoretically might argue that they can use anything that's been printed, but ultimately it's going to come down to a compromise. After all, the DM wastes all of his efforts planning of the players are so disenchanted by his vision that they don't want to play, so he shouldn't try to upset them too much.
In practice, the game is a group activity that all participants voluntarily participate in. That says about all that needs to be said about how things tend to work at actual tables, amongst healthy minded people.
We're just arguing about underlying principles in this thread, not really about how things play out at a normal table. Because for the most part, we mostly probably play about the same.
And because you've all agreed that it's the case, the DM in your group does have that perogative. That's how loosely organized groups work. All the rules can actually do is encourage one or the other (or neither, by just leaving it alone). The rules
What I fear with your whole argument BadWolf, is that you are minimizing the importance of the DM role, when this is a BIG deal to this game. Yes, the DM is a really, REALLY BIG deal to D&D, enough to put him in a position that is really far away from the players (the fact that there is PHB and a DMG is a good example of that).
D&D is a group activity but in this group activity there is one definitively important individual, the DM, most of the time he is the one who actually starts the group, and most of the group activity consists of players trying to convince the DM that their actions has an effect (or is possible) in the game world. The DM is VERY not (rarely) just a player among other players, elected to this "position", he is more like the creative force that gets the game going. You rarely have this kind of scenario:
Steve: "Let's have a game, who wants Mike to be the DM? Raise your hands." Mike: " Hey I don't want to the DM, I just want to play"
When this happens all the time:
Pete: "Hey, let's have a game, I will DM, who is up?"
Therefore it's pretty important for D&D to not consider the DM as just another player but instead as a different role that sometimes intertwine with the players and works on its --specific-- appeal (the god-modding). The DM is very close to being godlike, weither you like it or not, and it's unlikely to change.
Edit: The DM, not the The D&D lol
What I fear with your whole argument BadWolf, is that you are minimizing the importance of the DM role, when this is a BIG deal to this game. Yes, the DM is a really, REALLY BIG deal to D&D, enough to put him in a position that is really far away fro
I guess the issue here is focus. I agree that DMs and players should cooperate as much as they can.
The debate then is - should DM empowerment be encouraged? I have to answer emphatically yes! One of the issues for me in the modern editions 3e,4e is the implied disempowerment of the DM. For most experienced DMs it doesn't matter because we are well established in the role of the DM. The problem is new players who've never played anything besides 3e or 4e.
I think Rule 0 should be on page 1 at the top of the players handbook.
I think DMs should be told that all rules are changeable and encouraged to try new things. If you told me that a DM had zero houserules, I'd be prejudiced against that DM right off. Now he may be fine but my initial gut reaction would be he is not a really great DM. This is one of the things I'm really hoping for in 5e. It forces the DM to think and decide things about his campaign. Instead of just blindly following RAW without any thought of the impact on his group or even what would make his group most happy. Forcing options forces thinking and that is very good.
I realize being a great DM is really hard. But for every great DM we can produce or help develop, we are growing the game far more than any marketing campaign will every grow the game. A great DM will introduce players to the game that will be energized and excited about what they just played. They will want to go on and do their own campaigns. Thats a good thing.
I guess the issue here is focus. I agree that DMs and players should cooperate as much as they can. The debate then is - should DM empowerment be encouraged? I have to answer emphatically yes! One of the issues for me in the modern editions 3e,4
Rule 0 is problematic to begin with. Why should the GM be able to alter the rules and the other players cannot? Should not a rules system be based on the assumption that the rules do not need to be changed? In the real world, a system which allows certain people to change the rules if they see fit, while the rest has to abide by the rules as written, can usually be found in dictatorships. And the people who rule in systems like this are called dictators.
From a game perspective, I think that there is a big chance for 5E in this regard: If I can "homebrew" a campaign by the choice of designed rules modules and do not have to invent houserules for some things that the group needs to make the campaign work, than I can save a lot of time and can rely on thoroughly playtested mechanics rather than having to use guesswork. And a group can easily decide on which modules they will use.
But I think that the use of Rule 0 without any explanation is rather childish. "You cannot do that?", "Why not? It says so in this book.", "Because I have the right to Rule 0". This is not convincing. Adults do not play like that. And it sure is not a good way to GM. And that's why that does not work and why something like this does rarely happen at gaming tables these days IMO.
