|
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.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.
As a DM I take middle ground approach. There are not magic item shops eveywhere, but they do exist in most major towns and tradng centers. Lets face it, if every village had access to high level magic items and the spellcasters to create them, what would they need adventurers for. However, in the major settlments there is enough commercial demand for them to make it worth a wizards while to go into buisness just creating magic items. That is not to say that there are not the occassional magic items avalible other places. There are, but they are rare and usually have a story attached to them, even if the story is just "the idiot barbarian didn't know what he had when he sold it to me for a roomn food for a week."
|
|
The only time I fudge rolls ever is if I have made a poor design choice in building an encounter. And even then its not so much fudging the rolls as it is adjusting the monsters stats on the fly. I may for example lower the monsters saves, SR, AC or BaB by a few points to try and correct my error and let the monster keep what it rolls on the dice. Even that type of "fiat" is rare in my games as I keep copies of everyone's character sheets and have a tendency to playtest the hard encounters and adjust them before the game when it is still considered design as opposed to fiat.
As far as making fiat type rules changes. If a problem rule comes up we do one of two things:
1. I make a ruling, and tell the players thats how it is going to be today and offer them the opportunity to talk about those changes at the end of the session or before the next one starts if they have a problem.
2. If it is not a simple ruling then we will stop the game and I will let all of the players speak their minds and we will come to a consensus on the way a rule works with the same caveat that any player may add more at the end of the session or prior to the next session if they feel so inclined
Flavor house rules are pretty much never added mid session, and in most cased are added at the beginning of the campaign.
As for "killer DMs". I have never really run into it. I find it much more common to run into the opposite kind of DM that really does not want to kill player characters. Most of the DMs in my gaming circles have been doing it for long enough that they will kill a character if the dice say that it is so, but the not wanting to kill players still comes up and it is a tough subject. My personal view on it is that without the threat of failure and death there is no real point to adventuring in general. I do not specifically design encounters to kill specific characters, but I do include hard encounters in my design, and sometimes characters die, but more often they pull through by the skin of their teeth and have a good time.
The only types of DM fiat that I have a real problem with are DMs rewriting and limiting or expanding on player options AS THEY GO ALONG. If a DM wants to change a class dramatically I prefer to know abut it before we begin, as opposed to the first time I use a changed ability being told thats not how it works. I will let it slide for a while (especially if the DM is a friend or new at DMing), but after a while, a constantly being reworked character is just not as fun. I feel that when you hand your character to the DM for approval (yes all of my groups do that for this very reason), that if there are options selected on the sheet that the player has selected, that the DM has changed, that it should be mentioned to the player that those mechanics have been altered (or reminded if the house rules have already been offered).
love,
malkav
I wish we could keep disagreement civil.I'm sorry, have we met?
Perhaps you're confusing me with one of my interlocutors?
I'll add my 2 cp here, in that I see nothing wrong with GM fiat. There are sometimes problems in the way some GM's use it, but that's another matter.
I conceal my dice, fudge rolls, and generally do so in the interests of making my game dramatic and interesting, and maximizing the fun my players and I are having. A good story and dramatic effect should always trump the dice.
Bottom line is, the GM has spent time, energy and money to set up a game and run it. You don't like the way he does so, don't play.
|
|
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.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.
Yeah. If you want a low powered game and have mid to high level characters with weapons which are not as powerful/damage output then these considerations need to go across the board.
I run a very low powered 3.5 game. Very 1st/2nd ed feel. But if the 8th level characters are running around with only +1 weapons with relatively minor additional damage (compared to standard 3.5 +1d6/+2d6, etc) then yeah, as DM I need to revisit some stats and adjust DR, SR, look at the higher hit points that monsters have in 3.5 vs earlier editions, etc. If I don't then that is just sadistic and unfair to the players.
Magic item creation and items by level created some major problems in 3.5. You now have a codified system of what characters should have/own by a certain level, this is sort of first - at least at the level of detail offered. Problem though - players see this and think Bill of Rights and also not all DMs run the game at its vanilla level. And by doing so they are not using DM fiat, or house ruling. They are just not running the game as it's set out of the box suggested level of power. That is why I like the PFRPG approach, different speeds of progression, power, items -not the wotc one size fits all approach.
Again, It comes back to what changes you want to make, balance and fun. If you run a low powered game and find that you made all the appropriate changes only to find that wizards now rule, you the DM, have created a problem. DM fiat, decision to make changes and houserules should be set primarily by the DM, but the more you change things the more the impact on mechanics are going to be felt. Wotc era D&D should have focused a little more on game style variations vs. the avalanche of crunch they put out for DMs. Might have helped.
So basically we have 'DM is the law' and 'Respect the players', but no one is willing to admit these are not incompatible views?
They are compatible. They have to be or else one group is walking all over the other.
