|
I think a lot of the problem comes from the fact that while most people will agree that the DM has the right to tinker with the rules or disallow content, maybe 1 DM in 10 actually has the level of systems/rules expertise to "fix" one thing without breaking greater than one things. Maybe. 10% is probably too generous.
To use your example, magic item creation. How often does someone post here about wanting to run a campaign that does away with magic item creation and/or magic item purchase, and how often has that person thought even one step ahead about what the consequences of that change are and how to correct for that fallout as well? I'd say about 0% of the time.
I agree 100% - and I think the fact that it is so difficult to modify the system isn't a strong selling point.
I think many people who do complain about xmass tree, magic mart, etc do not have a full grasp of the consequences of even changing out a few features. That actually just reflects that the system is badly designed and cannot support changes without falling apart. That concept just gets reinforced after every session.
If the DM's world is so fragile that it can't accommodate the type of campaign the players all want, then I'd suggest that world is too fragile for use. Put it on a shelf somewhere and bring out something that can be used to play in!
Could not disagree with you more Kirth.
GMing is not a democracy or work by committee imo. If I make the game world, I run the game world then the contributions and changes the players make are in game, not out of it. I am not talking about rules or mechanics per se, these are always open for discussion and I will always listen to reasonable suggestions.If I say I am going to run a Post Apocalyptic rpg, something normally high tech-PA by rules and setting but I decide at its inception of taking out the high-tech components and making a different setting, something more Road Warrior-ish. I will tell all the players going in so they know there won't be high tech stuff. No high tech medical, instead you need to do X to heal, etc, I think that is a 100% legitimate way to design and run a campaign.
The campaign and content is not really open for discussion unless the campaign was designed as an open one with expected sharing of GMing duties being passed around. If I am going to run it, then I am going to design it (with my players in mind). That isn't being a "dick dm" (a concept bandied around here by the entitlement crowd), that is actaully being a traditional and skilled DM.
If different groups want to design by a campaign by committee, great - but having a single DM do it is not doing it "wrong".
A campaign can be fragile based upon certain precepts laid out at its inception - it shouldn't be subject to destruction via new (or old) bad rule content (feats, spells, prcs, etc) just to stay current, "core" or in-line with the 2011 product line up.
I am not going to destroy my Desert Nomads survival based campaign because new edition has now allowed unlimited use of Create Water, sorry. If that is running a fragile campaign then yeah, I'm guilty - but I am not going to let some poorly thought out rules change break the theme a feel of my game so I can get the satisfaction of running a "pure" game, that's nonsense.
Once upon a time, GMs would receive advise like this:
...
Now it seems to me that "player power" is pushing GMs into the simple roles of script-readers and dice-rollers.
Are we in danger of moving D&D/Pathfinder into a game which is great to play but boring to GM?
Will we eventually end up with a game where the players read the module as well as all the other books and a GM is no longer needed?
Has GM-creativity bitten the dust?
Richard
I think this depends on the GM and the players. Personally, I'm having a blast GMing my home Kingmaker game, but I'm a "story" guy. I'll follow the mod, but I'll add and switch what goes into the game. Beyond a character sheet, I want a PC's background and goals, as that allows me to tailor some of the adventure to that individual as best I can. It pulls them in and more fun is had by all. Of course, this is a home game. I've run a few PFS games and they're a different breed. Not to say I don't have fun running them (I do), but my allowance to tailor things is curtailed. In such an instance, it's more about the players. But that's okay for me, as I still get to sit with friends and roll dice. I still get to tell a story.
(BTW, I enjoy GMing and playing equally; I'm happy on either side of the table.) :)
I agree 100% - and I think the fact that it is so difficult to modify the system isn't a strong selling point.
Question is, what's a better alternative?
If the DM doesn't ask...
At the start of the campaign, "Ask" is one way. "Advise" is another.
But if is either case no complaints or objections are raised by the players, it ceases being debatable.
and then refuses to adjust things at all when they start realizing what they're into?
I don't follow you 100%... are you suggesting that the DM must radically alter his entire world, mechanical system, concept, setting, etc simply at the whim of his players - even if they consented to his specific interpretation of those said aspects before the campaign even started?
I don't follow you 100%... are you suggesting that the DM must radically alter his entire world, mechanical system, concept, setting, etc simply at the whim of his players - even if they consented to his specific interpretation of those said aspects before the campaign even started?
I have my preferred solution built into my favorite homebrew setting from the get-go: the godlike arch-wizard Marclore destroys rivals who upset the general setting "feel," which makes the people there eager to get out from under his thumb, which means that gates and plane shift and adventures on other worlds become increasingly common as characters gain levels -- and ultimately of course the PCs can always choose to stay elsewhere, instead of going back. Because while a swashbuckling, Three Musketeers campaign might be fun for 6 or 7 levels, most players will get tired of it after that and want to explore some other possibility. Rather than tell them, "No! You're stuck with this until 20th level!" I instead make it understood that there is an infitine multiverse full of opportunities for them to try different things.
