The Gamemaster IS the rules.
If someone wants to run the game like Judge Dredd, that doesn't entitle them to a group of players. It's nothing but a social thing.
Of course the other side of that coin is the DM who is too much of an idiot to realize that he doesn't actually know the rules.
DM fiat should not be used as a replacement for actual game knowledge. The absolute worse DMs at doing that (using fiat for game knowledge) is the ones that DMed in other editions. Instead of taking the time to actually use the rules of the edition they are suppose to be DMing, they just try to make stuff up (often it doesn't even match the old edition either) and then wonders why everyone looks at them strange as if they are talking in tongues. I agree don't waste valuable game time looking through several books for a single rule, but if someone knows it and/or finds it fast, go ahead and use it. IMO of course.You're adorable. Not everybody can memorize the book.
I admit when I'm wrong. I don't gloat when I'm not. In these instances, even when I'm wrong, if I ask for the game to move on, it needs to move on. Period. If people are going to get bent out of shape about that, we don't have to continue at all. My players are smart enough to know when I'm not in the mood for nitpicky b%&##@%*.
Sorry if my post came off as an attack on you, it wasn't. My personal view is that I would rather do things right than do them wrong. You are right, nobody can have all the rules memorized 100% of the time. Which is why if someone else pulls the correct rule out for me, I am all for it. I understand I can't be right all the time, but I try to make the effort to be right and dislike handwaving the rules when I am not sure. Do I do some handwaving, sure, you have to keep things moving, but if one the players wants to look it up while waiting for their turn, I'm all for that.
When I'm a player, if the DM makes a call that sounds "wrong" to me, I will often pull the book out and look at it while waiting for my turn. Not to tell the DM they are wrong, but because I want to know if I was remembering it wrong. Sometimes the DM is totally right and I think, "Wow, I hadn't realized that before." And sometimes the rules are different and I have to think, "Is that call a better rule than the RAW, or should I make sure when I DM I don't make the same mistake." After the game I might mention it to the DM if the rule was "incorrect" and point out the RAW, but I don't make a point of putting the DM on the spot if I'm playing. Unless they specificly ask me, of course. In that case I usually say, "Well the rules say this, but we can play it differently if you want."
I would like to offer that the best use of DM fiat would include the players not even knowing it happened, OR the players knowing and completely agreeing.
Case 1:
NPC is supposed to do "X" by the 'adventure' but DM decides that doing "Y" would be a better choice for his campaign and players.
Case 2:
DM realizes that the players need a way through to do something on the other side of a cliff that they technically can't make the check to get past. He decides that they can spend a full round getting past it but they are flat footed while doing so even though they technically can't by the rules.
Perhaps this was a reaction from years of a vocal minority of crappy DMs ruining the reputation of the job for the general mainstream?
What took you so long to get here? I thought you must be in a hospital or something for you to miss this thread for this long.
My buddy Pax may be the only person who can word GM Fiat (capitalized) so strongly that I can find myself objecting to it. :P
I wish we could keep disagreement civil.
I think the important thing to remember, that's been brought up a couple of times is that everyone is there to have fun. If something (or someone) in the group is making the game not fun, then that thing probably needs to be removed.
It's a give and take. The DM takes pleasure from providing a stimulating campaign world for their friends. The players must respect the DM. I'm not saying that the players must swear fealty as if to a ruler, but they should acknowledge that this person who has spent hours on each adventure and months on each campaign is the game's referee. They deserve at least that much.
The players give the DM's campaign world life... without them there would be no one to care what happened there. A DM must respect his players' needs. They show up every weekend to explore the world that the DM has wrought and they expect be able to explore their characters as well and tell their own story. Their decisions must be their own and a DM should build their campaign to facilitate this.
For example, in my last campagin, the entire thing was site-based and partial sandbox. When I drew up the campaign, I created all the major players, all the groups and societies, and the locales. I asked for the following: that only PCs who have important ties to the city be created and that if a PC decides to leave the city permanently, that a new character be rolled. When this had been established, the players were free to generate whatever character they saw fit.