So basically we have 'DM is the law' and 'Respect the players', but no one is willing to admit these are not incompatible views?
Unless you understand "DM is the law" to mean "Disrespect the players." That is certainly not how I would utilize the phrase. It's like saying, "Either you have total freedom or you have no freedom at all." Determinisim or libertarianism. But limited free will is a perfectly coherent idea, and so is DM Fiat + Player Freedom.
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.
*Sigh.*
"You can actually use all that gold you go around risking your life over," and, "There is a market for magic items," is distinct from the existence of 'Ye Olde Magick Shoppe.'
The Ye Olde Magic Shoppe makes no sense at all.
Why? In a world full of Science!, Ye Olde Science! Shoppe exists, in myriad forms. There's a market for cars and phones and guns. Why shouldn't there be a market for scrolls of Teleport, rings of Whispering Wind, and wands of Magic Missile?
Check out that Monty Haul DM named Tolkien.
DM of the Rings got the right of it. LotR/The Hobbit? Great story, but (particularly in 3.5) not very good games.
As a DM I take middle ground approach. There are not magic item shops eveywhere, but they do exist in most major towns and tradng centers. Lets face it, if every village had access to high level magic items and the spellcasters to create them, what would they need adventurers for. However, in the major settlments there is enough commercial demand for them to make it worth a wizards while to go into buisness just creating magic items. That is not to say that there are not the occassional magic items avalible other places. There are, but they are rare and usually have a story attached to them, even if the story is just "the idiot barbarian didn't know what he had when he sold it to me for a roomn food for a week."
Actually, this is exactly what the rules say. The way wealth capacities and such work, as written, you're not getting much more out of a thorp than maybe a few swords. You might be able to offload one masterwork weapon there. Meanwhile, major cities have their wealth caps set in such a way that you can reliably get a lot of magic items. (Which doesn't necessarily mean Ye Olde Magick Shoppe, to those who are anti-shoppe.)
|
A good gamemaster does not smear DM Fiat in the face of players; to do so makes it overt railroading and most often un-fun. DM Fiat, for purposes of discussion is the one topic that good gamemasters tend not to ever discuss; it is the brilliance of the human mind (The Dungeonmaster/Gamemaster) who runs the most compelling/amazing games, not the particular rules nor codefied fantasy widgets.
Player Freedom: Should always appear to exist. Great DMs/GMs make player freedom seem to appear in very, very high amounts.
DM Fiat: Should never appear to exist. Great DMs/GMs make DM fiat imperceptible such that very amazing games seem to appear by lucky happenstance.
Great Games: sometimes happen by chance, but more often through the art of Dungeonmastering/gamemastery(GMs). And when you ask the DM/GM if they had planned it, the answer should always be "Wow, how amazing that was, I didn't know you guys would do that!"
The Great Secret: The great secret we (players) must never tell Dungeonmasters is that they do not need the rules. The great secret we (Dungeonmaster's) must never tell players is that the rules exist to provide the illusion of a game.
Rulings: "Rulings" are NOT DM Fiat. Rulings is the job of the referee. In public games, such as conventions, more adherence to RAW becomes important and the game is actually played with more attention to rules, as complete strangers need a base of familiarity to be able to 'jump in and play.' In modern times, convention gaming and any type of official gaming truly does attempt to promote importance to ruleset adherance, with little or no tollerance for DM Fiat, especially during critical decision points e.g. life or death. Rulings are, however, one way the simulationist gamer may still enjoy a more narrativist GM, insomuchas rulings are made in the spirit of keeping the game moving though the simulationist will insist the actual rule be researched after and then implemented in the future.
Dungeons & Dragons was never a game like other games before it. It certainly was, and I belive still is, the type of game that lives on in antithema to what its Parent company, Hasbro, would like it to be. Imho, the major shift over 10 years (2000-2010) has been to take was was once a fun social collaborative and imaginative innovation, and distill it, or augment it, to become a codefied game.
The very best game designers, like great gamemasters will never explain that you don't need rules for they would be out of business. Yet, with the advent of Third Edition 3.0 (and v.3.5 and Pathfinder RPG), the gaming community was further rejuvinated by ostensibly making everyone both player and referee. As mentioned earlier, this sold a lot of books. Yet, something amazing also happened -- it broadened the base of the game to include those who could enjoy it for more than just sponteneity or seemingly underground excentrism; instead the new broad audience enjoyed D&D on tabletop and online in the budgeoning internet era. Countless video games and other choose your path games completely boomed, and the world generally learned that D&D was a complicated, yet internally consistent mileau, within which players could enjoy character builds and experience the thrill of overcoming challenges. Yet (and this is my point) this isn't the full story.
Even in this day and age of DDO and other MMORPGs, let us still encourage new dungeonmasters to begin learning the artform (encouraging, because you don't really need the rules), and simultaneously we should still invite new players to play immediately (making it easy to begin, because they don't really need to know the rules. Thus, players should always be encouraged to learn the rules, and gamemasters should always appear to be using them.
