If the precident is set that you can't rely on the rules to govern specific aspects of play, what exactly is the reason for adhering to them as a Player?
If players can't break the rules 'just cuz' then I feel the DM shouldn't either, at least without he Players fully knowing what he's doing and why.
precedent is overstated.
Well I spose thats a really fundamental difference (or as some psychologists call it, in iceberg) that we're not going to get past. But at the minimum I would say you need to avoid the hyperbole. The sky will not fall, contrary to popular beleif, if the DM fudges.
Can't count em exactly, but I have probably saved more players lives "cheating" than I ever took. =)
Not that any of this has to do with the thread actually. The thread was saying "hey this isn't the right DnD for me and if that's what you decide, you can join the 3.x crowd that just kept playing that.
But I find that I am (present tense) finding it unprodcutive to read the threads that say this when its a playtesting forum. This is such a rare priveledge and to doomsay it so quickly is what I objected to. How we got on this "DM cheating" thing, I don't know, but I for one really think trusting the DM is the way to go.
Actually, precedent is sometimes the only thing the player has to go by. If I, as a player, hit an AC of 15 with an attack, then the precedent has been set; I ought to be able to hit an AC of 15 on that same target with every attack. Thus, in the future, when I hit a 16, I can simplify and say, "I hit," instead of waiting on the DM to tell me whether I did so or not. It may seem a small step, but it is one nonetheless.
However, what if my 16 misses? Well, that seems off. But maybe something changed — he became bloodied, or used something which we weren't informed about which boosted his AC, or whatever. The precedent has gone out the window, and the player is put into an area of uncertainty.
So in the example which you gave, the AoOs can't be used. This is a change in precedent; this is a new area of Uncertainty. Is this something the DM did solely to save his pet BBEG? Is this something that is part of its powers that we aren't aware of? When you change the rules of the game without notice, and the players find out about it, then you're putting them into areas of uncertainty.
For that reason, the option of letting the players take their AoOs, and not actually letting them have any real effect is the best option. The players think that things are still Normal. You've changed things, but they don't know that you've changed them. And they're the better for it.
Well I spose thats a really fundamental difference (or as some psychologists call it, in iceberg) that we're not going to get past. But at the minimum I would say you need to avoid the hyperbole. The sky will not fall, contrary to popular beleif, if the DM fudges.
Can't count em exactly, but I have probably saved more players lives "cheating" than I ever took. =)
And did you tell them about it when it happened? Did you say, "Well, I rolled a natural 20, but I'll treat that as a miss this time, so that you don't get killed." Or did you just say, "They missed."
When I change things, I tend not to tell my players unless it's a Fundmental Change. If it's something that's Consistent — like my use of the Fight or Flight optional rules, or adding an Inherent Feat Bonus to attacks at 5th, 15th, and 25th — that affects the basis of the game and how they do things, then I tell them. If it's something that's In the Moment — making a Hit a Miss, or adding a point or two of damage so that they kill the last guy one round earlier, or adding some HPs so that my BBEG survives to sneer another day.... well, I tend not to tell them about those things. And remember, I am a self-avowed Rules Lawyer. I have no problem with the DM changing the rules to suit him. I just want to know when it's a fundamental change, and don't want to know when it's a minor quirk.
I do tell them that there's a reason that DMs roll behind screens. The only exception I give to that is in my PbP games, since I allow the players to doublecheck my math if they desire, and I've even been reconsidering that.
Not that any of this has to do with the thread actually. The thread was saying "hey this isn't the right DnD for me and if that's what you decide, you can join the 3.x crowd that just kept playing that.
But I find that I am (present tense) finding it unprodcutive to read the threads that say this when its a playtesting forum. This is such a rare priveledge and to doomsay it so quickly is what I objected to. How we got on this "DM cheating" thing, I don't know, but I for one really think trusting the DM is the way to go.