These other worlds in the multiverse might have different settings, different "natural laws" (read: game mechanics), different races, and so on and so forth. I ran one campaign in which the cleric ended up settling in a castle in a medieval Scottish highlands-like setting, whereas the rogue settled in a 21st century setting and became a race car driver; the two would meet via plane shift to go adventuring together.
|
I am not going to destroy my Desert Nomads survival based campaign because new edition has now allowed unlimited use of Create Water, sorry. If that is running a fragile campaign then yeah, I'm guilty - but I am not going to let some poorly thought out rules change break the theme a feel of my game so I can get the satisfaction of running a "pure" game, that's nonsense.
To bring this around to what I was saying - this describes an issue with RAW. A more 'MAW' problem might be thus:
You're short on time this week, so you 'snag' a module from some place. Maybe you've used it before and you can round off the beginning and end to make it fit in your campaign. (Work with me here...)
Now imagine that there's some sort of a water source that's intrinsic to the plot, but you forgot about that part, and you just can't allow it to be water. At the last minute you decide to just omit the water element and work hard to 'putty up' the cracks.
Towards the end of the adventure session an enterprising player who has also, quite coincidentally, ran this exact same adventure starts to complain about how there really should be water here. Picture a player who's deliberately being a jerk, just for the narrative purpose.
Does as GM:
A) Relent to play the module as written. Thereby undermining the entire campaign, due admittedly to his own oversight.
or
B) Toe the line - no water, because the players don't understand the impact to the campaign.
That is certainly a legitimate tactic, Kirth, and one of the main reasons that most DnD worlds tend to be a multiverse with different planes, each with their own rules. However, if the DM is not willing to do that, or not willing to do that at the given point in time a request is made, than it is certainly justified to say "not now" or "not this campaign." Both responses leave the possibility of using whatever was requested open in case a time comes along that it fits, but still preserves the feel that the DM, and the players, established at the start of the current campaign. If enough people want to enact the changes immediately, it's time for someone else to step up to the plate and start a new campaign that incorporates the desired changes, and either retire the old campaign, or run both concurrently, each with its accepted rules and feel.
Does as GM:
A) Relent to play the module as written. Thereby undermining the entire campaign, due admittedly to his own oversight.or
B) Toe the line - no water, because the players don't understand the impact to the campaign.
The player will just have to accept that a different DM chose to handle that module differently then he did. Not everything from every module is going to fit into every campaign.
I have my preferred solution......
That's a rather radical solution, IMO, but what is your answer to my question?
I've been DMing for over 20 years (since the basic edition,lol) and the only problem thing I can find about DM these days is the lack of time... Not the rules'fault, but my own obligations of things to do, places to go, you know...
Back in the day, I'd work on my game from after supper to bed time, three to five times a week (when I wasn't playing myself, lol). Now, it seems, that I can only put in a few hours per week to prepare my next session. A Sunday afternoon here, a wednesday evening there... Yeah, that's what happens when you get older.
So we (my players and I) are VERY CONTENT on things like detailed adventure paths. It cuts my prep time by a thousand-fold! lol
I must say though, that I miss those old "place anywhere" adventure modules. They mainly described a single location, like a castle or some old ruins (like B2 The Keep on the Borderlands, or S1 The Tomb of Horrors). They were easy to read, easy to play, and easy to... place anywhere. Sometimes, I would play it as is... And sometimes I would just take the map and replace three-quarters of the creatures/treasure with my own stuff. String a few of these modules together and voilà! You've got yourself a campaign.
Ultradan
That's a rather radical solution, IMO, but what is your answer to my question?
That solution WAS my answer to your question. What do I do if players want a different setting/rules from the starting campaign? I already have those things waiting for them. The game should expand the imagination, not force it into a box. A good DM should expect that no one wants to play the same thing forever, and be proactive in thinking about alternatives, instead of being reactionary in "digging in" and refusing to allow them. If the DM cannot tolerate deviation from his narrow view, the in my opinion he should be writing fiction, not inviting others to play a cooperative game.
I know that most people rabidly disagree with me on this, and that's fine. I wouldn't play in their campaigns, and they wouldn't welcome me as a player anyway -- and vice versa -- so we're all happy.
|
I don't follow you 100%... are you suggesting that the DM must radically alter his entire world, mechanical system, concept, setting, etc simply at the whim of his players - even if they consented to his specific interpretation of those said aspects before the campaign even started?