Firstly and most importantly, I want to say that everything that Pax Veritas said above me is incredibly brilliant.
Secondly, I want to say that the only time I am irked by the "but DM fiat doesn't count!" is in the occasional discussion of rules exploits, where someone says something like,
Person 1: Hey, thanks to this typo/vague wording, I can cast Alhazred's Purple Crayon of Doom in order to turn my PC instantly into a god!
Person 2: I'm pretty sure from the way the spell it was written, it was not meant to do that. In any case, I doubt your DM would let you get away with that.
Person 1: Hey, NO FAIR INVOKING DM FIAT! This is how it's written, so this is how I'm going to do it, nyah nyah.
In other words, when the words "DM Fiat" are used to mean, "But I don't want my GM to wrangle me in with his entirely WRONG power of common sense and sense of fairness to other players! Waaaah!" ----- that's annoying.
I think the SEPARATE issue of DM's trying to control their players' every action, railroading, unfair or overuse of fudging... of course that's problematic. As are players who act like bullies. Basically, no one around the gaming table should be a bully. I think that's common sense. (Waits for someone to shoot her down.)
So basically we have 'DM is the law' and 'Respect the players', but no one is willing to admit these are not incompatible views?
I'll readily and wholeheartedly admit to it.
I think the SEPARATE issue of DM's trying to control their players' every action, railroading, unfair or overuse of fudging... of course that's problematic. As are players who act like bullies. Basically, no one around the gaming table should be a bully. I think that's common sense. (Waits for someone to shoot her down.)
QFT
The ambiguous rules are not a problem, DM Fiat is not a problem. Bad players and DM's are the problem.
|
|
The ambiguous rules are not a problem, DM Fiat is not a problem. Bad players and DM's are the problem.
I agree 100%, but there is a mindset that believes:
Ambiguous rules =DM Fiat =Abuse.
Also, need for DM fiat = bad DM or bad game mechanics.
The push to quantify every mechanic in a game is a push to relinquish control from a DM and to hand it over to a rule. That is what they tried to do in 3.5 and pushed for more heavily in 4th - make it player control heavy.
I don't think that was the intention of the original game designers but it seems to be the trend in gaming. I get the impression that wotc sees the need for a DM as a burden on their product.
I of course, could be wrong.
The push to quantify every mechanic in a game is a push to relinquish control from a DM and to hand it over to a rule. That is what they tried to do in 3.5 and pushed for more heavily in 4th - make it player control heavy.
I don't think that was the intention of the original game designers but it seems to be the trend in gaming. I get the impression that wotc sees the need for a DM as a burden on their product.I of course, could be wrong.
I think you are right, myself. Consider this: If you write a module, or a rulebook that requires a lot of interpretation (ie a DM) will the player's buy it? Maybe, but only the DM definitely will. If you write a lot of rulebooks with complex rules that specifically enhance everything that the player can do and cover almost all situations, then you can sell it to the DM and the players too!
Basically, they figured out the players make up the majority of the buyers over the DM, and so they want the game to be ideal for the players.
In other words, when the words "DM Fiat" are used to mean, "But I don't want my GM to wrangle me in with his entirely WRONG power of common sense and sense of fairness to other players! Waaaah!" ----- that's annoying.
I think the SEPARATE issue of DM's trying to control their players' every action, railroading, unfair or overuse of fudging... of course that's problematic. As are players who act like bullies. Basically, no one around the gaming table should be a bully. I think that's common sense. (Waits for someone to shoot her down.)
See to me it is the opposite. I even think your language gives you away. "Wrangle me in", you do mean 'controling' the player. You are just presenting an extreme case (whiny munchkin player) to make your case seem better. To me, invoking the words "DM Fiat" is when the DM is hand waving the rules away to promote his own agenda because he doesnt like how something works, or an action the player take. I have seen DM's 'turn off' a paladin's detect evil because they wanted to ambush the party and didnt account for it. This is a poor practice.
What you are describing is a rules change. Combo XYandZ used by player A is unbalanced. Fine, the DM should, AWAY FROM THE TABLE, take the player aside, explain his reasoning and lay out his rule change.
If rules are vague, or something isnt clear, I make a call at the table as a dm, then talk it over with the group via email or phone or something and come up with a standard house rule. If however I want to change clear rules because I think they are unbalanced, then that will never happen at my Table during a session. That is not fair to the player even if he is being a munchkin. If a player plans his character around something, and the dm wishes to change it the player should have an opportunity to rethink his character. That cant be done in the middle of a session.
|
I think the issue here is not the rules or "GM Fiat," but trust. Do you trust your GM to make the right calls? And do you, as players, in turn, help the GM by communicating as needed and maintaining that trust? The ultimate goal is fun for everyone, and does everyone work towards that? It appears, based on the posts here, that not everyone has that trust or the understanding of the implicit player/gm agreement.