One played a playboy who became a revolutionary and, at the end of the campaign, the Mayor of the city. Another PC, throughout the course of the campaign, created a militant group demanding personal freedom and personal responsibility which, in the new campaign, has expanded to form a new nation. These are but two examples. They may have been limited in a certain way, but within those limitations, their view was still very long.
When I write a new campaign, I write a timeline which represents what will happen if the PCs did not exist. I separate the adventures into cycles, between five and six of them. After each cycle, I do a major update of the timeline based on the players' successes, failures, and neutral actions. Sometimes they surprise the hell out of me, and sometimes I surprise them. It's a good relationship.
Of course, this means that at the later levels, after 5 or so, I need to find out what the PCs are going to do after the game (either right after or by email) so that I can prepare for the next one. Again, we agree that this is the action that'll be taken so that I'm not too terribly caught off guard and they have a quality adventure to play in. This is a good arrangement that has developed over the course of over a decade of play and it works well for us.
I prefer to play in groups that are fun. Sometimes that means that the GM has a very strict view of what's allowed and what houserules he uses, and sometimes that means the game runs as RAW as they can.
In the end, the biggest problems I've seen with GM fiat haven't come from having to make a ruling on the fly so that people don't have to slow the game down to run the game, or even from GM's that restrict magic items or PrCs or spells. The biggest problem is a GM deciding on the fly what he doesn't like and immediately either retcons his own campaign or over corrects immediately after one encounter goes bad.
I was in a game with a GM that wanted to run a very railroady scenario, but the way he explained it, we kind of knew it was railroady. He gave us "roles" in the story, and we had limited options based on the roles. That didn't bother me too much.
He was "converting" old 1st edition adventures on the fly and stringing them together for the campaign, but we were playing a 3.5 game. That's what we had been told.
By the time we were 7th level, we ran into an Iron Golem, and I had a +1 cold adamantine greatsword. I was thrilled that I would have a shot at injuring the thing, but then the GM told us that he didn't feel like using 3.5 rules for DR, so I couldn't get past its DR.
We also ran into a scenario where we had no weapons, which was bad for a fighter like my character. When we ran across a couple of big rocks, or some bones, I asked if I could improvise a weapon so I could at least injure some bad guys. He said no, because there was a specific thing that the adventure was calling for in order to improvise weapons.
On another night, he decided, on the fly, that fireballs automatically destroyed any loot, so as to dissuade actually using fireball. So fireballs could destroy anything, but only if it was loot.
That's the kind of GM fiat that causes problems. Knowing something up front you can always discuss if you think it will work, voice any objections, and maybe not jump into the campaign if it doesn't seem to be your sort of thing. Throwing out rules on the fly or making up new houserules that contradict existing rules in the middle of a session are the things that cause me to cringe.
I played in a "Shackeled City" campaign based in Eberron years ago with a very magic hating DM, Understand this...the DM pick EBERRON to host his "Shacked City" campaign.
Me and two other guys where playing mixed classed rangers and owned a single +1 Longsword at 8th level.....
I hated the campaign and despised the DM for his choices. It matter very little how well he worked as a DM he made very poor choices and allowed his own biases dictate our choices....SUCKED!
Eric
Reading over three pages (114 posts at the the time of typing this) I saw many things (too many to quote or recall) that I agreed with and many that I did not. As a gamer with nearly 31 years experience as DM and Player I can't recall ever using the 'Because I said so' rule. I have made situational rulings on things where I couldn't remember the particular rule and neither could the players. Rather than look it up and slow play I said 'Okay here's how this works for now but it might change later' and we went on. I hate slowing play especially combat to find the proper rule.
Trust is the ultimate key to this game. Players have to trust their DM to do what he feels is necessary for everyone to have fun, DMs have to trust their players to build and play their characters in the manner that suits the campaign.