In order to make a group work, a GM has to explain the rulings in a convincing way. At least a little bit. And yes, an explanation can be: "Trust me, you will understand later." And even that only works if there is trust.
Back in the 80s I was playing a cleric in a Dragonlance campaign. The GM decided to choose the spells for my character one day. That worked back then, because we were teenagers and played under the assumption that GMs actually could tear character sheets apart as an educational measure. Which of course is nonsense. We just did not know any better. Nowadays, I would expect the GM to give an explanation. And if that is not convincing, then he/she will not choose my character's spells. Because if I walk out, I will take my character with me and that character will be removed.
And I am sure the attitude of "it's my way or the highway" is as dead as a doornail these days. If people will walk out on you, where is your power? You have none!
This has no influence, by the way, on the fact that a GM can decide to create a world in which dwarfs are non-existent etc. But again, in reality there always is a group decision about that. If a GM proposes to not use certain feats, there will be some explanation neccessary if a player wants to take that feat and cannot. I have yet to meet a halfway sane adult who will be satisfied with "Because I said so". And that is why every halfway decent GM will explain his or her reasons. In the end, GMs who do not give explanations will stop being GMs. Because nobody will play with them. And so it becomes a decision everybody at the table makes together. There is no power for the GM otherwise.
I like the fact that 4E gives players more control. The concept of a magic item "wish list", the narrative control through the use of powers made a very positive difference IMO. I am certain that this is one of the major reasons why some people do not like 4E that much. But as a GM, it gives me more room to work on the stuff that matters to me: the story, how to present a scene, how to involve players, monster concepts etc. I do not have to worry about what PCs can or cannot do too much. Because 4E is very well designed. And - coming back to the heart of this thread - I have a very good feeling that WotC will come up with a very well designed 5E in this regard. I have a good feeling about this after seeing the video.
Interesting thread.Rule 0 is problematic to begin with. Why should the GM be able to alter the rules and the other players cannot? Should not a rules system be based on the assumption that the rules do not need to be changed? In the real world, a sys
Rule 0 is problematic to begin with. Why should the GM be able to alter the rules and the other players cannot? Should not a rules system be based on the assumption that the rules do not need to be changed?
Every single situation cannot be accounted for in a role-playing game such as D&D. It's impossible. Rule 0 must exist to take into account those situations. The rules system tries to take into account the most commonly occurring situations, but cannot take into account all.
In the real world, a system which allows certain people to change the rules if they see fit, while the rest has to abide by the rules as written, can usually be found in dictatorships. And the people who rule in systems like this are called dictators.
I'd like to introduce you to a little thing called "perspective." D&D is a game, not a third-world country. It is a game where one person knows all the secrets of the game and the rest are trying to uncover those secrets. A game where one person is intended to be the fair and impartial judge of the game while also controlling the adversaries of the players.
If you don't have a mature group of people sitting at the table, you are going to run into problems regardless of whether Rule 0 exists or not. I guarantee it. But the "dictatorship" parallel is just silly. You are describing things that are not issues with the rules, but instead issues that center around irresponsible, immature people.
Every single situation cannot be accounted for in a role-playing game such as D&D. It's impossible. Rule 0 must exist to take into account those situations. The rules system tries to take into account the most commonly occurring situations, but ca
I'd like to introduce you to a little thing called "perspective."
Are you trying to be condescending? I do not think this is neccessary.
D&D is a game, not a third-world country. It is a game where one person knows all the secrets of the game and the rest are trying to uncover those secrets. A game where one person is intended to be the fair and impartial judge of the game while also controlling the adversaries of the players.
In a lot of games, the GM is not the only one who knows all the secrets of the game. Here is why:
I know a lot of players who know the rules just as well as I do. And often they know more about their characters than I do. In combat, just to give a small example, I do not know how many hit points the PCs have at any certain time. It just is not relevant for me. For them, it most certainly is.
Now, this is the rules aspect of "the game". When it comes to story, players can also know as much as I do, sometimes more. Example: we started out playing 4E when themes were not yet designed. But we like themes (now that they are available) so we decided that the players can pick them at a later level. One of the players chose the Wilder theme (I am not sure if it is called that) and told me he wanted to introduce his new abilities as a surprise to the table, to which I agreed. And this Wednesday, we roleplayed it, I had to wing it a little bit and it was great! But at that moment, storywise, the player knew more about the story than I did. Because, just as the rest at the table, I did not know what was coming storywise.