I think the issue here is not the rules or "GM Fiat," but trust. Do you trust your GM to make the right calls? And do you, as players, in turn, help the GM by communicating as needed and maintaining that trust? The ultimate goal is fun for everyone, and does everyone work towards that? It appears, based on the posts here, that not everyone has that trust or the understanding of the implicit player/gm agreement.
I would find it very hard to believe that anyone who has been a player for any length of time has not been burned when offering that trust. We have all had bad experiences with at DM who is either immature or controlling. We all have different opinions on when that threshold is crossed. Having a more complete ruleset mitigates the need for that trust, and in the end can mitigate hard feelings amongst friends. Because no DM will always make the 'right calls'. We all make mistakes. The more you 'DM Fiat' the more you give yourself an opportunity to make the mistake that will upset, or antagonize one of your players.
A lot of the most intense pro-DM-fiat arguments have the underlying assumption that the DM is somehow superior to the players. Superior insight, superior capacity for reason, superior judgment, and are generally better as human beings. Which is very insulting to the players.
A method that hinges on one person presuming to be better than her friends is not a good method. The player and the DMs are equals. A DM who cannot accept that, who cannot see beyond their own vision, who cannot accept that they might be wrong and the player might be right? Well, that bodes very ill for their abilities as a DM.
My observation of this thread seems to indicate that there is a corolation between whether a person has been a DM and what their opinion of DM fiat is. Is that a fair assessment?
I'm seeing a greater correlation between one's support of DM fiat with their infrequency of actually playing.
What you are describing is a rules change. Combo XYandZ used by player A is unbalanced. Fine, the DM should, AWAY FROM THE TABLE, take the player aside, explain his reasoning and lay out his rule change.
Don't forget to offer the rebuild, since the parameters on which the player wrote the character in the first place have changed.
|
|
I would find it very hard to believe that anyone who has been a player for any length of time has not been burned when offering that trust. We have all had bad experiences with at DM who is either immature or controlling. We all have different opinions on when that threshold is crossed. Having a more complete ruleset mitigates the need for that trust, and in the end can mitigate hard feelings amongst friends. Because no DM will always make the 'right calls'. We all make mistakes. The more you 'DM Fiat' the more you give yourself an opportunity to make the mistake that will upset, or antagonize one of your players.
Well, it's like any relationship, just because you got burned doesn't mean that trust is not necessary for a healthy gaming "relationship." I think communication and an understanding of what everyone is at the table for is vastly more important than any rule set is.
If you can't trust the GM/Players and the relationship is either adversarial or not cogent, it does not make any difference what the rules set is, the game won't work in the long run. You just need to find the GM you can trust/trusts you, and work towards building that.
I would find it very hard to believe that anyone who has been a player for any length of time has not been burned when offering that trust. We have all had bad experiences with at DM who is either immature or controlling. We all have different opinions on when that threshold is crossed. Having a more complete ruleset mitigates the need for that trust, and in the end can mitigate hard feelings amongst friends. Because no DM will always make the 'right calls'. We all make mistakes. The more you 'DM Fiat' the more you give yourself an opportunity to make the mistake that will upset, or antagonize one of your players.
Sure, I've been burned. And I still offer that trust. If it gets betrayed, the answer is simple: don't game with that GM again, and try to avoid immature or controlling people in the future. I can understand reluctance among some players, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.
|
|
Imagine for a moment that we are playing 1st Ed again. Now, you say you want to craft a +1 flaming sword, and I say, "Very well, you must procure a steel sword forged in the flames of the elemental plane of fire and quench the blade in the fire-bladder of a drake."
You would probably say "Never mind, I'll go kill something and take it's treasure instead."
With regard to magic items: that is a jump from one extreme (1st ed -little detail) to another (3.5 little more detail, bad mechanics, hand over the cash). There should be a better middle ground. Item tier levels, more checks, have the producers of the game put some actual specifics in 3.5 structure (masterwork blade must kill a creature with the fire subtype w/XX HD before being enchanted with flametounge ability, etc) would have been better than the cash register system of item creation. That also adding to the horrid economy impact and problems which came with it. I think the cash for items concept cheapened magic - besides creating a ton of other problems.
Also they (wotc) obviously felt that certain types of magic should not be codified - namely artifacts. Why? Why stop there? To retain some sense of wonder or "magic" in the game? Shouldn't the game have all aspects codified if it is to remain impartial to all classes?
WOTC wants to see more people play the game, which requires more codification
You are right, you said it right there. Wotc wants more people to play the game. Does that equal a better game-quality wise? No, not necessarily. It does equate a more accessible one though.