As a DM I believe in:
Fun
DM Screens
Plot Twists
Critical Fumbles
DM Fiats used wisely
Fun
I do admit to some Player chicanery. Under one DM who is known to be stingy with magic items I was forced to make do with some strange things that I have since been banned from using.
I as a Player cannot:
Buy or obtain in any manner marbles in numbers greater than 10
Buy or obtain in any manner pickles in any barrel of any size
Buy or obtain in any manner Lye soap in any amount.
Now these seem like arbitrary DM rulings but I understand why. I've killed werewolves, the Captain of the Guard and his knights and a red dragon with those things. He used his Fiat wisely. :)
I had a DM let a character of mine throw a horse at a ogre....fun.
I removed some edition wars baiting and the resulting flame war.
Mairkurion says,
DM Fiat is like Player Freedom: both are necessary for the game; both make the game suck unbearably when misused.
I have been slapped down by several posters on this server when I mention that the DM is the final word on adjudicating the rules.
I've been playing D&D since 83.
I almost always end up DMing since no one else wants to step up and DM. So after all these years of DMing (and making house rules), I have developed a strong "My game" mentality.
I want to know why there is so much anti-DM control sentimentality when it comes to this subject.
I understand people who want to play it RAW, but when a rule is interpreted multiple ways it can be a hindrance. When certain combinations of abilities/feats/spells are used it can cause the DM to lose control of the game, or cause players to not have fun, because X player is hogging the spotlight. I know as DM I can personally pick the meanest nastiest monsters to kill my players in every encounter, but I'm not there to win the game, I'm there to provide fun for me and my players.
I want to know if you have a problem with DM running the game the way he wants to run it. Also put whether you are a Full-time DM, Full-time player or you do both.
[let's keep it CIVIL please, I'm not starting this as a flame war thread but as a place to put out your opinions.]
The DM can run any kind of game at all - even including elements that are borderline absurd like letting everyone play ridiculous god-level monster classes that are each in charge of their own world - but, heh, that should not be norm. My point is that if players don't like you as a DM, or don't like your campaign or the way you run it - they can simply leave and join another group. More specifically, DM fiat is okay when it's needed. But it should be used in appropriate situations - I would stay away from a game that hardly uses the rules and is simply amusement for a DM's imagination. Everything comes down, to my mind at least, to having fun. If DMs and their players are enjoying themselves and want to come back for more - you got something. Let's get together and "roll some dice."
Now, being towards the anti-fiat side of things, I will say the one thing it is good for. Keeping things moving. If, say, I don't remember the tripping rules, I may throw out a quick, "Anyone remember how tripping works?" If no one does, I lay down a ruling for the time being and look it up after play.
Diving through books breaks the flow, yes. It's generally a bad thing. I require organization. If you plan to summon critters, you have those stat blocks ready to go in advance, and set aside to pull out on a moment's notice. Spell cards for all your spells are a must. Wanna Polymorph? Wanna Wild Shape? Have the stats for your forms ready in advance because you're not digging through Monster Manuals to do it.
However, there are one main exceptions here. That is, if it's a huge deal. As in a PC is about to go down because of it, or the BBEG's neck is on the line. Then, you break flow and go into whatever books are appropriate.
Alternately? If it's the player's moment of glory, their trump card, and they get shot down by fiat, that can completely ruin the game (or at least the session) for the player. Then it's a Big Deal and the actual rules matter (though that's the sort of thing that should have been gauged beforehand).
As for DM fiat, well, if you want to play with an AI then buy a computer game. The DM has to take a broader view of the game than just slavish devotion to the rules. Sometimes the BBEG needs to get away. Sometimes NPCs have options that the players don't.
<snip>
Players must trust the DM to be fair, impartial, and have the best interests of the campaign at heart.
Yet these are directly at odds with one another.
