I disagree, the players are playing a game created by the DM. The DM has spent far more time developing a story he deems as fun and exciting. I think the DM is in a higher place than a player and a player should respect that.
(-Opinion)

Well that's it folks. That's it right where we disagree most here.
One side thinks the Dm is "higher" than the players.
One side thinks the Dm is "equal" to his players.
:embarrass I personally handpicked, the coolest (by any conventional definition) and most consitent participators I thought would come to play, because these are people I want to play with and if I need a day off alternitavely I can hang out with.
I made individual one-shot, one-one adventures taliored them to fit the characters they said they wanted to play, and the world they wanted to live in. I did a lot of work converting the age of worms campaign to fit faerun.

I did soo much work on the game, but never, never would I be such an insecure pompus ass of a man to say or even imply that I am superior or "higher" than the other people at that table because happen to be the one hosting the game.
Personally, I just balk at the Idea. If Someone seriously said that to some of the people in my group... I'm the Dm, so I'm "higher" that person might get knocked the F-:eek: - out! Though at the very least be informed his service as dm is no longer required.

Okay I just gotta know, I could take it from your posts but I just need to hear it from your own lips, before I go on. Please just Id your position on this aspect of the topic by Posting
Higher
or
Equal.
at the end of your post.

Equal.

Perhaps I operate by the naïve assumption that the PC is every bit the same player as the DM. We are both playing the game and both should have legitimate input in how we are going to spend 6 months, 1 year, 2 years or whatever of our life in how we will together play this game. Let me indulge in a little hyperbole. If I am intrigued about playing something from Tome of Battle, in speaking to the DM I should not have to feel like:


I am asking my boss for a raise
I am in a medieval court in which I must bow before humbly presenting my case
I will probably be rejected
I have to understate my case as if buying a used car
I am trespassing on the DM’s hallowed campaign
The almighty Lord is bequeathing me a favor


You DMs know who you are that make your players feel like this. Even if you don’t admit it and convince yourselves that Johnny from Small Town, USA really enjoys playing a Fighter 11 in your campaign and is looking forward to taking the “dodge” feat next level.

Amen.

This is a medieval European setting so there are no ninjas. I guess we wont be seeing any devils, teleportation magic, mindflayers, fireballs, manticores, and potions of cure light wounds either then. Give me a break.

I can see the argument that these things where in a fantasy/medieval setting. The part that makes things "fantasy" is the unknown. I would say that a "ninja" would fit in a campaign of any sort, as long as it was not outwordly a "ninja". Does that make sense? I can see all sorts of implications that would even involve role-playing. What do those villagers do exactly when confronted with a ninja? I guess that some DMs just do not have the juice when it comes to these situations, so they opt to the easy way out, that is banning. (And I am not including you Caelic, you have at least already stated why a certain thing would not work in your campaign ~ which shows you have at least put some thought into it. I am speaking of those who just "ban" things with no reason whatsoever.)

I don’t have ToB and don’t want to learn a whole new system. I don’t consider myself particularly adept at understanding new things, but after the second night of perusing ToB I had a comfort level with the material and actually used some swordsages as bad guys. Growth is a wonderful thing, you know.

I agree. As I said earlier, if I was really uncomfortable, I would have the player explain the finer points to me, and take it from there. I would even probably ask to borrow the book. Keep in mind that I am not saying that I am going to suddenly allow all the splat books. That is stupid. Chances are that your players are going to use a few. That does not mean that you have to go out and read all of them!~

I saw Spell Compendium and its rewrites of broken splat-book material. I won’t be using it in my campaign. Should I bring some rose petals to throw before your feet next time I come over All-High-And-Mighty-Exalted-One-Who-Knows-All? Yes, ray of stupidity is an aptly named spell. Because I wish to have fun in our game I promise not to be a prick and memorize it if the NPCs do not as well.

Hey, a DM would be stupid to ban this book. There is so much there that is a gold mine for his NPCs. Nothing says refreshing like a spell that the players have never seen!

Really, what is the fascination with power that compels DMs to impose their wills upon PCs? Does it make DMs feel good? Are DMs that bothered by perceived inconsistencies of a story they are sharing with the PCs? Why do they get upset and whine to the boards that melee class X wiped out their BBEG in two rounds?