One of the odd things about life after 1e is that there's an expectation that the rules set is not stable, that it's constantly expanding. With that in mind, it's probably a good idea during the campaign introduction for the DM to tell the players up front (after having the "this is the way my game is going to go" talk) that any new material will be taken on a case-by-case basis. (After this speech, btw, it is probably bad form as a DM to give the opposition access to the new material.)
Incidentally, if I understand him correctly part of what Kirth is saying isn't unreasonable. If I get a group together and tell them I'm going to be running a Pathfinder campaign set in Golarion, the players get an idea of what the game is going to be like and design their characters accordingly. A couple of levels later, when I mention that I'm making Weapons Specialization a prerequisite for Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, the TWF Rogue is out of luck. If I then do not allow the Rogue's player to choose different feats, I am most definitely being a dick DM.
I have had campaigns where the parties main goal was figuring out a way to the DM's NPC traveling with us. She always got the best gear of course that we found. We knew the GM was coming up with bs when he started saying "Listen to me".
Those were great times railroading adventures. Original temple of elemental evil stoping us from leaving and then commencing to eat at least 12 characters how just powered up the temple even more because he distributed the loot we had.
Here is the thing he was a great GM but terrible linear. He would actually play out things in his adventure when no one was around. Then tell us what happened and where we are staring off at.
What he taught me was that as a Gm you have to enjoy what you are doing regardless of other people. How many adventures or concepts are built to be left to the side as the players want something different. As a Gm you must enjoy the work if not it is not worth the stress.
That's a rather radical solution, IMO, but what is your answer to my question?That solution was my answer to your question.
If subsequent, alternate campaign settings are made available to the PC's because the original campaign setting households the godlike archmage reset button - would you ever be willing to run a campaign setting sans the godlike archmage reset button, thereby not requiring subsequent alternate campaign settings?
An example of a problem player from my own game:
I had been running Rise of the Runelords for the better part of a year and a half when I started doing prep work for my next campaign. The player had been in my RotR game for a while, and quickly turned into the 'Flake' player description from the GMG. He rarely showed up, and when he did he tended to cause the amount of gameplay that we had drop by half due to his distractions. This is a 40 year old person.
For 3 months I spent about half an hour before every session working on the world and feel of the next campaign with the gaming group. Each person who was there got to input their own opinions on how things would work out, and things went fine and dandy, right up until the game actually started. My Flake never managed to make it in time for a single one of these brainstorming sessions. Not a single one out of thirteen or more of them.
He suddenly started showing up again at every one of the first sessions of the new campaign, but despite being there, it took 5 sessions for him to even build a character. And when he finally did, he started b&*$&ing and moaning about the feel of the world, how it was built, how it made no sense, and, in private, how none of the players liked how it was being run.
I'm sorry, but there are players like this out there. There are players who feel that a GM should be just a robot, and run what they want, and damn how the GM or even the other players feel about it. I give my players plenty of opportunities to help me build a campaign or setting, but once the feel has been set, I feel no compunctions about telling them 'Hell No' to preserve that feel.
Anyway, maybe off topic, but I had to get that out.
would you ever be willing to run a campaign setting sans the godlike archmage reset button, thereby not requiring subsequent alternate campaign settings?
Sure -- but then the campaign world itself has to change based on character discoveries. I love campaigns like that as well! In one, we introduced the Abjurant Champion (aka "Abjurant Cheesewhore") PrC by player request, saw that more and more people wanted to be "gish" characters after that, and wove it into the setting as a new method of training that is growing in popularity, and the PCs kept hoping the bad guys wouldn't learn it too soon as well. I'll add a whole new system like psionics mid-campaign without blinking an eye, in a game like that.
in private, how none of the players liked how it was being run.
If this is true, I'd guess that the problem isn't all with this player.
in private, how none of the players liked how it was being run.If this is true, I'd guess that the problem isn't all with this player.
No, it was complete BS. The other players were privately complaining about the player himself, and they BUILT half the things he was complaining about. He didn't like it, so he tried to get things changed by saying that the other players didn't like it either.
in private, how none of the players liked how it was being run.If this is true, I'd guess that the problem isn't all with this player.
Play nice, evil twin, or Mom will tell us we can't play with these folks anymore. Poor form to challenge people on their story when only they have any first hand knowledge of it. Cydeth's style sounds pretty reasonable to me, and I see little reason for players to be terribly dissatisfied with that style, if she is describing it accurately. Of course it's her point of view, and the players could indeed be really unhappy, but that's pure speculation. Unless one of her players wants to chime in, all we have to go on is what she said, and unless we know her personally, why should we challenge that?