That you can kill the baddie at an unexpected moment rather than having Kefka go, 'Tihihi,' blow everyone up, and run away is one of the major benefits of not having an AI. To say, 'Sometimes the BBEG needs to get away,' fundamentally undercuts, 'Players must trust the DM to be fair.'
Now I can understand not liking the DM fudging rolls, but I tend to disagree. Only for story purposes though, or to keep your 10th level fighter from dying because one measley goblin got a lucky shot on you in the third room of the dungeon. Then again, I'm a storyteller, not a simulationist, though I very very VERY rarely fudge rolls anyway.
I'm big on narrative, myself, and about as far from simulationist as they come, but I'm strongly in the 'never fudge a die roll' camp. And I don't mean 'rarely fudge a die roll.' I mean never.
If there is an unacceptable outcome on a die roll, why in the world did you bother rolling it in the first place? And if there are consistently unacceptable results tendered by the system (like the orc with a greataxe critting the level one characters to death), why haven't you fixed the system to keep that from happening?
Fudging die rolls cheapens the story, because it takes away the one thing the dice are supposed to contribute to the game. That element of chance. If a lone enemy heavy mech wipes out half the players army when that's not what was 'supposed' to happen? There's a word for that. "Awesome." It's why the die are there, to allow for those bizarre and unexpected and spectacular things to emerge on their own. When the die land, something happened. Potentially something big. And if you can't accept it, you shouldn't have picked up the dice in the first place.
I'll agree with that if the group helped the DM design the world, helped the DM design the encounters, prepped the maps, made sure encounters won't be too out of whack, helped plan for 10 different contingencies and watch the players do something you've never even thought of, run combat, run every damned NPC in the game... Oh yeah, and placate the rules lawyer, the drama queen (or king), AND the guy trying to imitate Lion-O so that the other three players can have a good time, too.
Except a lot of DMs don't let the players share the burden.
There are DMs who don't let the players contribute to the world, or help plan the adventures. They make the entire world, top to bottom, when it's not remotely necessary, on their own, without input, down to the third emperor's shoes, then write down the entire story arc beginning to end without regard to the fact that there will even be PCs, and stat out every single one of the twenty town guards separately, blah de blah de blah.
Then, after doing all this unnecessary rubbish that hardly even contributes to the game that's being played, that they refuse to share, after doing ten times more than is even useful, they point to the pile of work and say it gives them the right to lord over everyone and be God. That just ain't the case. If they're choosing to hoard all the responsibilities, they don't automatically gain ownership of the game, nor do they become their friends' boss.
I DM. A lot of DMs make it out to be this big, huge deal when really, being a good DM ain't a whole lot harder than being a good player. A lot of the same techniques that go into creating a good character also go into creating a good campaign. And what's more, it's easy to share the burden. "Hey, Mac, mind running the barrel-chested barkeep for this scene?" "Hey, V, I'm gonna need a mercenary troupe. Mind statting out X, Y, and Z for me?" And if the players are bringing any sort of character at all, there's gonna be enough stuff to draw on in those backgrounds to drive the campaign as far as you please.
Forcing people to play RAW... well, why aren't you playing Warhammer?
Who said anything about forcing RAW?
<Snip>
All this raging against player narration in 3.5 of all things makes me want to learn Houses of the Blooded and Burning Wheel just for you.
Though as for the 'me' generation, I quite enjoy the underlying theme of, "No, it's not about you, the players, it's about me, the DM! Me! Me! Me!"
Me and two other guys where playing mixed classed rangers and owned a single +1 Longsword at 8th level.....
Oh, yeah, that one's always fun. The DM who wants to run a Conan campaign where you're lucky to get a masterwork club and three days' rations at level 12.
I don't mind low-magic, but ya gotta consider and account for the consequences (which generally means not going to level 8 without some serious houserules to account for it).