<puts on flame retardant gear> I would say it is sometimes because the DM does not possess the imagination to challenge that player. Come on, if your BBEG dies in 2 rounds, obviously you have not thought out the specifics of the encounter, or the BBEG is so stupid, he deserves to die in 2 rounds. BBEG are supposed to have a way out, remember? They are supposed to use minions, and anything in their power to thwart the PCs. That's why they are BBEG!

Why do DMs feel compelled to cheat (note: not fudge) dice rolls so the action fits their conception of how the story should unfold – yeah, you DMs that intentionally drag out the “climatic” fight, I hate you. Please do me the courtesy and tell me beforehand not to bother memorizing the spells you deem so non-dramatic that your precious BBEGs will roll a 1 behind the DM screen and save anyway. Perhaps we dispense with the actual die-rolling and I watch you determine on your whims whether or not my fighter hits and how much damage she does...that's what happens anyways behind that screen.

So I tend to have a rather low opinion of DMs who feel the need to fanatically clutch onto the reigns of power in a game they are ostensibly sharing with others. And I don't see how DMs who begrudgingly 'inconvenience' themselves by throwing the PCs a bone in sanctioning the Dungeon Delver PrC once in a while are any different. Dispersal of power is a good thing, trust me. It works in real life. It tends to make the game more enjoyable for all involved.

I will admit that back in the day, I used to do this kind of thing. Then I learned how to play, and how to challenge the PCs without cheating. (*sorry ~ fudging*) Right now, I actually like it when the PCs get down to the nitty gritty, and get through the fight. It gives a sense of accomplishment to see that the players *remember* the big fight that they had with the blue dragon, even if one of the characters bit the dust.

To give an example, in the campaign that I am running, the players meet up with a medium sized blue dragon in the beginnings of the campaign. This blue dragon gave them a run for their money. While the party had a Warlock, and a Spryte witch (flying), the dragon constantly razed them with flyby attacks. Now, some would say that I was cheating by letting the dragon adjust its tactics based on party composition. I say, "what?" The dragon immediately recognised that there was a flyer in the party, and changed it's tactics.

The party lost the flying character, but they pressed on in the fight, until just the right moment, when the ritual warrior used a hero point to deliver a devastating critical to the dragon, killing it.

So, was that overpowered? I had originally planned that the dragon would get away, and plague the party later on. In the old days, I would have fudged this, and let the dragon escape, because I would have "wanted" to protect my story line. Today, I adapt.

I let the party have the kill, because it was cool to do so. They were happy, and I was genuinely happy for them, as they felt like their 4th level characters accomplished something big.

So, I guess that just goes to show you that my campaign is not as interesting as Caelic's. (*sorry, I just had to add that in, I still sting from the remark*)

Kalmarjan – if you need a player for an online game, please PM me.

A PM was sent. The invitation goes out to anyone with Fantasy Grounds. I welcome anyone to my game. :)

Kalmarjan

Well that's it folks.:confused: That's it right where we disagree most here.
One side thinks the Dm is "higher" than the players.
One side thinks the Dm is "equal" to his players.
:embarrass I personally handpicked, the coolest (by any conventional definition) and most consitent participators I thought would come to play, because these are people I want to play with and if I need a day off alternitavely I can hang out with.
I made individual one-shot, one-one adventures taliored them to fit the characters they said they wanted to play, and the world they wanted to live in. I did a lot of work converting the age of worms campaign to fit faerun.

I did soo much work on the game, but never, never would I be such an insecure pompus ass of a man to say or even imply that I am superior or "higher" than the other people at that table because happen to be the one hosting the game.
Personally, I just balk at the Idea. If Someone seriously said that to some of the people in my group... I'm the Dm, so I'm "higher" that person might get knocked the F-:eek: - out! Though at the very least be informed his service as dm is no longer required.

Okay I just gotta know, I could take it from your posts but I just need to hear it from your own lips, before I go on. Please just Id your position on this aspect of the topic by Posting
Higher
or
Equal.
at the end of your post.

Equal.

LOL!

Equal

Kalmarjan

The DM, that's who. If the players are having fun and the DM is not having fun, that's not any good either. It is, as you say, balance.



The fact that you continue to toss around insults at people who don't share your gaming style (they're egotistical, they're immature, etc.) suggests that you don't understand them at all, and don't want to.

He's probbably reacting that way because all the insults people have hurled at him throughout this post... He's been called:
disrespectful/immature/permissive/selfish and weak, which is just the opposite set of insults.
So if you want we can make a gentlemans agreement not to attack each other but thats what a lot of this "debate" boils down to..