Having more people play makes it a successful game from a sales standpoint, but that hardly equates to a better game - just a more accessible one. Again for the new people coming in and for the company this is great, you get new players who learn a hard set of ridged rules, more revenue from selling books to players, etc, it doesn't mean that it's a better game.
Am I being a bit snobbish – probably. I don't necessarily think that the move to have the game crafted to mass market appeal (ver 3.5 then 4.0) was the right one for the game (game not company). I think over-codification was a direct appeal to power gamers, number crunchers and card players. Again, from a sales perspective a win, from a continuing player/DM perspective – not so much. Calculated turnover I suppose.
The reasons why the game became more codified were multiple - look at who made the game and what their experience was with regards to gaming, creating a sustainable product, tourneys, power creep -aka MtG.
It wasn't about having your character survive the Tomb of Horrors; it was about pulling off this great charop build with the right Prc and buying x item at this level/w fixed income. And the more books you bought the more you could sustain the "right prc" optimization. Sound like Mtg? It does to me. This isn't a slag against wotc, I think that they created some good fundamentals with 3.0/3.5 at its core.
More rules do not always equal a better game. Good rules and better DM/player interpretation and implementation are more important than anything else. And if you count on the rules to make the game better, more enjoyable then you are in for a big surprise. Rules fail at their job far more often than the DMs or players who use them.
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.
My take on Rule 0 is that it allows me to do my Sylvester Stallone impression whenever I think it suits a character, regardless of my relevant deficiencies.
The rulebook says so.
Haha, I'm thinking if you pull out Sly Dredd, the players might just handwave any GM Rage.
By the way, if you haven't read any of the comics, the old stories are like a mix of 1984 and Hawaii 50 and make for a really great read.
The push to quantify every mechanic in a game is a push to relinquish control from a DM and to hand it over to a rule. That is what they tried to do in 3.5 and pushed for more heavily in 4th - make it player control heavy.
I don't see why having more rules detailed out makes it "player control heavy". They didn't change it so that now the players get to make all the fiat decisions. They just outlined more rules for both the player and the DM to use. The players actually are no more "powerful" than they ever were, the difference is now the DM doesn't have to come up with his own rules for all the little detail stuff if he doesn't want to. To me, that is freeing as a DM, not limiting. I'd rather on developing a good story and interesting characters for the party to interact with, than to waste my valuable time coming up with grapple rules each session.
I don't see why having more rules detailed out makes it "player control heavy". They didn't change it so that now the players get to make all the fiat decisions. They just outlined more rules for both the player and the DM to use. The players actually are no more "powerful" than they ever were, the difference is now the DM doesn't have to come up with his own rules for all the little detail stuff if he doesn't want to. To me, that is freeing as a DM, not limiting. I'd rather on developing a good story and interesting characters for the party to interact with, than to waste my valuable time coming up with grapple rules each session.The push to quantify every mechanic in a game is a push to relinquish control from a DM and to hand it over to a rule. That is what they tried to do in 3.5 and pushed for more heavily in 4th - make it player control heavy.
I agree with pres man here. In a way, more codification reduces the effect of having an inexperienced DM, who might otherwise TPK or Monty Haul his/her game into the grave. The more clear-cut and codified the rules are, the more dummy-proof they are, imo.
|
|
I agree with pres man here. In a way, more codification reduces the effect of having an inexperienced DM, who might otherwise TPK or Monty Haul his/her game into the grave. The more clear-cut and codified the rules are, the more dummy-proof they are, imo.
Nothing wrong with detailed and well thought out rules; the problem is when you begin to rely on them instead of using common sense (as the circumstance dictates) or when the rules are vague. Counting on rules to make a better game is a set up for major failure. The rules will break, the rules will fail, and then what - count on a different rule?
Create more rules? I understand the reasoning and fear behind reliance on DM fiat, I do get it.As far as dummy-proofing the game I don't know if that is ever really going to be possible. No amount of rules are going to make a DM smarter, more creative or less prone to structural mistakes -plot, planning, etc. I think that too much dummy proofing produces a sterile and boring game for the players/DMs who don't need their hands held every 5 seconds. More rules = less innovation allowed by both player and the DM alike. In many ways rules are like bars in a cage, the more you have the more trapped you are. Ex- Once they formally introduced squares/battle mats at the gaming table (end of 2.5/3.0) and have all the supporting rules to cover squares/miniature combat then the abstract gamer who runs his fights on graph paper and/or narration suffer. That is a consequence of codification. I'm sure no one really cares about that here, but prior to the plastic rain of miniatures from wotc, most people did not use minis, or at least didn't need them as much.
I agree though, more rules does equal a greater sense of fairness, but it also detracts from what is in original concept an open ended RPG, in many respects it runs counter to an open ended system. It doesn't even satisfy simulations gaming, since the rules presented are not trying to emulate reality, but instead "balanced mechanics" as interpreted by the games creators. So people end up becoming really good at the "rules" and "gaming" but do not grasp the concept of the game.