I as a Player cannot:
Buy or obtain in any manner marbles in numbers greater than 10
Buy or obtain in any manner pickles in any barrel of any size
Buy or obtain in any manner Lye soap in any amount.Now these seem like arbitrary DM rulings but I understand why. I've killed werewolves, the Captain of the Guard and his knights and a red dragon with those things. He used his Fiat wisely. :)
Hint: Dungeonscape has lard.
It's fun going into a dungeon crawl with an inventory that includes twenty pounds of lard, five bags of marbles, two chickens, a dog, five rubber bouncy balls, and a wand of Silent Image.
Whole heartedly agreed! Mairkurion has a way of distilling what everyone else says down to its most perfect and simple form!Mairkurion says,
DM Fiat is like Player Freedom: both are necessary for the game; both make the game suck unbearably when misused.
Short replies are a blessing these days when so many simply love to hear themselves talk. :-)
I played in a "Shackeled City" campaign based in Eberron years ago with a very magic hating DM, Understand this...the DM pick EBERRON to host his "Shacked City" campaign.
Me and two other guys where playing mixed classed rangers and owned a single +1 Longsword at 8th level.....
I hated the campaign and despised the DM for his choices. It matter very little how well he worked as a DM he made very poor choices and allowed his own biases dictate our choices....SUCKED!
Eric
The fact that a magic-hating DM chose EBERRON to run ANYTHING in seems odd to me. Doesn't everyone have decanters of endless water in their bathrooms in Eberron? ;)
The fact that a magic-hating DM chose EBERRON to run ANYTHING in seems odd to me. Doesn't everyone have decanters of endless water in their bathrooms in Eberron? ;)
I love a setting where a ninja pirate robot that shoots laser beams is a coherent character concept that can blend in seamlessly. :P
The fact that a magic-hating DM chose EBERRON to run ANYTHING in seems odd to me. Doesn't everyone have decanters of endless water in their bathrooms in Eberron? ;)I love a setting where a ninja pirate robot that shoots laser beams is a coherent character concept that can blend in seamlessly. :P
Can my ninja pirate robot ride a dinosaur? Yeah? Awesome!!
Thanks, guys. But don't worry, I can be verbose too. :P
|
All this raging against player narration in 3.5 of all things makes me want to learn Houses of the Blooded and Burning Wheel just for you.
You should, then you can tell us how great those alternate game systems are and how refs discretion is all wrong.
So, DM fiat (GM fiat) is a vital and necessary part of the game. Period. GM fiat isn't something to be discussed and highlighted, nor argued about based on p.13 rules. Character builds and player books do not, and must never trump the DM. The game master is, and always will be the final arbiter of the game. And any game that relegates this supreme and important role has lost its D&D DNA.
Win.
Reading over three pages (114 posts at the the time of typing this) I saw many things (too many to quote or recall) that I agreed with and many that I did not. As a gamer with nearly 31 years experience as DM and Player I can't recall ever using the 'Because I said so' rule. I have made situational rulings on things where I couldn't remember the particular rule and neither could the players. Rather than look it up and slow play I said 'Okay here's how this works for now but it might change later' and we went on. I hate slowing play especially combat to find the proper rule.
Trust is the ultimate key to this game. Players have to trust their DM to do what he feels is necessary for everyone to have fun, DMs have to trust their players to build and play their characters in the manner that suits the campaign.
As a DM I believe in:
Fun
DM Screens
Plot Twists
Critical Fumbles
DM Fiats used wisely
FunI do admit to some Player chicanery. Under one DM who is known to be stingy with magic items I was forced to make do with some strange things that I have since been banned from using.
I as a Player cannot:
Buy or obtain in any manner marbles in numbers greater than 10
Buy or obtain in any manner pickles in any barrel of any size
Buy or obtain in any manner Lye soap in any amount.Now these seem like arbitrary DM rulings but I understand why. I've killed werewolves, the Captain of the Guard and his knights and a red dragon with those things. He used his Fiat wisely. :)
And this is a great post on the matter.