Kalmarjan If might have an invite as well sir, I would be honored to game with you in freedom and liberty. Bows.

The DM, that's who. If the players are having fun and the DM is not having fun, that's not any good either. It is, as you say, balance.

Good, then you understand what I am trying to say. :)

The fact that you continue to toss around insults at people who don't share your gaming style (they're egotistical, they're immature, etc.) suggests that you don't understand them at all, and don't want to.

Uhh... I am not tossing insults at anyone. I am simply stating that some opinions expressed on the boards are egotistical. Unfortunately, I call things like they are. If that insults someone, that was not the intention. As for calling someone immature, I have never done that.

I do in fact understand people. Thing is, I want to understand people. Some people have given their opinion on certain things pertaining to their gaming style, and mine. I have simply given my opinion that some of the opinions that I have read are egotistical. I did not however go around tossing out that *so and so is egotistical*.

See the difference? We are debating an issue here, not name calling. :D

Kalmarjan

So if you want we can make a gentlemans agreement not to attack each other but thats what a lot of this "debate" boils down to..

You want to be a gentleman, you be a gentleman. Gentlemen don't sink to name-calling even if they're called names. I've seen caelic take plenty of hits and keep smiling.

He's probbably reacting that way because all the insults people have hurled at him throughout this post... He's been called:
disrespectful/immature/permissive/selfish and weak, which is just the opposite set of insults.
So if you want we can make a gentlemans agreement not to attack each other but thats what a lot of this "debate" boils down to..

If might have an invite as well sir, I would be honored to game with you in freedom and liberty. Bows.

Cool. I will send you a PM about that. :)

Come to think of it, I have been called all of those things. :D Funny, I am using debate to get my point across, and ignoring some of the hurtful things that have been tossed my way. Thing is, I am comfortable enough not to really worry about what some people think I am. I am what I am, so I says what I am. *If that makes any sense*.

Kalmarjan

As for calling someone immature, I have never done that.



I can see some frustration on the parts of both sides of this issue ...
Banning things outright is in fact, lazy. Even with a "planned" excuse. (IE My campaign has no elves! Nyah!) I once tried to run that (back about 15 years ago when I was not a mature player.)

I submit you knew perfectly well what you were saying.

Well that's it folks. That's it right where we disagree most here.
One side thinks the Dm is "higher" than the players.
One side thinks the Dm is "equal" to his players.
:embarrass I personally handpicked, the coolest (by any conventional definition) and most consitent participators I thought would come to play, because these are people I want to play with and if I need a day off alternitavely I can hang out with.
I made individual one-shot, one-one adventures taliored them to fit the characters they said they wanted to play, and the world they wanted to live in. I did a lot of work converting the age of worms campaign to fit faerun.

I did soo much work on the game, but never, never would I be such an insecure pompus ass of a man to say or even imply that I am superior or "higher" than the other people at that table because happen to be the one hosting the game.
Personally, I just balk at the Idea. If Someone seriously said that to some of the people in my group... I'm the Dm, so I'm "higher" that person might get knocked the F-:eek: - out! Though at the very least be informed his service as dm is no longer required.

Okay I just gotta know, I could take it from your posts but I just need to hear it from your own lips, before I go on. Please just Id your position on this aspect of the topic by Posting
Higher
or
Equal.
at the end of your post.

Equal.

Indeed. What side of the screen you sit on should have no bearing on your importance to or standing in the game.

Equal.

You want to be a gentleman, you be a gentleman. Gentlemen don't sink to name-calling even if they're called names. I've seen caelic take plenty of hits and keep smiling.

Ahh... but... I believe..Caelic is one of the people who called him a name too...
I'm sorry, ... do you mean by that "me" as in Midnight_v? Or "me" people as a whole. I personally am not a "gentle" man so we can name call all day won't matter to me, won't get us anywhere but won't matter either.

Further, Rilem, what do you think about Dm position "higher" or "equal" to the other players? Please tell me?

I submit you knew perfectly well what you were saying.

I knew exactly what I was saying. I was not a mature player back then. So how do you equate that with calling someone immature? I did say that banning things outright was "lazy", and in the context that if you do so without explanation, then it is lazy. Read a little further, and it I discovered that Caelic did indeed explain why, so I specifically stated that the remark was not directed at him to ensure that he did not think other wise.