I asked all the players immediately afterward if they were having issues with the game, and got a chorus of denials. The only complaint was last session, when the game ran slightly long due to a combat that went...pear shaped. But that was mostly due to bad rolls on everyone's side.
But I have a series of e-mails back and forth between myself and the player, and we finally parted ways due to differences in gaming style. He's a friend, but...*shrugs* He wanted a different game than the type that the rest of us were looking for.
Now, at the time? I was furious and fit to spit nails. But there was a reason I took a couple of weeks off to calm down and be reasonable.
But I have a series of e-mails back and forth between myself and the player, and we finally parted ways due to differences in gaming style. He's a friend, but...*shrugs* He wanted a different game than the type that the rest of us were looking for.
My apologies to the person, but good for you. I've dealt with difficult players before, and have learned that parting ways (at least game-wise) is the best approach when compromises cannot be reached. I have more than one friend whom I would not invite to a game after having played with them before. A shame, but there you are.
But I have a series of e-mails back and forth between myself and the player, and we finally parted ways due to differences in gaming style. He's a friend, but...*shrugs* He wanted a different game than the type that the rest of us were looking for.My apologies to the person, but good for you. I've dealt with difficult players before, and have learned that parting ways (at least game-wise) is the best approach when compromises cannot be reached. I have more than one friend whom I would not invite to a game after having played with them before. A shame, but there you are.
Honestly, the thing that pissed me off the most about the entire situation wasn't that he tried to undercut the other players or force his playstyle on me. My problem was that he waited to tell me he had a problem for the better part of 4 years of gaming. He never told me what the problem he had was, so it began to fester into resentment, which was what finally brought the entire thing to a head. My first house rule (listed and typed up in a binder) is "If you have a problem tell me about it. If I don't know, I can't try to fix it."
|
|
There is, I think, a third dimension to the discussions taking place about GM creativity, and that is the nature of the module presented by the publisher to the GM. Broadly there are two sorts:
The first kind presents a setting without narrative structure. A situation, both its static elements and dynamic, is presented in all its detail without any consideration about how the players will interact with it. This is actually how D&D began, but it's also quite common in Pathfinder scenarios today (Scarwall, for example, seems to fit that role quite well). These sorts of scenarios cannot run without GM creativity. Scenarios like this provide a service to the GM, rather than the player, and the quality of the player experience is much more down to the GM than to the writer.
The second kind is written with a train of events in mind. This may not necessarily be "corridor", but there is definately a narrative sequence which needs to be followed in order for the play-experience to succeed. In these cases GM creativity is dangerous unless the GM possesses a full understanding of all the wheels within wheels which make the scenario work and fun to play. Good scenarios of this type provide a good service to the player, with the GM acting much more like a "deliverer" of the written text.
So dovetailing into this discussion about how much creativity the GMs want and how much GM-creativity the Players want is the issue about how much creativity is needed or allowed for in the written module. (This is much more complicated than I first thought!)
These things do affect each other. Right now, I think, the power lies with the publisher, and so I hope that James will continue to tread a line between two worlds, maybe by publishing modules which contain a mixture of styles: some areas which require the GM to stick to the script in order to advance the story, and others where they can exercise more artistic licence.
This still doesn't take away my original concern that players will require that GMs run a module "to script" in order to mini-max their characters, but I'm watching the other thread on this with interest.
Richard
If this is true, I'd guess that the problem isn't all with this player.Poor form to challenge people on their story when only they have any first hand knowledge of it.
Who's challenging? I feel like Slick Willy here: "Can you define the word 'IF,' please?" To me, it means I don't know one way or the other, and therefore haven't ruled anything out a priori.
So I asked, and Cydeth answered, and now I know the situation. Nobody's attacking anyone.
|
|
Sure -- but then the campaign world itself has to change based on character discoveries. I love campaigns like that as well! In one, we introduced the Abjurant Champion (aka "Abjurant Cheesewhore") PrC by player request, saw that more and more people wanted to be "gish" characters after that, and wove it into the setting as a new method of training that is growing in popularity, and the PCs kept hoping the bad guys wouldn't learn it too soon as well. I'll add a whole new system like psionics mid-campaign without blinking an eye, in a game like that.
I go for more internal consistency and try to stick with what I started out, I don't run games from levels 1-20, so my players do not suffer boredom issues and (mercifully) have the option run other systems when we do want a change of pace/theme. Systems better than d20.
Usually a one-off if the players are jonesing to play a different genre (guns, horror, sci-fi).I personally think that changing rules, as in whole rule sections just for the "ain't it cool/something different" effect is the opposite of having a world you actually care about - as in its internal consistency.
