With more tools for building and a flexible multi-class system, and no real good reason to stay single class, it was INEVITABLE that a building culture would arise among gamers.
And now when you don't even need to by the books cause the goodies are available online, players have an even lower barrier to entry.
I personally think it's a great, fun, opportunity. But I can see how others might resent the balance shift, because it can be difficult to assert the GM's right to allow the appropriate over the possible.
I think Ximen has the right of it. The shift to a player-empowered model predates WoW and even Everquest, but it does coincide with the shift to producing more player-oriented material from the gaming companies. I hadn't really thought of it before (and I'm sorta embarrassed) but when I was playing in the late 70s, earl 80s, it was rare indeed for anyone but the GM (or DM as they were called then) to have books. And there was no internet to look up rules. So players relied almost entirely on the GM for everything.
But after a hiatus in the 90s and returning to playing around 2000 or so, things had changed. Now it was a rare player who didn't have the core players material and most of them had the GM material too. In fact it was common for a player to introduce the GM to new content by bringing in books the GM didn't even own.
I really do think that probably is the key difference in culture between the "GM rules all" days and the "Players are empowered too" modern style.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been playing and DM-ing D&D off and on since it's first appearance back in the mid-'70s. From the first boxed set of three little pamphlets to today's Pathfinder, the single most important rule is that as DM it is your game, your universe, and your rules - the DM's word is law. This doesn't mean you have the right to be an arbitrary j@ck@ss - the point is for everyone to enjoy the game, players and DM alike - and obviously discussion between you and your players as to what will or will not be used in the game is paramount. If you all have a good idea going in of what to expect you all should have a good time, but if there is something you (or your players) feel strongly against for Gawds' sake settle it before you begin, or reorganize your group or game plan so that everyone starts on the same page.
Back in 3.0 days I worked with a young fellow who had recently got into D&D and was looking forward to running his first campaign. Unfortunately he had some experienced gamers in his group who were very good at exploiting the rules to their benefit ("According to page such-and-such this city has a GP limit of XXXX, so we're all going to walk into that shop over there with our huge pile of gold and buy our individual +5 Weapons of Unbeatable Awesomeness because the rules say we can") and who literally became rulers of the entire planet as a result. It got so bad that the DM totally lost control of his own campaign, and despaired of playing D&D. Now, part of that was due of course to the DM's inexperience, but it also illustrates the problems that can arise when campaign-unbalancing things are allowed to happen just because "the rules say I can do it" or "my character wants (whatever) so I have a right to have it". Caution is required on that point on both sides of the DM screen if everyone wants to have a successful and enjoyable game.
I usually plan out my characters to 10th or 20th level as a general guide to what I'd like to do with the PC in a given campaign, but leave it loose enough that I can adapt and react to whatever comes up in the course of the game. As someone said earlier, if you build a character that absolutely HAS to possess a particular item to be playable, try to arrange things so you can either make it yourself, have it made, or obtain it without the DM having to tweak the whole campaign just to accommodate your build. Working something like that in as a Quest or reward is one thing, but breaking the campaign because the DM hasn't given you your toy is something else. Again, communication as to what to expect is key on both sides.
For the record, our current Pathfinder group consists of nine players who float in and out of (atm) five different campaigns. Four of us are DMs, and all of us use DM screens of one sort or another - when all else fails, a laptop works well in a pinch. ;D
I usually plan out my characters to 10th or 20th level as a general guide to what I'd like to do with the PC in a given campaign, but leave it loose enough that I can adapt and react to whatever comes up in the course of the game. As someone said earlier, if you build a character that absolutely HAS to possess a particular item to be playable, try to arrange things so you can either make it yourself, have it made, or obtain it without the DM having to tweak the whole campaign just to accommodate your build. Working something like that in as a Quest or reward is one thing, but breaking the campaign because the DM hasn't given you your toy is something else. Again, communication as to what to expect is key on both sides.
I think this is pretty good advice. The story a campaign generates comes about via negotiation between the visions of the GM and the players. Too rigid a vision on either side and you might as well be negotiating with a rock - you won't get much of a mediated outcome. That's why I always encourage flexibility on the part of players when they think about their characters' futures. They may find that one plan doesn't work with the direction the campaign moves.
