|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 12:18AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2007
|
I wonder if they have though out how the different magic systems are going to be presented in the books. I mean sure it's nice to say that the DM is the person doing the work and he/she is the one making the decision, but another thing entirely if those systems are presented to the players in the player's hand book in such a way as to cause conflict at the table.
I really hate it when new players who have played in other groups come into my game and immediately want to turn my game into the one they lust left or are still playing in.
The group I have now is small and we are open to new players but I need people who don't have a lot of baggage or expectations. I really hate wasting the little time my players have on new guys who really don't want to play in my system or have expectations that my game is going to be like their old ones. It happens but not as often as something like this has the potential to cause.
It looks like we'll need a syllabus to hand out to new players explaining how our games are set up as well as an outline of our specific game worlds. I'm thinking modularity is going to come with a price.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 12:24AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
When it comes to listening to customers he is incredibly thick. When he gets what they want he still be's thick about it. This way what happens is more work is dumped on DM and still leaves players mostly in the dark about choice. For something that is so important to the class andd the way it is played cannot the ball be put in the players court and allow them to choose their casting method. I think too much of his personal preferances are poisoning choices.
At the risk of sounding kinda negative, no. Actually under no circumstances should the players be free to pick anything about what mechanics they use apart from the most basic question of "do I play or not." Specific mechanics and changes to the rules has always been the remit of the DM, and it's basically what they get for having to do all the work of world building and managing most of the nuts and bolts of the game. Basically it's one of the big reasons why people DM. The players should be free to pick a character concept and work with the DM to get what they want, but the player should never actually dictate to the DM what they will do. Obviously, there are ways a DM can totally screw the pooch with this and the better ones are pretty conscientious about what their players want and do their best to let them have it within the setting, but the final word must be theirs. I suspect that having a wizard with umpteen casting methods will lead to a lot of folks giving each of them labels and treating them like classes.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 12:50AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
So long as none of the various magic drop-in subsystems are obviously "the best", it really shouldn't matter which one any given player decides to go with.
Quite frankly, a DM who says "if you want points you have to be a sorcerer because wizards use spell-slots" is a DM to be avoided. It's just going to get worse from there.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 12:57AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
This would be lovely, if it were up to the player to pick his favoured system. We're back to DM-may-I, again. This way is almost worse than the other - not only does it result in the writers having to write (balanced, though this seems a side consideration at best) mechanics for all 3 (or however many) systems for ALL the caster classes, it also results in the PLAYER who likes, say, spell point-based casting, having to beg for it from the DM. Putting the onus onto DMs like this to make all the decisions is something I don't like, probably because I'm coming from the very player-oriented Living Forgotten Realms mostly, in which this sort of thing simply wouldn't work.
It's like C_C says - this isn't game design. This is avoiding the difficult design decisions by passing them on to the DMs instead. And it's really distasteful, because what are we supposed to pay for, if not the designers making the difficult design decisions? It's a cop-out, and they should be able to do better.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 1:08AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
When it comes to listening to customers he is incredibly thick. When he gets what they want he still be's thick about it. This way what happens is more work is dumped on DM and still leaves players mostly in the dark about choice. For something that is so important to the class andd the way it is played cannot the ball be put in the players court and allow them to choose their casting method. I think too much of his personal preferances are poisoning choices.
There's a difference between listening to customers and listening to a bunch of loud people on an internet forum. They have the opinions of every playtester who filled out the survey. Just because you aren't happy about something, doesn't mean the majority won't be happy about the same thing.
Quite frankly, a DM who says "if you want points you have to be a sorcerer because wizards use spell-slots" is a DM to be avoided. It's just going to get worse from there.
I will happily let you avoid me as a DM because I don't want any self-entitled players at my table.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 1:14AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2008
|
I seriously dont get this dm may I childishness. Sometimes I really feel like Im playing a different game here.
At what exact moment did dm become an enemy of his players? A bad person that wanna steal your fun, make you play things you hate and then laugh at your expense?
It is mind boggling, not to mention disturbing for me personally as a dm to hear players say such things about their games.
Just my 2 cps.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 1:32AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
I am good with that. I also prefer Magic Systems to be modules for alternate spellcasting method than ingrained in class design itself and have Frankenstein 
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 1:36AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
It's really very simple: if I take the trouble to build a campaign world, write a story, devise encounters and NPCs and then run all the mechanics involved, then I get the right to say "no, not in my game." I would respect anyone's right to do that. It might have an impact on what characters I play and at its most extreme it'd influence whether I play with that DM or not, but usually I'll play and work with what I'm given. It's not about entitlement, it's about creating a game world that's fun to run. The game world is, in essence, the DM's character and if they don't want to take the sorcerer feat in favour of the shamanism feat then that's their prerogative. Players that demand the DM adhere to some system because they want to is every bit as childish as a DM that demands a player adhere to a system, but someone's gotta call the shots and keep the game going which means the final decision has to fall in the lap of the DM. This is an old argument though. I know how my table will function on this score and if I join someone else's I'll respect how they run their table 'cause that's the right thing to do.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 1:43AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I wonder if they have though out how the different magic systems are going to be presented in the books. I mean sure it's nice to say that the DM is the person doing the work and he/she is the one making the decision, but another thing entirely if those systems are presented to the players in the player's hand book in such a way as to cause conflict at the table.
I really hate it when new players who have played in other groups come into my game and immediately want to turn my game into the one they lust left or are still playing in.
The group I have now is small and we are open to new players but I need people who don't have a lot of baggage or expectations. I really hate wasting the little time my players have on new guys who really don't want to play in my system or have expectations that my game is going to be like their old ones. It happens but not as often as something like this has the potential to cause.
It looks like we'll need a syllabus to hand out to new players explaining how our games are set up as well as an outline of our specific game worlds. I'm thinking modularity is going to come with a price.
Yeah, that's my fear too.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 1:56AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Feb 27, 2010
|
A Self entitled tyrant is no better than a self entitled player, both sides of the table should have choices. It is after all a group activitity. The type of GM who has it in his head that the only choice a player should have is to play or not is one of the greatest arguments against DM may I mechanics. I see no issue with casting mechanics being in a module, just not soley in the DM perview.
|
|
|