Actually, we got into it in the 90s-100s. In post #94, someone addressed the OP's preference for Codified rules. That led, after the response to that, to some poster in #102 - can't recall who that might have been, Jancoran - giving an example of a DM changing the rules for no reason, trying to use it to show that Rules Lawyers are Bad Bad People.... That led to the topic of DMs cheating.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
poster in #102 - can't recall who that might have been, Jancoran - giving an example of a DM changing the rules for no reason, trying to use it to show that Rules Lawyers are Bad Bad People.... That led to the topic of DMs cheating.
No that led to someone taking my example and making IT the issue instead of focusing on the point of the example, followed by people mischaracterizing the motivations behind the example and away we went.
But thats forums for you. Nary long for one subject anyways
I must admit that I am a big confused about this whole "NPC jumping away without provoking an attack" issue. The DM can't cheat when it comes to NPC design. We are allowed to give NPCs any power we want. If I want an NPC to have a "Jump without provoking" power, he will have such a power.
Now, if we are just talking about a DM who says, "Um...actually, no, you can't stop him. He just gets away. Nothing magical, no special ability, he just gets away and you can't stop him.", I would say this is a different issue. This is just an example of not being a good DM (assuming of course that your players dislike this style of DMing). After all, there are countless ways to describe this happening without clearly indicating that you (the DM) are simply going to ignore everything the PCs can do in order to have the NPC escape.
If the DM wants an NPC to escape, they will escape. Again, the DM can't cheat. There are no rules in place that says what a DM can and can't do with NPCs, which powers are legal or illegal, what items are ok and not ok, etc. Players are bound by such rules for their characters, DMs are not. So, if I (as the DM) want an NPC to escape for the plot, I would think about how to accomplish this. It would not be done on a whim. So I would ask myself: what sort of powers does this NPC have that could allow him to escape? Does he have arcane, divine, psionic, primal, shadow, or some other form of magical power? If so, the solution is simple, because magic can do anything without breaking people's view of what is happening. If not, the NPC will need some sort of specialized martial training, like acrobatics. Instead of simply saying, "He jumps past you...no opportunity attack", I would say, "He gracefully leaps past you, twisting in midair to dodge your swing".
Even if the DM doesn't describe it as magical or extraordinary, it can still lead to very cool and unexpected plot twists. Take what Diffan said above: "Except the fact that the example in question didn't even suggest the NPC/Bad-guy/Monster even made a roll. Just that he vaulted over the bench and didn't provoke any AoOs. No roll, no question, no basis for this extraordinary ability. Which to me, as a Player, gives me the impression that he's not human at all and thus, probably something far more sinister or a monster. Which then shifts my own perspective to something supernatural while the whole time, it's just an NPC with DM fiat."
I often get very cool ideas from things that my players say. In this case, the DM hadn't considered that the NPC might be "something far more sinister or a monster", but that is a very cool idea.
It comes down to Player attitude. Given the above situation, the player might express his thoughts in one of the following ways (not intended to be all inclusive): 1) "Wow, how did he do that? I wonder if there is more to the Duke than meets the eye. I wonder if he is some sort of supernatural monster in disguise or something." 2) "Wait, he didn't provoke? How? I have [insert feat or feature]! You can't just have an NPC ignore that because you want to!"
The first one takes what the DM has described and attempts to work it into the narrative of the game. The second one simply assumes that the DM must be cheating.
I disagree. The DM should always work within the rules to present the story as it unfolds, to ignore or change the rules at will is disruptive to player immersion. It's the same as saying the DM is god (Instead of just another player, though one with a different set of in game responsibilities) and can change the laws of physics at will. If the players cant plan on their knowledge being valid, whats the point of planning or even trying. Just turn to the DM and say "May we do something, or is this your angel?"
I do understand your point that the DM can create NPCs that have abilities the players cant account for, but believe this sort of thing should be used very sparingly lest they simply stop bothering to try.
poster in #102 - can't recall who that might have been, Jancoran - giving an example of a DM changing the rules for no reason, trying to use it to show that Rules Lawyers are Bad Bad People.... That led to the topic of DMs cheating.