There are times I do think D&D has put too much emphasis on concepts that are too specific, starting all the way back with specialization. Once that was added, fighters clamored for getting magic versions of the specific weapon they were specialized in (or if they knew the DMG tables, they specialized in long swords). But it also meant that without their specific weapons, they became not so much minorly inconvenienced as nearly crippled. Situations that causes the loss of equipment (theft, rust monsters, other methods of breaking weapons) went from being annoyances to grounds for mutiny (at least to hear players tell it). And I really think none of that has been particularly healthy for the game. I'd like to see more movement away from narrow specializations and toward broader ones. I'd apply weapon focus and specialization to a whole class of similar weapons (light blades, heavy blades, spears, bows, axes, whatever) so that there's more flexibility in how those benefits can be harnessed.
The old Dm's screen had ThaCO and Saving throws on them, hugely convoluted charts that had to be referenced. That was the main thing of importance on them... with the d20 system, what's on a DM screen that you need quick access to? It seems to me the info is ON the character shoes these days.
Although speaking of character sheets, why do we have such a tiny space to write spells in and half a page for 5 different weapons and feats? up the wazoo? Obviously someone who plays fighters and thieves wrote these character sheets!
That is why My Groups typically use Sadie's Sheets.
thats alot of sheets. prefer to keep it to front and back
My group tends to only use the NPC Sheet at the Actual Table but keep the rest handy if they need it.
Or they use it to do the Math then enter it into a Stat Block and just have the Spell Book Sheets and a scratch piece of paper handy. One even has a Special Page they use for their entire Limited Resources. Such as X/Day or X/Rounds/Day abilities. Spell Slots used. Damage Taken that sort of thing.
I think Ximen has the right of it. The shift to a player-empowered model predates WoW and even Everquest, but it does coincide with the shift to producing more player-oriented material from the gaming companies. I hadn't really thought of it before (and I'm sorta embarrassed) but when I was playing in the late 70s, earl 80s, it was rare indeed for anyone but the GM (or DM as they were called then) to have books. And there was no internet to look up rules. So players relied almost entirely on the GM for everything.
But after a hiatus in the 90s and returning to playing around 2000 or so, things had changed. Now it was a rare player who didn't have the core players material and most of them had the GM material too. In fact it was common for a player to introduce the GM to new content by bringing in books the GM didn't even own.
I really do think that probably is the key difference in culture between the "GM rules all" days and the "Players are empowered too" modern style.
It also makes you feel worse disallowing something your friend paid for, as opposed to giving him one of your books and saying "you can use some, but not all, of this".
I'm surprised so many play without screens. In my head its like playing without dice.
(Obviously, it's not as functionally necessary, but a DM screen is as ubiquitous as 3d6 at our table - or as common as a flask of oil on a level one character sheet).
Ah yes I also have my Laptop at all times during a game.
I've learned to despise laptops on my table. Takes up way too much space I could be using for rolling dice. Now, I stick with a Kindle for module/rules reference and index cards. Much more space for stuff.
The old Dm's screen had ThaCO and Saving throws on them, hugely convoluted charts that had to be referenced. That was the main thing of importance on them... with the d20 system, what's on a DM screen that you need quick access to? It seems to me the info is ON the character shoes these days.
Although speaking of character sheets, why do we have such a tiny space to write spells in and half a page for 5 different weapons and feats? up the wazoo? Obviously someone who plays fighters and thieves wrote these character sheets!
I like the screen for Skill DCs and Conditions reference. I don't really have any reason to hide dice rolls.
Ah yes I also have my Laptop at all times during a game.I've learned to despise laptops on my table. Takes up way too much space I could be using for rolling dice. Now, I stick with a Kindle for module/rules reference and index cards. Much more space for stuff.
We rarely ever use a Table. When we do we typically have TV Trays or such for Books, Drinks, Snacks, etc. I usually have a tray for my Laptop and share one with my GM/Co-GM for Drinks, Snacks, and such.