Also, I would expect all the players in a group to be fair to the other players, just as it is expected from the GM. I do not think that there is so much difference there between player and GM.
If you don't have a mature group of people sitting at the table, you are going to run into problems regardless of whether Rule 0 exists or not. I guarantee it. But the "dictatorship" parallel is just silly. You are describing things that are not issues with the rules, but instead issues that center around irresponsible, immature people.
My post was all about maturity. So I do not think we are so far apart there.
The difference between a, to use real world terms, "dictatorship" version of Rule 0 and a "state under the rule of law" version of Rule 0 is that in states under the rule of law, governments need to explain their actions. Otherwise independent courts will repeal the law. And since I was getting the feeling from other posts in this thread that the GM is considered at least a form of government ("a god" being a bit above that, I guess) over the players, he/she needs to explain decisions if a GM does not want to be considered a "dictator". Which is a strong term, I agree. At a gaming table, players might rather call the GM "full of crap". Which, in a gaming environment, amounts to the same thing.
Again, so I am being understood correctly, I do not think that this really is problem. Halfway decent GMs will explain what they are doing. Because it is the mature thing to do. As some other posters have said, this discussion can easily be held in a vacuum.
Are you trying to be condescending? I do not think this is neccessary.In a lot of games, the GM is not the only one who knows all the secrets of the game. Here is why:I know a lot of players who know the rules just as well as I do. And often they kno
What I fear with your whole argument BadWolf, is that you are minimizing the importance of the DM role, when this is a BIG deal to this game. Yes, the DM is a really, REALLY BIG deal to D&D, enough to put him in a position that is really far away from the players (the fact that there is PHB and a DMG is a good example of that).
So are all those other games that release a single book trying to send us a message about the relative importance of the DM? Or are they just trying to get into the RPG market with a single book, so customers can make a smaller initial investment? Does D&D sell separate player and DM books for each edition to send a message, or just to sell more books? Could D&D switch to the same format as many other single-book games (even PF, based largely on 3.5, has one book... is Paizo telling us something?) without people waxing nostalgic and somehow invoking Hasbro as the culprit?
DMs and players don't need access to the same information and advice, and that has more to do with the format of books than anything else. Even in games without a DMG, there are DM/GM/ST chapters for the sake of convenience. Personally speaking, I like that D&D is multiple books because it's more convenient. But when I'm DMing (and that's most of the time since 3E came out) I don't interpret that book in my hands as a sign of my distance from the players. For over twenty years I've been in groups that have had at least three different potential DMs sitting around the table - it's not like there's one guy with the knowledge and skills to run a campaign, while everyone else is ignorant, humble, and grateful just to be allowed a seat. We should all be there to have fun, and even if the DM is doing more work, he's still creating something and telling a story with friends, like everyone else.
So are all those other games that release a single book trying to send us a message about the relative importance of the DM? Or are they just trying to get into the RPG market with a single book, so customers can make a smaller initial investment? Do
What I fear with your whole argument BadWolf, is that you are minimizing the importance of the DM role, when this is a BIG deal to this game. Yes, the DM is a really, REALLY BIG deal to D&D, enough to put him in a position that is really far away from the players (the fact that there is PHB and a DMG is a good example of that).
D&D is a group activity but in this group activity there is one definitively important individual, the DM, most of the time he is the one who actually starts the group, and most of the group activity consists of players trying to convince the DM that their actions has an effect (or is possible) in the game world. The DM is VERY not (rarely) just a player among other players, elected to this "position", he is more like the creative force that gets the game going. You rarely have this kind of scenario:
Steve: "Let's have a game, who wants Mike to be the DM? Raise your hands." Mike: " Hey I don't want to the DM, I just want to play"
When this happens all the time:
Pete: "Hey, let's have a game, I will DM, who is up?"
Therefore it's pretty important for D&D to not consider the DM as just another player but instead as a different role that sometimes intertwine with the players and works on its --specific-- appeal (the god-modding). The DM is very close to being godlike, weither you like it or not, and it's unlikely to change.