If your players like to experiment with new stuff as it's released then cool. I do think it is hypocritical to call other peoples games "fragile" because they do not want their campaigns themes broken by new mechanics/junk when you have a Fiat Godwizard in your own game set as control for the world - even if you leave an opt out feature once the PCs get higher level.
I don't have anything like that in any of my games - no overgod or any such DM "rocks from the sky".
If I say there are going to be no guns in this particular D&D campaign, then there are no guns in that game - even if they are introduced in a later splat book and supported by rule or a class. And unless something extremely rare occurs (discovery/need of gun powder) to justify an in-game change then that is going to be the run for the life of that campaign.
That doesn't make me a cowardly, afraid-of-player-control, power mad "dick DM" for not including new player requested material, sorry I reject that label.
In any case my players actually rarely ask for new stuff to come into our current D&D game, there are a ton of options and they have enough action to keep them busy that they don't get bored or desire to do living play tests. Most of the request are about a spell/feat, and I have to decide how badly written it is and the underlying mechanical implications it will have on the game if it's let in. If it doesn't screw things up and it still gives the player a new option, then great. If there are issues I let the player know, we come to an understanding and we move on.
I go for more internal consistency and try to stick with what I started out
Sorry -- but I see these as a false equivalence. To me, it's a much more "real" game world in which discoveries keep getting made -- some minor, and some that seem to stand the previous understanding of the "rules" on their head. Is the real world not "internally consistent" because of the discovery of nuclear energy and development of the atomic bomb? Sure, a static world with rules that are never changed nor added to is easier to keep internally consistent, story-wise, but I don't feel that it's impossible for a changing world to be equally consistent -- it just takes a tad more imagination, and a lot more work.
The Godwizard in the one campaign world is a gimmick to explain, in terms of internal consistency, why the rules HAVEN'T changed more than they have. In any world I run without one, groundbreaking discoveries (often in the form of introducing new or different rules) can change the whole setting, given time -- and the PCs are usually at the forefront of the changes.
A static world without any explanation of the stasis, to me, actually kind of lacks internal logic.
---
Again, I know that I'm in a minority here. That's fine. Most people like to play in a setting in which Kharzoug used the same spells 100,000 years ago as the PCs do today. To me, that just grates.
|
Again, I know that I'm in a minority here. That's fine. Most people like to play in a setting in which Kharzoug used the same spells 100,000 years ago as the PCs do today. To me, that just grates.
For whatever reason, people want their dirt poor farmers struggling to survive, and castles and sieges and armies being the main tools of war.
Despite the fact that magic can bring about irrigation and efficient shipping, and spells and flying monsters can destroy/bypass walls while single heros can slaughter armies.
|
|
Sorry -- but I see these as a false equivalence. To me, it's a much more "real" game world in which discoveries keep getting made -- some minor, and some that seem to stand the previous understanding of the "rules" on their head. Is the real world not "internally consistent" because of the discovery of nuclear energy and development of the atomic bomb? Sure, a static world with rules that are never changed nor added to is easier to keep internally consistent, story-wise, but I don't feel that it's impossible for a changing world to be equally consistent -- it just takes a tad more imagination, and a lot more work.
The Godwizard in the one campaign world is a gimmick to explain, in terms of internal consistency, why the rules HAVEN'T changed more than they have. In any world I run without one, groundbreaking discoveries (often in the form of introducing new or different rules) can change the whole setting, given time -- and the PCs are usually at the forefront of the changes.
A static world without any explanation of the stasis, to me, actually kind of lacks internal logic.
No, you are making the false equivalencies here. What the hell do new discoveries have to do with introducing (dropping right in the middle of) whole and meshed psionic rules? Nothing
Also new discoveries – the big ones, usually happen once in a generation and under optimal conditions (not necessarily good circumstances, war, etc). Seems like a weak reason to plop down a new set of rules/mechanics to test drive during the middle of a campaign.
And I never said my games didn't evolve or change, but they have to a better reason to change than the fact that someone bought the Complete Psionic and decided to drop it dead center on the campaign, sorry that doesn't wash. Doesn’t matter if you made up the rules or bought them –such changes just for the sake of change/boredom just seems like the DM doesn’t care.
If there is a story reason (players discover a way to unlock the mind, series of modules introducing lost Divine magic, etc) then yes, that works. You would drop in a whole rules system (and all the creatures, the whole works) just because what, change, boredom, playtest?
To me, that just seems inconsistent and silly, sorry.
If the players make the effort or the world is set for change and discovery then yes, things will change over the course of the game. Sometimes in the world (PA gaming, someone pops a city state with a small nuke) the change is for the worst.