No that led to someone taking my example and making IT the issue instead of focusing on the point of the example, followed by people mischaracterizing the motivations behind the example and away we went.
But thats forums for you. Nary long for one subject anyways
The point of your example was that players were too focused on the hard-coded rules, grid-like approach, and strict adherence to those rules vs. letting a good story unfold and ignoring rules that might make this less likely to happen. And the problem many people find with this approach is that by taking away those rules, it underminds character's expectations and how they might react due to them. And it's worse when there's no outside reason for such a break in the rules (such as magic or special feat/class ability/monster ability) and it's just DM Fiat. My personal rule would be to allow the AoO's to occur and examine how much damage it did. If it wasn't enough to kill the bad-guy, then he continues on and the plot moves forward. If he doesn't survive (due to low HP), then perhaps I just fudge how much HP he has to make up for the damage taken. Basically, I don't like denying player actions at all, and espically when they're within the rules to do such things.
I disagree. The DM should always work within the rules to present the story as it unfolds, to ignore or change the rules at will is disruptive to player immersion. It's the same as saying the DM is god (Instead of just another player, though one with a different set of in game responsibilities) and can change the laws of physics at will. If the players cant plan on their knowledge being valid, whats the point of planning or even trying. Just turn to the DM and say "May we do something, or is this your angel?"
I do understand your point that the DM can create NPCs that have abilities the players cant account for, but believe this sort of thing should be used very sparingly lest they simply stop bothering to try.
Usually one of the big D&D rules is that for the DM there are really no rules. Anytime a rule is going to get in the way of the narrative or make it less cool it should be ignored, changed, dealt with. The DM is supposed to challenge the players by putting them into complex and foreign situations, it's not that challenging if the players know exactly how everything works.
I love 4e but one of the biggest problems I see is that people try to solve their problems with a d20 roll instead of using their brain. And when it comes to things not governed by a d20 the DM is going to improvise.
Usually one of the big D&D rules is that for the DM there are really no rules. Anytime a rule is going to get in the way of the narrative or make it less cool it should be ignored, changed, dealt with. The DM is supposed to challenge the players by putting them into complex and foreign situations, it's not that challenging if the players know exactly how everything works.
Physicists know exactly how most everything works, and yet they have no problem with finding themselves in complex and foreign situations, trying to find out how to apply what they know to the situation, or trying to figure out why what they know isnt working.
Knowing the Laws of a given Society doesn't make living life in it any easier, either. You have to deal with the rules breakers and the rules makers, too
Knowing the "laws of physics" or "laws of society" of the D&D world is no less an impediment. If it is, then I don't believe that it's necessarily the fault of the system, but perhaps instead a weakness of the DM.
Having concrete things which are Known, in fact, should help the DM, by saving the trouble of having to explain every single time what's likely to happen. If you ignore this Foundation, if the players can't trust the DM to use the same rules every time, then the DM has to waste much time explaining what's likely or not likely to happen.
Again, this is where the "DM Screen" separation works best. Unless you want the players to know when you've changed the rules, then don't tell them. Let them make the Attack, but it missed, or didn't do enough damage to kill it. If something doesn't seem right to them — fine, that's great; its far more organic that way, to say, "I thought I hit that guy, and it should have died, but it didn't.... Hmmm, why is that?" than "I should have been allowed to try to hit that guy, but the DM decided to not let me for some reason. Hmm, why is that?" The answer to the first question is less likely to be, "The DM's a Royal Prat."
I love 4e but one of the biggest problems I see is that people try to solve their problems with a d20 roll instead of using their brain. And when it comes to things not governed by a d20 the DM is going to improvise.