Edit: The DM, not the The D&D lol
The DM is a player. Not just a player, because "just a player" isn't something the game should assume of any participant.
Also, note all of the RPGs out there that just have one role rulebook, not a player book and a GM book. The role of the GM isn't different in those RPGs.
In my experience, new groups form, and a DM either volunteers right off the bat, or there's one of those conversations that's really a selection process, with no formal vote.
None of that has anything to do with DM authority, though. And the only way I could possibly be minimizing the role of the DM is if you think that the DM matters while the players really don't, which would be an insane stance.
I guess the issue here is focus. I agree that DMs and players should cooperate as much as they can.
The debate then is - should DM empowerment be encouraged? I have to answer emphatically yes! One of the issues for me in the modern editions 3e,4e is the implied disempowerment of the DM. For most experienced DMs it doesn't matter because we are well established in the role of the DM. The problem is new players who've never played anything besides 3e or 4e.
I think Rule 0 should be on page 1 at the top of the players handbook.
I think DMs should be told that all rules are changeable and encouraged to try new things. If you told me that a DM had zero houserules, I'd be prejudiced against that DM right off. Now he may be fine but my initial gut reaction would be he is not a really great DM.
Rule 0 should read "These are guidelines to help you play the game. Your group may not benefit from all of these rules, and you should feel free to create new rules, change rules you don't like, or ignore them entirely." Then go on for a page or so with advice on how to determine if a houserule will break the game, advice on not arguing about rules during gameplay, but just letting the DM make a quick ruling then, and discuss the situation in more depth after the session ends, etc.
And Rule 0 should not be something that the game relies on in order to work. Why the hell should I spend money on something that only works if I do the developer's job for them? Sure, I'll houserule to tweak things to my own preference, or bridge gaps in the rules, etc, but if I have to houserule a lot because the system wasn't properly built so that it could work out of the box, screw that. There are other games.
I normally don't think you're completely crazy or anything, but that last paragraph is just silly.
Some of the best DMs I've ever played under, or seen at a table have either used no houserules, or only houseruled what was absolutely necessary to houserule in order for the game to run properly.
Yes, other great DMs have houseruled much more, but to suggest that you're probably not a great DM if you don't houserule...makes no sense.
-------------------
DnD is not always a situation where the DM knows what's going on, what the rules are, etc, and the players don't. That is far less common than it used to be, and that's a good thing. The game is well served by everyone at the table being able to grasp what the parameters are, and be able to say, "Wait, that feat I picked says I can do this, why are you now saying that it doesn't work?" If the explanation makes sense, then it's "Ok, I need to change my feat then, because Ive now got a completely useless option." Hopefully the player lets the game continue, and fixes his character after the session ends, but if the character is now broken in some important way by not having that feat, IME, it's best to take 10-15 minutes to choose a new option, or let the character use the ability until the end of the session, when they change feats (or whatever the option is).
The players shouldn't be in a position where the DM is a pre-guttenberg catholic priest, and the players are sitting there trusting that the rules being quoted to them are actually the rules, not just stuff the DM is making up as he goes along.
The DM is a player. Not just a player, because "just a player" isn't something the game should assume of any participant. Also, note all of the RPGs out there that just have one role rulebook, not a player book and a GM book. The role of the GM isn't
Nah, man. Players were getting sick of Eberron, thuf Fred didn't need those Eberron books anymore.
There really needs to be a Rule -1: Play nice now, children.
Sometimes, leaving the group to play videogames is the just best answer for yourself and the table. When players and DM spend more time arguing about every-damn-thing than actually playing the damn game, it's probably not the game's fault.
Nah, man. Players were getting sick of Eberron, thuf Fred didn't need those Eberron books anymore.There really needs to be a Rule -1:Play nice now, children.Sometimes, leaving the group to play videogames is the just best answer for yourself and the
DMs and players don't need access to the same information and advice, and that has more to do with the format of books than anything else. Even in games without a DMG, there are DM/GM/ST chapters for the sake of convenience. Personally speaking, I like that D&D is multiple books because it's more convenient. But when I'm DMing (and that's most of the time since 3E came out) I don't interpret that book in my hands as a sign of my distance from the players. For over twenty years I've been in groups that have had at least three different potential DMs sitting around the table - it's not like there's one guy with the knowledge and skills to run a campaign, while everyone else is ignorant, humble, and grateful just to be allowed a seat. We should all be there to have fun, and even if the DM is doing more work, he's still creating something and telling a story with friends, like everyone else.