Some of my best experiences while gaming were not when I rolled that "20", or used x spell for y effect, or some new meta power/feat via prc via new book. My most memorable experience as a player is when I asked the DM "can I do this?" in a hopeless situation and his response was to come up with a roll/metric not covered in the rules (but was fair). I tried against a tough situation it and saved the day. Had he run the game RAW we would have just had to bypass/ignore the situation since it wasn't codified and he would have had to come up with his own mechanic on the fly.
Anyway, no point in trying to change peoples minds - everyone has their own style of play they enjoy and nothing posted here is going change, diminish or improve that.
I agree though, more rules does equal a greater sense of fairness, but it also detracts from what is in original concept an open ended RPG
Er, what? D&D was not an "open ended RPG" in original concept. It was a tabletop wargame not unlike Warhammer Fantasy. OD&D grew directly out of the Chainmail rules and design and even used Chainmail to resolve larger combats. Gygax was not a champion of open-minded thinking at all. He actively punished his players for approaching things in ways he didn't like.
|
|
I agree though, more rules does equal a greater sense of fairness, but it also detracts from what is in original concept an open ended RPGEr, what? D&D was not an "open ended RPG" in original concept. It was a tabletop wargame not unlike Warhammer Fantasy. OD&D grew directly out of the Chainmail rules and design and even used Chainmail to resolve larger combats.
What you are talking about is NOT the RPG, Chainmail was not an RPG. That wasn't D&D, but the game which it was drawn from.
I know the history of the game - no one was talking about Chainmail (seperate game) or OD&D or the pamplets, we have been sticking to 1st, 2nd, 3.0/3.5 - the editions we have been talking about for the last few pages.
Gygax understood that the game was very open ended and not just endorsed fiat, he promted it as number one law -in every incarnation including pamplets and OD&D to cover so many situations which wouldn't be contained in a book.
Gygax was not a champion of open-minded thinking at all. He actively punished his players for approaching things in ways he didn't like.
Where in the 1st ed DMG did you find that?
Non-canonical Gygax?
no one was talking about Chainmail (seperate game) or OD&D or the pamplets, we have been sticking to 1st, 2nd, 3.0/3.5 - the editions we have been talking about for the last few pages.
Riiiiiight. So now Original D&D is not the original concept for D&D? Keep it up, this is funny stuff.
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.*Sigh.*
"You can actually use all that gold you go around risking your life over," and, "There is a market for magic items," is distinct from the existence of 'Ye Olde Magick Shoppe.'
The Ye Olde Magic Shoppe makes no sense at all.Why? In a world full of Science!, Ye Olde Science! Shoppe exists, in myriad forms. There's a market for cars and phones and guns. Why shouldn't there be a market for scrolls of Teleport, rings of Whispering Wind, and wands of Magic Missile?
Wow, a very hot place may be experiencing an ice age. VV and I agree wholeheartedly on something. :)
Seriously though, there is no 'Ye Olden Magic Shoppe'.
What you have in a city of 3000 people :
15 armoury shoppes that have standard weapons and armor, and in the back has some masterwork weapons and armor, and each one probably has a single magic weapon or armor, possibly 2 or 3 if they are a well known forge.
30 or 40 pawn shops, probably all of which have 2-3 small magical knick-knacks (each worth no more than 500 gp, like used wands, eternal waterskins, etc). And probably half of them have something worth 2000gp, and 3 or 4 might have something worth 5000gp.
There are 15 apothecary shops, most with healing kit items, or ritual ingredients. They probably also have spell components and potions, and more than likely a small spell scroll selection, possibly even a wand or two.
There are 5 book stores, each with lots of tomes and books, and some wizard's spellbooks, and both magical and mundane spell scrolls.
There are 10 jewelers in town that sell gems and jewelry, and also have a smattering of amulets and rings that are magical.
There are 30 tailor shops in town, probably half of which have a smattering of magical cloaks, boots, belts, headbands and such.
Then there are 3-4 curio shops, hard places to find, that specialize in hard to find items and rare things, that have big nasty guards and guarded spells and sell all manner of occult and magic item, because there will always be a demand for them and someone to cater to that demand. But good luck getting access to this kind of shop. This is where you'll find artifacts for sale for more than you ever wanted to pay.
|
|
no one was talking about Chainmail (seperate game) or OD&D or the pamphlets, we have been sticking to 1st, 2nd, 3.0/3.5 - the editions we have been talking about for the last few pages.Riiiiiight. So now Original D&D is not the original concept for D&D? Keep it up, this is funny stuff.
Making stuff up, I love it. I was talking about chainmail, please reread.
Lets get this straight, you are saying that chain mail is D&D? Is that what your saying, or was Chainmail a miniatures game which D&D was drawn from (as I said earlier).And for the record - no one was talking about chainmail or OD&D, but since you brought it up - where in the OD&D rules does he say not to use DM fiat? Or that players should be punished for using creativity to solve problems?