I'm curious as to your basis of this statement. Would you care to give an example of each — one of a player using the d20, and one of the player using their brain? Though my belief is that they could both be done in the same system, and its just a difference of approach from the DM/Player perspective. I contend that such a thing is not necessarily a fault of the system, but simply how the player is; I remember playing with one particular person in a past edition who handled things by casting Fireball first chance he got (or using his Wand of Wonder if he couldn't) with his wild mage, or when playing his Kender taunting anyone and everyone conceivable.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
As per the rogue getting a sandwich. He should have been thinking of a way to break the stalemate. IF you have two sides just shooting arrows, you have a battle of attrition going on. You might kill the goblins but you will take damage as well. The tools are already there, just need to try and use them.
Right, he could've attacked with his sling too. And it might have had a bit of difference. What I mean by stalemate was that the Cleric of Moradin and the Kobold Chieftan were in the doorway. Neither could let their troops in to help the battle. Sure, with some heavy doeses of improvisation, things might have been different, but that's just not something my group likes doing. And that's really the crux of the matter, they're not fans of making up stuff on the fly. Some people love this, allowing them the free-form to do practially whatever they can imagine and by asking the DM if it's possible, they do it. Others like a more subset of skills, rules, and mechanics that helps further their inspirations. Both are fine ways of playing, yet neither really have a place at the other's table.
Why I don't personally like Improv style games is that it's just too reliant on DM moods. That and the rules can change based on each individual's perception of the situation. Lets take something simple for an example; Bull Rushing a Kobold off a cliff.
DM 1 to Player: "I see your Strength score is twice that of the Kobolds. You can Bull Rush him off the cliff with no roll" = Auto-success.
DM 2 to Player: "Move into the monsters square and make a Strength vs. Strength Contest. If you win, you push him 5-ft." = Simple mechanic involving the same score.
DM 3 to Player: "Move into the monsters square but if you Charge (ie. move 10 feet), you gain Advantage with your Roll. Make a Strength vs. either the Kobolds' Strength or Dexterity score (which ever's higher). If you win, you push him. If you loose, you remain in the spot adjacent to the Kobold. A win of 5 or more pushes the Kobold an additional 5-ft. If you win by 10 or more, you knock him prone. If you fail by 5 or more, you fall prone. If you fail by 10 or more, you miss and go over the ledge". = Difficlut yet precise mechanics
DM 4 to Player: "Move and attack the Kobold. If you hit, make a Strength vs. Strength Contest with Advantage. If you succeed, he is knocked off the ledge." = varied mechanics based on attack.
DM 5 to Player: "Move and attack the Kobold. If you hit, he makes a Strength saving throw DC = 5 + damage done or is knocked off." = Uses a Saving Throw mechanic.
This is just ONE situation that can have huge degrees of complexity and variables. And I'd say that these are all within the options presented in DDN. Perhaps you like one but HATE the others. Or maybe you hate all of them. It doesn't matter because what the DM rules is absolute. There is no basis except "Use your imagination, hope to have a understanding and clear-headed DM, and make sure it meets very simple parameters". I just don't like this free-form style of gaming.
This is the part that has me worried, all 5 of those are given as perfectly valid ways to inturpret the same rule. So if you happen to play in more then one gaming group, there is a good chance that you'll have to remember multiple sets of rules based on what the DM feels is like using. It could feel like playing completely different games instead of playing D&D with different people.
This is the part that has me worried, all 5 of those are given as perfectly valid ways to inturpret the same rule. So if you happen to play in more then one gaming group, there is a good chance that you'll have to remember multiple sets of rules based on what the DM feels is like using. It could feel like playing completely different games instead of playing D&D with different people.
You're right. And there's something more. Imagine I want to make my character the King of Bullrushing and focus on that. I may choose feats/themes than enhance one of these resolution methods. If suddendly another DM or the same DM on a different day changes the mechanic, then I'm losing something I put resources in with no reason and no payback.
I have no problem with the DM changing the rules to suit him. I just want to know when it's a fundamental change, and don't want to know when it's a minor quirk.
- giving an example of a DM changing the rules for no reason, trying to use it to show that Rules Lawyers are Bad Bad People.... That led to the topic of DMs cheating.