If you introduce flying ships & machine guns because some players or the DM are bored then good luck. Those things aren't going to help much if your game is already going south and if anything it just mucks up any existing problems with dissatisfaction and boredom. It doesn’t address the problem.
|
|
Again, I know that I'm in a minority here. That's fine. Most people like to play in a setting in which Kharzoug used the same spells 100,000 years ago as the PCs do today. To me, that just grates.For whatever reason, people want their dirt poor farmers struggling to survive, and castles and sieges and armies being the main tools of war.
Despite the fact that magic can bring about irrigation and efficient shipping, and spells and flying monsters can destroy/bypass walls while single heros can slaughter armies.
No, that just illustrates a poorly designed system or DMs with no imagination to accommodate the spells which are focused on adventuring
Flying monsters/spells exists - but there would be no counters for that built into a castle right? Again, shortsighted rules/DMing.
The irrigation systems just reinforces the stupidity of my earlier "unlimited water" post. No forethought or consideration. Just backs up my superhero point up thread.
Magic for shipping - you have too much magic in your system guy, this isn't Wiz-Ex.
I guess all this means is that the game in many respects was designed in a vacuum/combat focus and it would be DMs who have no imagination who leave it there.
If you have castles with no magical defenses then yes, that walks down the path of stupid an inconsistent. Hell, why even have walls or locks, correct?
But that's why we have houserules! You guys are familiar with those, right?
|
|
TOZ, it was a joke. I even complemented you guys on your work you put into those Rules.
The decanter vs orisons is a no contest. Older editions had them as almost impossible items to create, thus no magic land irrigation. That sort of nonsense is a 3rd edition construct. In older editions it was not a viable option, in 3rd+ it is a standard of living. That is how more power changes themes and the feel of games.
When you make create water and easy access orison you have created more internal game problems than the minor power affords. You have eliminated need and want and destroyed some great story lines while inversely creating a wholly unrealistic game world (no wells, no need for water storage, less wars, less want, etc).
You have also eliminated many cool and identifiable qualities that helped with game world immersion. The more distant and super-world like (logical extension of the current levels of magic use), the harder it is to get into it - my opinion and I am obviously in the minority on this point of view.
Sorry if I offended either of you.
|
|
No, that was my fault. I was reading your tone wrong, which is far too easy to do online. I'm glad I held my temper, and didn't insult you over nothing. And I have the memory of a goldfish, so it's hard to keep track of everyone who compliments Kirth on his work.
I don't think there is a minority on this subject. Rather, there is NO majority opinion, merely a huge number of minorities.
|
Once upon a time, GMs would receive advise like this:
"The ultimate success of this adventure in your campaign rests upon you, the DM. It is your skill and knowledge, not only of the adventure and the AD&D@ rule system, but of your players as well, that determine how enjoyable your games with this adventure are. There is no “right” way to run any encounter. There is only your way of running encounters. You may add or delete from the story as you see fit. What is contained within is only a skeleton; it is your input that makes it a worthwhile adventure." (GDQ 1-7: Queen of the Spiders)
Now it seems to me that "player power" is pushing GMs into the simple roles of script-readers and dice-rollers.
Are we in danger of moving D&D/Pathfinder into a game which is great to play but boring to GM?
Will we eventually end up with a game where the players read the module as well as all the other books and a GM is no longer needed?
Has GM-creativity bitten the dust?
Richard
I for one have just returned to the Gm helm. I am first a role player and second a gamer. and I run my games with this in mind. I also communicate this to my players.
IMHO rules involving number crunching, abilities, feats, skills and magical items and effects are for the players to generate a story around, not dominate the story with. this is where gm fiat comes in. rather than deny players access to these tools. I reward the use of role playing. I reward the characters for not min maxing. and I reward the players for using characters and backgrounds that are not super powered. if the players want to run a dwarf warrior with 19 str and 19 con wielding the "uber hammer of kill all in one swing then" they probably wont see a lot of rewards. where as the player who runs the Dwarf with more realistic stats, not necessarily low but say 16 or 17 in one. and use regular gear instead of epic magic. will find the campaign more enjoyable as they use role playing to deal with the tougher creatures instead of wading into combat first and looting the bodies. and then just may find something more rewarding in the treasure. like maps to a new dungeon or a religious artifact that a NPC priest may give free spell services for a year in exchange for.
devising new campaigns or adjusting published ones to reward Role Playing is what makes being a GM both challenging and fun.
What the hell do new discoveries have to do with introducing (dropping right in the middle of) whole and meshed psionic rules? Nothing.
The psionics ARE the discovery. Someone finds a new system the group wants to try, I come up with a story reason for it and we try it. I don't just ban it simply because it's new. You might, and that's fine for your table, but that's not how I roll.
And I never said my games didn't evolve or change, but they have to a better reason to change than the fact that someone bought the Complete Psionic and decided to drop it dead center on the campaign, sorry that doesn't wash for me, even though it does for you.