Cite the pages and I will check it out.
Pale: Hm. Not sure if I'd agree with those numbers in a city of 3,000. It seems like an awful lot of shops for a city that size to me, armories in particular, though that's a fairly petty detail. But I am all for the magic items being scattered around in whatever place it actually makes sense for them to be sold.
I agree though, more rules does equal a greater sense of fairness, but it also detracts from what is in original concept an open ended RPG, in many respects it runs counter to an open ended system. It doesn't even satisfy simulations gaming, since the rules presented are not trying to emulate reality, but instead "balanced mechanics" as interpreted by the games creators. So people end up becoming really good at the "rules" and "gaming" but do not grasp the concept of the game.
I got my start in freeform, pure text, no system roleplay. I quite enjoy freeform, pure text, no system roleplay. I do not need a system to roleplay.
When I use a system, I want a game that is good and balanced and fair and fun to play on its own merits, in conjunction with roleplay. I do not need a pile of arbitrary and incongruous add-ons that don't do half of what they need to do. And the integrity of the system being used (even if it's a heavily modified, heavily houseruled system) is vital to the core of maintaining that game that's supposed to be inherently fun on its own merits.
The last thing I want to do when I'm using a system is for it to become a perpetual game of, "DM, can I please win?" where the DM usurps the game so much, or the game is so riddled with holes to begin with, that it's ultimately the whim of the DM rather than any measure of my own play that determines victory or defeat.
Now do you understand, Fryer? Now do you understand?
Pale: Hm. Not sure if I'd agree with those numbers in a city of 3,000. It seems like an awful lot of shops for a city that size to me, armories in particular, though that's a fairly petty detail. But I am all for the magic items being scattered around in whatever place it actually makes sense for them to be sold.
Well, remember, armories were blacksmiths really, and in a D&D type city of 3000, you're going to need an awful lot of blacksmiths, just to keep up with horses. Generally, you have apprentices that make daggers and knives (because you're going to need an awful lot of those in a city of 3000, just think about restaurants, private homes, just about everyone has a personal knife and then add in kitchen knives, etc, that's a lot of knives that need to be made, sharpened, reforged, etc), and other small metal objects (spoons, forks, plates, cups). And don't forget the horseshoes.
The journeymen would be making tools, armor, standard weapons, and even masterwork weapons and tools. Bridle bits, barding, wagon wheels, etc.
The masters would be doing the special request or difficult items, masterwork barding or full plate for example, with lots of little apprentices running around helping.
If you stop and think of it that way, 15 is probably way too few for a city of 3000. Remember, unlike today, you don't have plants, everything was hand forged. Even a knife takes a day or two to forge for an apprentice.
|
|
Please tell me Auxmaulous, why are people so evil for wanting to build effective characters? For wanting the mechanical tools to be able to create a PC who is how they envision him?
You're right and I'm wrong. Have fun at your game. If it makes you happy, makes the DM happy (you should ask him and see what he thinks -if you care that is) then CHAROP away. Maybe even he can get in the game and charop/tweak the stats of monsters so he can run optimized creatures against you.
I got my start in freeform, pure text, no system roleplay. I do not need a system to roleplay.
That explains quite a bit actually.
I understand that from your examples it has to be either 100% totalitarian/fascist DM control ....or your way. There's alot of "your way, my way" going on over here, but it definitely has to be your way, I get that too. You have 3.5, 4th and your freeform -go wild.
When you find that game without any holes and with a rule for every situation you let me know, maybe I'll pick up a copy.
As long as it isn't Burning Wheel or Houses of the Blooded.
Gandalf was blatantly the DMNPC - "Mr. Plot Exposition". He didn't have a level adjustment :)
Gandalf was actually a lesser god according to the silmarillion and didn't know his past, it was blurry to him. How do you characterize him? Divine Level 0?
Please tell me Auxmaulous, why are people so evil for wanting to build effective characters? For wanting the mechanical tools to be able to create a PC who is how they envision him?You're right and I'm wrong. Have fun at your game. If it makes you happy, makes the DM happy (you should ask him and see what he thinks -if you care that is) then CHAROP away. Maybe even he can get in the game and charop/tweak the stats of monsters so he can run optimized creatures against you.
First of all, I want to apologize Auxmaulous, from your response I'm guessing I came off more adversarial than I'd intended, and the last thing I'd wanted was to make an enemy of you.
Second, more often than not I am the DM, and I encourage my players to optimize their PC's, to bring a character that can do what it's intended to do and can succeed at the challenges I throw.
Of course I care what my players (and my GM's, the rare times I get to play) think, their my friends.
I don't understand why this topic is such a thorn for you my friend, have you had bad experiences with it?
