|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 5:21AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Class and Option based DM May I is acceptable as it affects the DM's setting and MORE importantly their workload.
The original belief of fixing casting type to class didn't work because if the DM actually WANTED to like their player to play a spell point wizard, they had to write a slot to point variant or hope the player is okay refluffing the sorcerer as a wizard.
Only the most experienced and time having DMs should be trusted to make such a variant for but the DM's and players sake. Refluffing out the bloodline of the sorcerer and adding more learned arcana or divine worship might be doable to lazier, swamped, or inexperienced DMs.
But with casting variants at launch, most of these issues are solved.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 5:24AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
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.
Yeah, exactly! My previous experiences with dms have been with them wanting to work with the players to create a mutually entertaining story, not this hyper competitive "dm on a throne" that so many people complain about.
Ah, "DM May I?" the catch phrase of the self-entitled, never had the guts to DM, player.
Succinctly put.
So because people couldn't renamed their Sorcerer a Wizard, so designers said to hell with vancian Wizard in core?
Sounds like designers are making mistakes again.
lolwut. Which article did you read? Vancian is core, but other magic systems will be presented as options under DM jurisdiction.
'That's just, like, your opinion, man.'
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 5:28AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I mean, DMs have been coming up with alternative spellcasting systems as long as pen and paper RPGs have been around. I think it's cool that he's facilitating that but I find it odd that he basically says "the DM will pick how people access the spell list" and somehow that's different from what was true before.
OK maybe there is a bit of draw back ... I had the impression he did imply having it set up to make flexibility in that DMs decision easy, perhaps it can be recommended right?
I have a standing measure for me which says DM define how game world normally operates mention some corner cases, then be flexible so when the player likes the corner cases or comes up with something new you have some room to accomidate.
I want systems well play tested and so I hope the unnearthed arcana effect of swappable elements doesnt create problems in 5e.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 5:31AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
Ah, "DM May I?" the catch phrase of the self-entitled, never had the guts to DM, player.
My, how entirely wrong you are.
When I DM, I'd far prefer to work out with players, and basically give them free reign to design characters. Ideally, I'd give them free reign to build the world, as well, but that doesn't really work with LFR's structure, and I simply don't have time to run a home game.
This is a co-operative storytelling experience, not DM-vs-players.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 5:33AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
Players get to make decisions that effect their character...DMs get to make decisions that effect their campaign/setting. In both instances best practices are to actually share those decisions with the whole group. However that is rarely how it plays out. Someone said the DMs character is the world, and this couldn't be more true. Decisions that effect the feel, and mechanics of the whole world are the DMs to make. Period. If a player absolutely cannot abide by those decisions there are some options. 1. Discuss changes or exceptions with the DM and/or the whole group. 2. DM your own campaign where you get to make decisions like these. 3. Find a DM and/or group that more suits your own play-style/sensibilities.
one of the examples where casting effected the campaign was darksun.
you had to play a defiler or a preserver, a player coulden't just say well i don't like either of those so i'll just play a basic wizard whose spells don't have to obay the rules of preserving or defiling.
the campaign setting dictated you had to cose between those 2 options.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 5:40AM
#56
|
|
|
This is a co-operative storytelling experience, not DM-vs-players.
Which is exactly what I was pointing out. "DM May I" is a catch phrase that childish Players tend to use when they don't get their way. In my campaign, instead of laying it all out for the players to decide and giving up the single most fun ascpect of the game for me (world building), I try to give what I get. If players don't accept my input on their characters, I don't accept their input on my world. It's that simple.
Now, on rare occasions I have an idea for a campaign world that necessarily excludes a component of the game. For instance, a world where there are no elves. Never were, never will be. Do I alter the entire campaign and setting idea because the player who always plays elves can't open their mind to playing another race? Hell no!
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 5:42AM
#57
|
|
|
one of the examples where casting effected the campaign was darksun.
you had to play a defiler or a preserver, a player coulden't just say well i don't like either of those so i'll just play a basic wizard whose spells don't have to obay the rules of preserving or defiling.
the campaign setting dictated you had to cose between those 2 options.
Or a cleric.
Player: I wan't to play a cleric of Pelor.
DM: This is Dark Sun, there are no gods.
Player: You're being unfair!! Waaaah!
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 5:46AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I mean, DMs have been coming up with alternative spellcasting systems as long as pen and paper RPGs have been around. I think it's cool that he's facilitating that but I find it odd that he basically says "the DM will pick how people access the spell list" and somehow that's different from what was true before.
OK maybe there is a bit of draw back ... I had the impression he did imply having it set up to make flexibility in that DMs decision easy, perhaps it can be recommended right?
I have a standing measure for me which says DM define how game world normally operates mention some corner cases, then be flexible so when the player likes the corner cases or comes up with something new you have some room to accomidate.
I want systems well play tested and so I hope the unnearthed arcana effect of swappable elements doesnt create problems in 5e.
Yeah I think they's going to try to give us some short cuts so we can pick systems we want in the campaign world, I just think it's funny that this is somehow a new idea.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 5:47AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
Ah, "DM May I?" the catch phrase of the self-entitled, never had the guts to DM, player.
My, how entirely wrong you are.
When I DM, I'd far prefer to work out with players, and basically give them free reign to design characters. Ideally, I'd give them free reign to build the world, as well, but that doesn't really work with LFR's structure, and I simply don't have time to run a home game.
This is a co-operative storytelling experience, not DM-vs-players.
That's exactly what he meant. Players shouldn't have to come to the DM on bended knee and beg for permission to play the character they want, it should be a cooperative effort.
'That's just, like, your opinion, man.'
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 01, 2012 - 5:49AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
This is a co-operative storytelling experience, not DM-vs-players.
Which is exactly what I was pointing out. "DM May I" is a catch phrase that childish Players tend to use when they don't get their way. In my campaign, instead of laying it all out for the players to decide and giving up the single most fun ascpect of the game for me (world building), I try to give what I get. If players don't accept my input on their characters, I don't accept their input on my world. It's that simple.
Now, on rare occasions I have an idea for a campaign world that necessarily excludes a component of the game. For instance, a world where there are no elves. Never were, never will be. Do I alter the entire campaign and setting idea because the player who always plays elves can't open their mind to playing another race? Hell no!
Yes. Or, alternatively, you suggest that they play something like an elf, if they like the flavour of elves, or they play a human (or whatever) with elf mechanics if they like the mechanics.
If you're ruling your world that hard, I don't want to play with it.
But then, if I were running a home game, I'd do my best to run a session 0 wuith the players in which we agreed as a group what setting, what characters, what races, etc etc etc we would be using, then I'd go away and plan the game around that. I wouldn't sit down and say 'we're playing my world with no elves, you can't play an elf nooooooo!!' and stick my fingers in my ears. It's divisive, and a terrible attitude, particularly if you already know, as you seem to imply there, that this player likes elves. If one of my players likes elves, I'll find a way to include them along with the rest of the group. If one of them luikes Clerics, we probably won't play DS, or if we do, we'll take the avauilable option of just including them anyway.
Flexibility and co-operation should be the watchwords, not DM rule e: OR absolute unbreakable player autonomy. The game should be a co-operation between all the players, whatver side of the screen they sit on.
|
|
|