Ah. I like having a table that everyone is at. Idk, I find it gets people into the game better when we're sitting around on a common table.
Yea we use an iPad for the module and quick reference now. We use condition cards... so dont need DM screen for condition reference.
Ah. I like having a table that everyone is at. Idk, I find it gets people into the game better when we're sitting around on a common table.
Ours we either use a table or are in a room with us all sitting around a map of some form. We have a lot of bored players with way to much free time who love making Map tiles for use to use in games.
& Miniatures... We literally have enough Miniatures that we could fill a 26x26 Square Map Grid 20+ Times.
|
I've found that the choice of table/chairs configuration strongly affects the game. If everyone is seated at the table, there's more cooperative planning, if everyone's in comfy chairs around the coffee table, it's more about plotting with your neighbours.
That's why I use the latter configuration for Vampire, and the former for Pathfinder.
You are and so am I.
Ah well, i didn´t know "so-called" has a negative connotation in english, in my native language it hasn´t, just implies there might be a difference or different opinions on the subject. I beg forgiveness.
My point is mainly that i see a difference between rpg´s and action-rpg´s, which could translate to hack and slash, but in my experience doesn´t necessarily, because there is also that thing of gathering magic items and go searching for them to get the best out of it.
I only started playing in the 90íes because i´m not that old, but in the beginning our GM was the only one to have books too.
The biggest distraction in our games today are wifes and girlfriends though, which don´t want to play but always find an urgent cause to interrupt asking something or getting some attention.
Back on topic though, magic items are always coupled with WBL and necessary, which i already don´t really like. I have been kind of a powergamer some time, especially with rogues and sniper googles, but i found out i don´t like that kind of gaming either. While it´s easy to provide the ingame powerlevel proper bonus on arms and weapons, other items that kind of change some mechanics or interact with them and give other enhancements are a different thing and kind of cheesy. It also gives characters an unnatural feel untill they get this item/those items and then they depend on it. It´s not really an immersive gameworld feel in my opinion and makes it difficult for the GM. Actually smart phones are a good parallel to wondrous items :) Not everyone has one even though they are common, there are different types with different abilities and even if you have the money to buy one you still need connections and apps.
Else i think player empowerment is good, giving the GM free space because players know more rules and stuff and it also can make communication and playing along easier. On the other side, if you have some rules lawyers as players who don´t let you tell the story or adapt something to the story, its really difficult.
|
I might not be the DM, but eventually, no screws with their phones when I am around, and session is going.
I advocate well timed breaks, and no screwing around with electronics.
That's what those breaks are for.
That's a rather blunderbuss approach to things. If you have players who are using things like Summon Monster/Nature's Ally spells, you should be ENCOURAGING them to pickup things like the Summoner app for Android/IOS which speeds up that aspect of play like no one's buisness. Simmilarly even though I have the books, I use PFSRD (also cross platform) as it's the fastest way to look up almost any of the standard rules material.
The best way to get your players to act like the presumed adults they are is to treat them as such. And encourage them to use tools when they speed up the game and gently remind them not to slow things down by playing a Youtube video.
No. Looking up stuff, and dicking around are two very different things.
It's the dicking around I discourage.
I still dream of single player Pathfinder computer games (PC only!). They would have it all. The potential, the greatness, the experience, the background, the fanbase. I think Paizo really could shake the world there, putting out a gender-mainstreamed game state of the art, but alas, it shall not be.
But as soon as i hear phrases like "let me take the aggro", i have a break and talk with my players what we are actually doing there. It´s ok if they want to do that, but not with me as a GM.
I still dream of single player Pathfinder computer games (PC only!). They would have it all. The potential, the greatness, the experience, the background, the fanbase. I think Paizo really could shake the world there, putting out a gender-mainstreamed game state of the art, but alas, it shall not be.
But as soon as i hear phrases like "let me take the aggro", i have a break and talk with my players what we are actually doing there. It´s ok if they want to do that, but not with me as a GM.
PC Only? Aw. :(
I think Army of Two has an excellent Aggro System. Who ever is the most blatant of the Two as a bigger threat is the one the Enemy focuses on.