What better reason could there be? Your personal vision as Tolkien II? The latter doesn't wash for me. (Also notice I edited your quote to make it more accurate and less gratuitously offensive. Just because you play differently doesn't give you the right to dictate to me what "washes" in my game and what doesn't.)
Doesn’t matter if you made up the rules or bought them – such changes just for the sake of change/boredom (or because someone really wants to try them) just seems like the DM doesn’t care. If there is a story reason (players discover a way to unlock the mind...
Step one: players want to try psionics. Step 2: We come up with a story reason to include them. Doing it the other way around ("I came up with a brilliant story reason to play smurfs, but no one wants to!") seems backward to me.
|
|
The more distant and super-world like (logical extension of the current levels of magic use), the harder it is to get into it - my opinion and I am obviously in the minority on this point of view.
I agree entirely. I think that it is very difficult now to figure out what the fantasy world would actually look like if it was actually real.
I think it would be fascinating if we could stick all the rules into some sort of super-computer world emulator and run it for 1000 years of game time to see what emerged. I would be very surprised if it looked anything like a medieval swords and sorcery society.
Richard
|
I have a lot of fun GMing. So much so all of my players want to try their hand at it at some point.
GMing can be hard work, but it doesn't feel like it when you love it. At the end of the night, when my players tell me that they had a GREAT night. Or when I have a player cry, because they are touched by the reunion of their character with their long lost son. Or tell me stories about encounters that I built or ran for them, months or years after the fact.
Feels fun to me. :)
My DM turned the adventure over to another player because the rules and features became so numerous that he couldn't keep up with it. I really enjoyed his game and was sad when he decided to step down. The reason was partially my fault (created a cleric with Item Creation Feats and we butted heads a lot on item creation rules) and I now realize that I should have respected the DM's position more to ensure HIS game balance.
|
|
I'll add a whole new system like psionics mid-campaign without blinking an eye, in a game like that.
Somehow this link seems relevant.
Gary Gygax's childhood friend Don Kaye created Murlynd for the second-ever session of Gygax's Greyhawk campaign in 1972, rolled up on Gygax's kitchen table at the same time as Rob Kuntz's Robilar and Terry Kuntz's Terik. Gygax later recalled that "Murlynd" was the first attempt by a player to make a creative name for a character; in the early days, most players—including Gygax himself—simply used their own name as a basis for their character's name. (Tenser = Ernest, Yrag = Gary, etc.) In the early days of D&D, cross-pollination with other fictional "universes" was common, and in one of these sessions, Gygax transported Murlynd to America's Wild West, a setting that Kaye loved. When Murlynd eventually returned to the world of Greyhawk, he brought his six-shooters back with him. Although Gygax did not allow the use of gunpowder in his Greyhawk setting, he made a loophole for Kaye by ruling that Murlynd actually carried two "magical wands" that made loud noises and delivered small but deadly missiles.
I appreciate the inclusion as it gives me a baseline of what to do with the encounter, but they really are just guidelines. For instance in the final chapter of LoF, the text strongly hints that
-- david
Papa.DRB
EDIT: The inclusion of tactics for monsters is something that we put in primarily due to reader/GM requests... this is the first I've heard of it being interpreted as something that hampers the GM's ability to play the game the way they want. Is that a commonly held opinion?
Wow, just Wow.
I would politely tell said player that the module is just a guideline and I reserve the right to run it the way I think fits the group the best, and that if s/he did not like that and were going to continue doing this, they should not let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.
That said, I *do* run modules fairly close to what is written, since I only run APs for the last 5(?) or so years (started with Shackled City). I have let my players know that I will change little things that make sense for me to change especially if it fits with what the PCs have done / are going.
-- david
Papa.DRB
With this argument in mind I think we will see more and more players reading modules after they have played in them, comparing the way they were written to the way they were run, and if they feel that this difference prevented them from using some cool feature of their character or putting their character to best use then they will complain.
Wow, just Wow.
I would politely tell said player that the module is just a guideline and I reserve the right to run it the way I think fits the group the best, and that if s/he did not like that and were going to continue doing this, they should not let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.
That said, I *do* run modules fairly close to what is written, since I only run APs for the last 5(?) or so years (started with Shackled City). I have let my players know that I will change little things that make sense for me to change especially if it fits with what the PCs have done / are going.
-- david
Papa.DRBWith this argument in mind I think we will see more and more players reading modules after they have played in them, comparing the way they were written to the way they were run, and if they feel that this difference prevented them from using some cool feature of their character or putting their character to best use then they will complain.