Well thank you for conveying the exact same idea I was trying to convey with the DMG/PHB example. Players and DM are NOT the same thing, they use/need different kind of informations. That simple.
I love how people just focused on this books part instead of actually getting what I trying to say through it.
@BadWolf I'm not trying to say the players don't matter, but the DM do matter more. In this vein, Rule 0 is not a fix, like others might have suggested it, it's a RULE, and by far the MOST important, why? Because the game world exists through the DM and no one else. The DM is the story, and it's through him and the rules he accepted to follow (0 HP = dead) that the game is possible, that sound pretty darn important to me. It is literally the essence of the roleplaying game happening. Hopefully we will agree on that.
Oh and are we really going to discuss if DM should use houserules or not? I mean really! They are just a tool to help you make your game., the only problem with them is that most of the time they are not tested, reasonable enough to actually create a good experience, but an experienced DM will know how to use houserules well (or when not to).
Simply put, this is a non-issue.
Well thank you for conveying the exact same idea I was trying to convey with the DMG/PHB example. Players and DM are NOT the same thing, they use/need different kind of informations. That simple.I love how people just focused on this books part inste
But I think that the use of Rule 0 without any explanation is rather childish. "You cannot do that?", "Why not? It says so in this book.", "Because I have the right to Rule 0". This is not convincing. Adults do not play like that. And it sure is not a good way to GM. And that's why that does not work and why something like this does rarely happen at gaming tables these days IMO.
I think this is a strawman argument. No one is advocating the DM just change things willy nilly on the fly. If a houserule is introduced it is done so up front. No there are times when judgment is required and of course the DM's judgment is final but thats not a houserule. Thats RAW.
Otherwise I think we are agreeing.
I think this is a strawman argument. No one is advocating the DM just change things willy nilly on the fly. If a houserule is introduced it is done so up front. No there are times when judgment is required and of course the DM's judgment is final
I always saw the inclusion of rule 0 as stating the obvious. I never thought it needed saying. DMs having control of this whole universe while people play characters inside it is the premise of a role playing game. A DM creates the world, everything in it, and controls the actions of everybody but the players. The game is basically the DM's game, and he's using the rules as a tool. The players are playing it. When a person wants to play D&D, they want to play the DM's game. Not to say players have no input. A good DM will take what players want to do into account. But when a person agrees to play D&D, they are giving the DM the right to shape the imaginary universe they are playing in.
I always saw the inclusion of rule 0 as stating the obvious. I never thought it needed saying. DMs having control of this whole universe while people play characters inside it is the premise of a role playing game. A DM creates the world, everythi
Beast: IME, it's not as simple as "The DM is the story". IME, the group tells the story, with the DM being the lead storyteller.
YES. At times, especially years ago, I've tried to "be the story" and I've made an effort to not do that anymore. Creating an environment that helps everyone who wants to tell a story is more interesting. Obviously stories can be discordant or poorly conceived, and sure, the DM should reign that those in or channel them in a better direction. A campaign world should be an exciting backdrop and an inspiration to the players. There should be forces at work and events in motion, and some things should be alterable. Sometimes player input should inspire background changes in the world. The idea that a DM's campaign world can't be improved upon is absurd - it's like saying an author should ignore anything an editor says except grammar advice. Taking creative input from players and letting them tell their stories are two really healthy things a DM can do. The DM certainly needs to set up the story and shape it, but that's as far as I want to go.
YES. At times, especially years ago, I've tried to "be the story" and I've made an effort to not do that anymore. Creating an environment that helps everyone who wants to tell a story is more interesting. Obviously stories can be discordant or poorly
Beast: IME, it's not as simple as "The DM is the story". IME, the group tells the story, with the DM being the lead storyteller.