As a DM I don't go out of the way to use the word "optimize" with my players and let them do what they want in any way they want as long as it's within reason and within the rules. If they make "poor" choices, as defined by optimizers, I point it out to them (since I know how to "optimize"), after they've died foolishly on the end of a pointy stick.
|
|
I don't understand why this topic is such a thorn for you my friend, have you had bad experiences with it?
I don't have a beef with you or anyone else overhear.
I just have hated being embarrassed of my hobby due to players focused on the ridiculous, game breaking nonsense. And being proud of it. The focus should be on playing the game, npc interaction, player interaction, experiences, fun, etc. Not on how bad-ass or how far you can redline the rules to squeeze out of a set of stats/build. I mean if that is your thing, cool. I think you are missing out, but that is just my opinion and I'm the minority (and wrong). Some people are intrigued with the numbers thing, I can see that too.
I don't like the sense of entitlement 3.5 brought to the game - "my character should have this, the book says so", or "they printed this in a book, I should be allowed to use it". I have seen in gaming going on for a long time, but peaking during 3.5
The charop boards and posters there often made me pause a say, "is this the same damn game we are playing", or "why"? Why plot out your character from 1-20th level, what the hell does that have to do with heroic role-playing? How does that happen?
Magic -magic in 3.5 is garbage. Again, my opinion, but when I see a bloodless system for creating "magic", it burns me out. And if make a suggestion that x, y, z quest/materials should be accomplished/acquired to make that item I become a rights-denying, boot-stepping, fascist megalomaniac DM.
Whatever. These are not direct fiat issues, but more a product of bad game design, and possible an incorrect focus???
Ultimately DM fiat is wrong, because it takes away power from players and ruins the game. DMs should not have that kind of decision making powers, who lives who dies. The rules and the dice should decide that.
I do see your point though Saradoc, I just would rather my PC's not have to go in underpowered, for one it means that those who know how to build strong PC's will be overpowered compared to those who don't, and for two it means I'll have my hands full trying to pull back on the monster's combat vs the weaker PC's, while busting out the moves vs the stronger ones, all the while making it make sense and fit into an epic (adjective not title) battle.
Oh
I understand that from your examples it has to be either 100% totalitarian/fascist DM control ....or your way. There's alot of "your way, my way" going on over here, but it definitely has to be your way, I get that too. You have 3.5, 4th and your freeform -go wild.
When you find that game without any holes and with a rule for every situation you let me know, maybe I'll pick up a copy.
That ain't it at all, chief.
First off, I am the DM's equal. This does not mean the DM does not have a higher measure of authority, it means we are equals. Friends. Everyone at the table matters, whether they be DM or player. The DM who looks down on the players as his lessers is fostering an unhealthy, unfun, disdainful gaming environment.
And do note, freeform ain't about my way all the time. Freeform only works if all those participate work together and create a shared vision and story, as a healthy gaming group should.
And it's not about perfect rules for absolutely everything. It's about having a good and coherent game that's fun to play in and of itself.
As a DM I don't go out of the way to use the word "optimize" with my players and let them do what they want in any way they want as long as it's within reason and within the rules. If they make "poor" choices, as defined by optimizers, I point it out to them (since I know how to "optimize"), after they've died foolishly on the end of a pointy stick.
I generally just try to make sure the party can walk down the road together, whether that means there's a compelling reason why the Paladin and the Blackguard would ever work together or making sure the players are on the same general plane. If a character is horribly unoptimized, I try to push them into a niche where they can at least be useful, like Healer (in a group without alternate healing, with the understanding that they are not to seek out alternate healing while the Healer is still alive).
Of course, if someone insists on making the 8-Con Fighter who charges straight into the trio of giants... well... that's just the way things go.
As a DM I don't go out of the way to use the word "optimize" with my players and let them do what they want in any way they want as long as it's within reason and within the rules. If they make "poor" choices, as defined by optimizers, I point it out to them (since I know how to "optimize"), after they've died foolishly on the end of a pointy stick.
Usually it's not the pointy stick (unless it's sometehing like a giant or some other monstrous weapon wielder) but rather either teeth and claws or the mystical mojo of a guy in a pointy hat that kills them.
I do see your point though Saradoc, I just would rather my PC's not have to go in underpowered, for one it means that those who know how to build strong PC's will be overpowered compared to those who don't, and for two it means I'll have my hands full trying to pull back on the monster's combat vs the weaker PC's, while busting out the moves vs the stronger ones, all the while making it make sense and fit into an epic (adjective not title) battle.
To each his own, my friend. After DM'ing for 18 years and getting healthy criticism along the way...I've learned to be player-centric and respect the intelligence of my players and also understand the different needs of my players (and their maturity levels). DM'ing a 12-year old and DM'ing a 37 year old takes some balancing. But I always put fun first over rules (while keeping everyone on track with rules ;-)).