I am oldschool, I DM/GM/referee several games, most of them oldschool, but with Pathfinder and Savage Worlds being the exceptions.Many people think that we grognards are all about DM fiat, yet this isn't so. The advantage of oldschool games is minimalism of rules, which allows the greatest amount of rules knowledge on hand at any given time. A few printed charts, tables, a handful of 3x5 cards and I am ready to run Swords & Wizardry or Labyrinth Lord. I don't alter rules or change horses midstream. What works for the NPCs works for the PCs. All houserules are presented before game play.
Taking this into more modern games, there is more preparation time, and also more detail. This actually doesn't make a game run smoother, but it does give much more depth to a game. I print out more to run Pathfinder, yet every aspect of the game is more fleshed out, most of the time these additions are relevant, sometimes not.
Regardless of edition, the person running the game and the players need to be on the same page as to which direction the game is going in. I am not a generous GM for Pathfinder a lot because the world is not always a happy, shiny place that my players are in. They know this and they expect to struggle and strive at times, but I am generous when the rewards are passed around after times of strife and struggle.
So basically we have 'DM is the law' and 'Respect the players', but no one is willing to admit these are not incompatible views?
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.The power of the government resides in the people.
Rule 0: A DM can change any rule he wants.
Rule -1: A player can ditch a game anytime they want.
Rule -2: A DM doesn't have to run a game if they don't want.
I happen to be playing DnD 3.5 or Pathfinder where there are very clear rules for the purchase of magic items.
The concept of Magic Item Shoppes should be fired directly into the Sun.
That will be all.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
All this raging against player narration in 3.5 of all things makes me want to learn Houses of the Blooded and Burning Wheel just for you.You should, then you can tell us how great those alternate game systems are and how refs discretion is all wrong.
I've played Burning Wheel! It's Awesome! Strangely enough, its potential for player narration actually makes it more dependent on GM Fiat than D&D.
I am curious though as to what precisely you mean by "Player Narration", and what about it you find so unappealing?
Followed immediately by 'you must have magic items to beat these monsters'.
Well yeah I'm also not a fan of anything that only gives one, and only one, way to accomplish a given task - whether it be 'you must have a +2 or better sword' through to 'only a burning torch will do'.
I am not against players having magic items, per se, it's just that they would generally be something the players had to manufacture (as part of a quest etc), obtained as loot/reward, or lent (in the case of a Cleric/Pally on a Quest on behalf of their Church or Knight seeking the Grail etc).
The Ye Olde Magic Shoppe makes no sense at all.
|
|
I am curious though as to what precisely you mean by "Player Narration", and what about it you find so unappealing?
More like players running the game, making campaign decisions, etc
ex - telling me what is going to happen and how its going to happen because x rule says so.I don't think players should be telling me what prc levels they are going to take when that is tied to campaign flavor - something which is generally beyond PC control. If a PC hears about some strange group/society and seeks them out due to their knowledge/abilities/goals and he is interested and pursues this in-game then great. But if he just wants a class level or feat which only makes meta sense and has no place in the campaign world then no. You can't say "gimme" because it's in a book with the wotc logo. Wotc stated that the DM was final arbiter on any rule (as in 1st and 2nd ed tradition) and then promptly ignored that. I don't think that restricting splats is a form of tyranny, there was a time when the DM decided what went into his game, not committee.
DM has final say on Prcs in his game, feats, rules, etc. This is stated in the DMG. If I feel that a DC for a given action is too low (and I feel that they are) then I tell my players and I raise them. They are challenge rating guidelines. If you make a change stay consistent. It applies to enemy NPCs also and not at the DMs convenience.
The rules are a set of guidelines to play the game, not a set of tools to be used by player or DM to "one up" each other. If a DM wants to change them he should, RAW is far from perfect. If you change something just stay fair and consistent. I think as long as fairness and fun are in mind you can't really go wrong.