YES. At times, especially years ago, I've tried to "be the story" and I've made an effort to not do that anymore. Creating an environment that helps everyone who wants to tell a story is more interesting. Obviously stories can be discordant or poorly conceived, and sure, the DM should reign that those in or channel them in a better direction. A campaign world should be an exciting backdrop and an inspiration to the players. There should be forces at work and events in motion, and some things should be alterable. Sometimes player input should inspire background changes in the world. The idea that a DM's campaign world can't be improved upon is absurd - it's like saying an author should ignore anything an editor says except grammar advice. Taking creative input from players and letting them tell their stories are two really healthy things a DM can do. The DM certainly needs to set up the story and shape it, but that's as far as I want to go.
This. DnD runs amazingly, far beyond what I've ever seen it achieve otherwise, when the entire group takes on the job of telling the story together.
YES. At times, especially years ago, I've tried to "be the story" and I've made an effort to not do that anymore. Creating an environment that helps everyone who wants to tell a story is more interesting. Obviously stories can be discordant or poorly
This. DnD runs amazingly, far beyond what I've ever seen it achieve otherwise, when the entire group takes on the job of telling the story together.
Sigh, I sometimes feel I have to poke my Players with a stick just to get them to act on their own initiative.
A game with everyone working together would be an awesom sight.
Sigh, I sometimes feel I have to poke my Players with a stick just to get them to act on their own initiative.A game with everyone working together would be an awesom sight.
Of course, that's only in a situation where one player is being a metagaming min/maxer, or creating a character that will inherently create party conflict, or trying to loophole a character that breaks with the tone of the campaign that we've all decided to play, etc.
If you ignore context, you can make pretty much anyone sound as awful as you want.
It's incredibly dishonest, but you can do it.
Aw, come on, let's not be sneaky now (nice backpeddling, by the way), you know (I hope) what I'm saying, I'm not talking about someone's Chaotic Evil Warforged Assassin/Bard who wants to hump every female member of the party and steal from everyone or what have you.
Aw, come on, let's not be sneaky now (nice backpeddling, by the way), you know (I hope) what I'm saying, I'm not talking about someone's Chaotic Evil Warforged Assassin/Bard who wants to hump every female member of the party and steal from everyone o
Aw, come on, let's not be sneaky now (nice backpeddling, by the way), you know (I hope) what I'm saying, I'm not talking about someone's Chaotic Evil Warforged Assassin/Bard who wants to hump every female member of the party and steal from everyone or what have you.
Sneaky? Backpedaling? What are you even talking about now? I didn't backpedal from anything, nor am I being sneaky in any way.
I've held to the same position, that the group as a whole wins over the player's little snowflake of a character concept, of the DM's little snowflake of a campaign concept. If the rest of the group thinks it's a crap campaign idea, you scrap it and come up with something new. If the rest of the group thinks your character is a meta gamey mess, or screws up the tone of the already agreed upon campaign, etc, you scrap it and come up with something new.
Sigh, I sometimes feel I have to poke my Players with a stick just to get them to act on their own initiative.A game with everyone working together would be an awesom sight.[/quote]I've had players like that, too. It's kind of a bummer. Sneaky? Back
Sneaky? Backpedaling? What are you even talking about now? I didn't backpedal from anything, nor am I being sneaky in any way.
I've held to the same position, that the group as a whole wins over the player's little snowflake of a character concept, of the DM's little snowflake of a campaign concept. If the rest of the group thinks it's a crap campaign idea, you scrap it and come up with something new. If the rest of the group thinks your character is a meta gamey mess, or screws up the tone of the already agreed upon campaign, etc, you scrap it and come up with something new.
@Doctor I, when I DM, create a campaign with monsters, NPCs, etc.. There are many threads throughout the campaign world. The players then pickup these threads as they please and they impact the world.
Any decision about rules or flavor/fluff is made by me for the campaign I'm running. I afford the same respect to any DM's campaign I play in. The DM puts forth a lot more work than the players. It would be slavery to me if the players dictated my majority vote to the DM.
Instead I encourage people to DM what makes them excited and energized and find players to fill that world. When you take such an approach, you'll get players.
If you guys like your approach then hey it works for you. Nothing wrong with that.
@DoctorI, when I DM, create a campaign with monsters, NPCs, etc.. There are many threads throughout the campaign world. The players then pickup these threads as they please and they impact the world. Any decision about rules or flavor/fluff is mad
the group as a whole wins over the player's little snowflake of a character concept, of the DM's little snowflake of a campaign concept. If the rest of the group thinks it's a crap campaign idea, you scrap it and come up with something new. If the rest of the group thinks your character is a meta gamey mess, or screws up the tone of the already agreed upon campaign, etc, you scrap it and come up with something new.