I did not see that part of Richard's argument, but I think that if a DM knows a player has an ability he likes to use he should tell the player the ability won't come into play a lot so he won't waste money or feats on it.
As an example I had a player that wanted to bull rush things. I told him that once monsters get to huge size he would be failing a lot of CMB checks.
I appreciate the inclusion as it gives me a baseline of what to do with the encounter, but they really are just guidelines. For instance in the final chapter of LoF, the text strongly hints that ** spoiler omitted ** will initiate combat. The paladin in my group convinced the group to let him talk to her so he and his friend ** spoiler omitted ** rounded the corner, and after conversation she just teleported out.
-- david
Papa.DRBEDIT: The inclusion of tactics for monsters is something that we put in primarily due to reader/GM requests... this is the first I've heard of it being interpreted as something that hampers the GM's ability to play the game the way they want. Is that a commonly held opinion?
Even though I often stray from the written module, sometimes quite far, I like th inclusion of tactics as well. It provides an easy fallback for random encounters and, as mentioned by several posters, sometimes gives better insight into how the monster might react.
Hmmm... I see what you are saying, and I cover that by Papa's houserule 3 of 11.
3) I will provide guidelines on what kind of characters would be best suited and will provide a generic plot/outline of what to expect, all of which you may ignore.
At what point is it telling the player that Bull Rush isn't so great because x, y and z, becomes telling the player how to build his character?
For instance, in the Kingmaker campaign that I am starting up Monday night, one of the guys built a paladin, that put entirely too much emphasis in courtly things (skills, stats, feats), and not enough into adventuring things. I suggested he change it, and he did, but if he didn't then he would have had to live with the consequences of his decisions.
-- david
Papa.DRB
I did not see that part of Richard's argument, but I think that if a DM knows a player has an ability he likes to use he should tell the player the ability won't come into play a lot so he won't waste money or feats on it.As an example I had a player that wanted to bull rush things. I told him that once monsters get to huge size he would be failing a lot of CMB checks.
Hmmm... I see what you are saying, and I cover that by Papa's houserule 3 of 11.
3) I will provide guidelines on what kind of characters would be best suited and will provide a generic plot/outline of what to expect, all of which you may ignore.At what point is it telling the player that Bull Rush isn't so great because x, y and z, becomes telling the player how to build his character?
For instance, in the Kingmaker campaign that I am starting up Monday night, one of the guys built a paladin, that put entirely too much emphasis in courtly things (skills, stats, feats), and not enough into adventuring things. I suggested he change it, and he did, but if he didn't then he would have had to live with the consequences of his decisions.
-- david
Papa.DRB
I did not see that part of Richard's argument, but I think that if a DM knows a player has an ability he likes to use he should tell the player the ability won't come into play a lot so he won't waste money or feats on it.As an example I had a player that wanted to bull rush things. I told him that once monsters get to huge size he would be failing a lot of CMB checks.
I did not see point 3, probably because I was skimming. I do agree that if the player ignores your advice it is on him.
|
|
What the hell do new discoveries have to do with introducing (dropping right in the middle of) whole and meshed psionic rules? Nothing.The psionics ARE the discovery. Someone finds a new system the group wants to try, I come up with a story reason for it and we try it. I don't just ban it simply because it's new. You might, and that's fine for your table, but that's not how I roll.
I just don't include it if it's new as a reflex reaction from coming back from the game store.
If it is:
A)Something we as a group we have been looking for
B)Is mechanically sound
C)Can be integrated without destroying the consistency and feel
then it can go in (slowly, unless there is a dramatic reason for complete immediate integration ex -missing feature we have been playing with or better rule system than what is already in place)
And I never said my games didn't evolve or change, but they have to a better reason to change than the fact that someone bought the Complete Psionic and decided to drop it dead center on the campaign, sorry that doesn't wash for me, even though it does for you.What better reason could there be? Your personal vision as Tolkien II? The latter doesn't wash for me. (Also notice I edited your quote to make it more accurate and less gratuitously offensive. Just because you play differently doesn't give you the right to dictate to me what "washes" in my game and what doesn't.)
Store purchases are not a reason to take risk on a campaign imo, unless the change is thoroughly examined (and implications). The DMs you like to attack may not be running Tolkien II, they may just like the work they put in their game and are very cautious of what gets included.
I just don't let new game product take to much power at my game table, and yeah -that is just me.
I guess it comes down to consistency vs including what "might" be fun new ruleset. I say "might" because in the past I did include new rules from products/articles based solely on what I/we thought would be fun. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it ruined the campaign since tha damage to credibility was vary hard to undo.
For me consistency holds more weight.
I don't think either of us needs to keep up the attack (and yes, you are attacking) play styles and meta-game DM choices on what we include or not include in our games.