As far as players narrating their own actions that isn't my style of play. The guys I game with are happy just controlling their own actions a dialog.
They don't need -
DM -So the orc rolls a 5 an he misses.
Player - Blackleif the Thief bends his back parallel to the ground dodging the blow while keeping his footing, only to raise his torso back up to face the sniveling orc who looks on in amazement, blah, blah, blah.
No, if there is a group that wants to do this that is fine. Not really a big deal and no that is not what I was opposed to. I am opposed to players running the game vs players just playing the game.
I don't think players should be telling me what prc levels they are going to take when that is tied to campaign flavor - something which is generally beyond PC control. If a PC hears about some strange group/society and seeks them out due to their knowledge/abilities/goals and he is interested and pursues this in-game then great. But if he just wants a class level or feat which only makes meta sense and has no place in the campaign world then no.
I've seen this before, and admittingly I don't get it.
Yeah, a few PrCs are connected to organizations. Most aren't, though. I mean, Eldritch Knight is literally just fighter/mage - there isn't a whole lot of fluff placed there. Or to leave the core, frenzied berserker is...well, what the name states. A berserker who's EXTRA angry. Hulking Hurler? "Be big, throw things." How about some magic ones. Lyric Thaumatage! "Your magic mixes with your singing."
Yeah, some PrCs can have big fluff and character ramifications. A Malconvoker is pretty different from a standard conjurer. But, well, most don't. Most of them ARE just a bag of mechanics. Eldritch Knight doesn't give your fighter/wizard any big and awe inspiring amount of depth he didn't have before hand. Heck, even some of the ones that DO have fluffy bits have...well, nothing to do with the fluff. Look at Sublime Chord - seems simple enough, you focus intently on spellcasting with your bard that you begin to gain sorcerer spells, but lose your combat abilities. The PrC then makes you take... profession: astrologer? Huh?
Followed immediately by 'you must have magic items to beat these monsters'.Well yeah I'm also not a fan of anything that only gives one, and only one, way to accomplish a given task - whether it be 'you must have a +2 or better sword' through to 'only a burning torch will do'.
I am not against players having magic items, per se, it's just that they would generally be something the players had to manufacture (as part of a quest etc), obtained as loot/reward, or lent (in the case of a Cleric/Pally on a Quest on behalf of their Church or Knight seeking the Grail etc).
The Ye Olde Magic Shoppe makes no sense at all.
Thing is, it's tied in deeper to the system them just that.
3e introduced the move from static stats to changing stats. Every fourth level, you increase one of your statistics. Seems simple, right? Except, now that stats are no longer static, items should be changed. It's why they changed the belt that gave you 18 strength and replaced it with one that gives +4 strength - previously, it was impossible to otherwise change your strength to that 18 without the belt, but now that it is possible, that belt is either grossly useless (you have high strength and continue to increase it) or grossly powerful (you have lot strength and continue to increase it).
Secondly, the developers brainstormed and said "Look, the adventurers are GOING to have magic items, we can't just pretend they're always going to pop in fresh and naked from a dungeon. We should plan around that." And so they did. But the issue became one of "What items will they have? We can't exactly create the CR system if they're going to be all willy nilly."
That's where the Magic Mart - and, incidentally, wealth by level - comes from. The game assumes you're GOING to have magic items, and it assumes that the warrior is going to have a strength increaser, the druid a wisdom item, etc, etc.
Lastly...am I the only one that's played or read through the 2e and previous modules? You want monty hauls, take a look at those! 3e didn't start giving out magic items like candy - that was established LOOOOOOOOOONG before.
Lastly...am I the only one that's played or read through the 2e and previous modules? You want monty hauls, take a look at those! 3e didn't start giving out magic items like candy - that was established LOOOOOOOOOONG before.
I remember the giveaway Fest that took place in 2Ed.