@Doctor I, when I DM, create a campaign with monsters, NPCs, etc.. There are many threads throughout the campaign world. The players then pickup these threads as they please and they impact the world.
Any decision about rules or flavor/fluff is made by me for the campaign I'm running. I afford the same respect to any DM's campaign I play in. The DM puts forth a lot more work than the players. It would be slavery to me if the players dictated my majority vote to the DM.
Instead I encourage people to DM what makes them excited and energized and find players to fill that world. When you take such an approach, you'll get players.
If you guys like your approach then hey it works for you. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm all for people playing in whatever way works for their group.
My group discusses what kind of game we want to play, or what published setting we want to use or if anyone has a homebrew setting/campaign idea, etc. Usually we've got a half dozen or so ideas floating around that we've discussed by the time it's time to start a new campaign. Usually, discussing these things get's melded together with everyone discussing the kinds of characters they've been wanting to play, and we end up coming to a pretty good idea of what we're going to do next within an hour or so, then whoever DMs that campaign fine tunes the campaign while everyone else fine tunes their characters.
It's not about "slavery" or the DM being outvoted or anything. We start from the basic assumption that deciding what game we're going to play is a group decision.
the group as a whole wins over the player's little snowflake of a character concept, of the DM's little snowflake of a campaign concept. If the rest of the group thinks it's a crap campaign idea, you scrap it and come up with something new. If the rest of the group thinks your character is a meta gamey mess, or screws up the tone of the already agreed upon campaign, etc, you scrap it and come up with something new.
Sneaky? Backpedaling? What are you even talking about now? I didn't backpedal from anything, nor am I being sneaky in any way.
I've held to the same position, that the group as a whole wins over the player's little snowflake of a character concept, of the DM's little snowflake of a campaign concept. If the rest of the group thinks it's a crap campaign idea, you scrap it and come up with something new. If the rest of the group thinks your character is a meta gamey mess, or screws up the tone of the already agreed upon campaign, etc, you scrap it and come up with something new.
Communist.
(I'm joking )
lol The Will of THe People Is Absolute! Other Catchy Phrases! Things!
I'm all for people playing in whatever way works for their group. My group discusses what kind of game we want to play, or what published setting we want to use or if anyone has a homebrew setting/campaign idea, etc. Usually we've got a half dozen or
I'll have to dock you points for this, you didn't include at least one "Comrade!" and also left out the obligatory "In Soviet Russia..." joke!
I'll have to dock you points for this, you didn't include at least one "Comrade!" and also left out the obligatory "In Soviet Russia..." joke! :nonono:
I'll have to dock you points for this, you didn't include at least one "Comrade!" and also left out the obligatory "In Soviet Russia..." joke!
Hey, Obama never says those things, and certain parts of the media are convinced he's a communist, so...
Also, I worked a call center during the 04 elections, and had a lady tell me she wouldn't vote for Kerry because he was a communist. She knew that because he walked onto a stage to give a speech once with his left fist clenched, which is a known signal that he's a communist. :P
Hey, Obama never says those things, and certain parts of the media are convinced he's a communist, so...Also, I worked a call center during the 04 elections, and had a lady tell me she wouldn't vote for Kerry because he was a communist. She knew that
Ah, the modern media. Echo box of the insane, richly paid demagogues and idiots...
Journalistic standards you say? Pah, those have died decades ago! :D
Ah, the modern media. Echo box of the insane, richly paid demagogues and idiots... :)Journalistic standards you say? Pah, those have died decades ago! :D
Ah, the modern media. Echo box of the insane, richly paid demagogues and idiots...
Journalistic standards you say? Pah, those have died decades ago! :D
Mostly I agree, but then I real H.L. Mencken, and it seems that it's been this way for damn near a century, at least.
I don't know if the modern era has it's Menckens to offset the buffoons, though. Perhaps amongst the comedians and satyrists.
Mostly I agree, but then I real H.L. Mencken, and it seems that it's been this way for damn near a century, at least. I don't know if the modern era has it's Menckens to offset the buffoons, though. Perhaps amongst the comedians and satyrists.
)