Wasn't as bad in 1Ed; I think 2Ed was where the players got lots of stuff, but then they didn't have stuff like Feats or anything of that ilk, and the characters were generally of a much lower comparative level - did they even make stuff for level 18-20's?
|
|
Lastly...am I the only one that's played or read through the 2e and...
Check out that Monty Haul DM named Tolkien. We've got this Halfling Rogue who'se practically never left the house, and he's handed a ring of invisibility walking out the door, gets a magic short sword from a random friendly NPC for almost-getting-eaten-by-a-singing-tree, bumps into his uncle after his second encounter (from which he also has to be rescued) and is giving a different (orcbane) magical sword and a mithril chain shirt, then goes on to a dungeon, where, freakishly, he gets no phat magic lewt, but then ends up in Elf-land, where the Queen Babe of Babeland hands him a cloak of elvenkind, boots of elvenkind and the phial of Elendri, whatever the heck that was.
He's probably not even second level, and he's got the WBL of a 6th level Rogue!
There are days when I don't want to DM all the shopping and crap and I just want to say 'Just buy stuff equal to your wealth by level. Anything extra is lost in the conversion, blown on finder's fees, hard drink and soft women, if your money is low, assume you made an incredible deal selling off one of your items to a collector or fanboy, and got back up to WBL.' Like pushing a big reset button on every level-up, rather than spend half of our game time shopping. I don't really get off on the shopping.
So what you're saying is Frodo got twinked?
Gandalf was blatantly the DMNPC - "Mr. Plot Exposition". He didn't have a level adjustment :)
|
I am curious though as to what precisely you mean by "Player Narration", and what about it you find so unappealing?More like players running the game, making campaign decisions, etc
ex - telling me what is going to happen and how its going to happen because x rule says so.I don't think players should be telling me what prc levels they are going to take when that is tied to campaign flavor - something which is generally beyond PC control. If a PC hears about some strange group/society and seeks them out due to their knowledge/abilities/goals and he is interested and pursues this in-game then great. But if he just wants a class level or feat which only makes meta sense and has no place in the campaign world then no. You can't say "gimme" because it's in a book with the wotc logo. Wotc stated that the DM was final arbiter on any rule (as in 1st and 2nd ed tradition) and then promptly ignored that. I don't think that restricting splats is a form of tyranny, there was a time when the DM decided what went into his game, not committee.
DM has final say on Prcs in his game, feats, rules, etc. This is stated in the DMG. If I feel that a DC for a given action is too low (and I feel that they are) then I tell my players and I raise them. They are challenge rating guidelines. If you make a change stay consistent. It applies to enemy NPCs also and not at the DMs convenience.
The rules are a set of guidelines to play the game, not a set of tools to be used by player or DM to "one up" each other. If a DM wants to change them he should, RAW is far from perfect. If you change something just stay fair and consistent. I think as long as fairness and fun are in mind you can't really go wrong.
As far as players narrating their own actions that isn't my style of play. The guys I game with are happy just controlling their own actions a dialog.
They don't need -
DM -So the orc rolls a 5 an he misses.
Player - Blackleif the Thief bends his back parallel...
I actually agree with most of what you are describing, especially about consistency. I want to know what rules I'm playing under, it only seems fair to me.
As far as players trying run the game, I have found, in my experience, its usually one or two out of five or six people in a group who are like that, so those few ruin the fun for everyone else. They try to be the center of attention the whole game. While , I believe, the characters should be the center of attention the whole game, it should be the whole group and/or evenly divided personal shine time.
In the end, the simple most important factor is the group having fun. If one groups style is insane to me but they have fun then good for them. If my style seems off to them as long as my group has fun then that is all that matters.
Graywulfe
Followed immediately by 'you must have magic items to beat these monsters'.The concept of Magic Item Shoppes should be fired directly into the Sun.
My problem with this...too many people who staunchly observe number one, completely neglecting fixing number two. These people then place themselves on a percieved moral highground.