So, where is it that I come out and call *so and so* names? Aside from what *you* interpret? I understand you want to stoke the flames, but can you at least give a concrete example, as opposed to something that you have extrapolated? ;)

Kalmarjan

I'm getting sick of this time comparison thing. Whenever I am going to start a campaign, I go through at least four of five character concepts that I have been developing in my head for weeks usually, and look at as many ways as I can to achieve those concepts within the given rules. There are players in my game who just show up the first day of the cmapgin, say a race and a class and expect someone else to write their characters for them. I spent so much more time than them on my character, I guess I can just tell that player what to do? Or how about when I spend hours creating a ToB character concept and you think for a few minutes and decide on a no blade magic game? I spent more time on this aspect of the game than you. So you spent a lot of time writing stats for a BBEG. That doesn't make every idea you had a brilliant one.
Secondly, it's astounding to me how quickly you guys can flip flop between "I spent a lot of time on this campaign so listen to me" and "I don't have time to look over that book, so forget your character concept". No offense to Caelic (as he has obviously done both of these), but I would prefer a DM who read the ToB and realized it wasn't that broken, to a DM that writes a 300 page paper on the nature of his campaign world. I can glean all the information I need from a lot shorter paper, and it'll save us both a lot of time.

Further, Rilem, what do you think about Dm position "higher" or "equal" to the other players?

No disrepect, but I don't think it's a good question. It's like asking somebody if they "support the troops."

Personally I don't think Animefunkmaster phrased his argument very well. As PhoenixInferno noted earlier, a DM is probably a friend and certainly a peer among his players — the DM is, in fact, a player too. They're just playing differently.

The DM cannot play without players. Players cannot play without a DM. But are they equal? Maybe equal's a bad word, because it suggests sameness and DMs and Players have different roles. Moreover, a player miss a session or drop out altogether with (probably) little overall impact. Not so for the DM, who has more responsibility.

Think of playing basketball with your friends. Somebody brings the ball. It's his ball — he leaves, the game's over. Is he equal to the others? No, he's not, though if he tries to use his position to bully the other players then somebody else may bring the ball next time. He's got to treat people fairly, even if they aren't equal.

In D&D, the game is the DM's ball. He's not equal to the players, no — in the game, he has far more responsibility and far more authority to go along with it.

But when the dice are packed away, his ball is gone and he's back to being an equal. And how he treated his players for the past few hours will determine whether he gets his ball back.

So there's my long-winded answer. I think conservative DMs are fine; they're not egotistical or immature, they're just conservative. I think liberal DMs are fine, too.

'm sorry, ... do you mean by that "me" as in Midnight_v? Or "me" people as a whole.

Sorry, I was speaking generally. True gentlemen don't need an agreement to be gentlemen, was my point.

I'd like to hear more about people's experiences that led them to banning certain things outright, especially things paraded as being definitively balanced and equal like ToB, and especially in light of how easy it is to neutralize someone's powertripping silliness. I just restarted playing a few months ago after a couple years away and I'm about to restart DMing (in maybe two weeks) so although I seriously enjoy the new material and I believe I have a very firm grip on it, I'm wary.



equal

I'm getting sick of this time comparison thing. Whenever I am going to start a campaign, I go through at least four of five character concepts that I have been developing in my head for weeks usually, and look at as many ways as I can to achieve those concepts within the given rules. There are players in my game who just show up the first day of the cmapgin, say a race and a class and expect someone else to write their characters for them. I spent so much more time than them on my character, I guess I can just tell that player what to do? Or how about when I spend hours creating a ToB character concept and you think for a few minutes and decide on a no blade magic game? I spent more time on this aspect of the game than you. So you spent a lot of time writing stats for a BBEG. That doesn't make every idea you had a brilliant one.
Secondly, it's astounding to me how quickly you guys can flip flop between "I spent a lot of time on this campaign so listen to me" and "I don't have time to look over that book, so forget your character concept". No offense to Caelic (as he has obviously done both of these), but I would prefer a DM who read the ToB and realized it wasn't that broken, to a DM that writes a 300 page paper on the nature of his campaign world. I can glean all the information I need from a lot shorter paper, and it'll save us both a lot of time.

This is the general sense that I get from players. It just goes to show you that *everyone* has time invested in this game. We all take time out in order to play, and no one is *higher*/*better* than anyone else.

If you were to come to my *table*, and I saw your character concept, if I did not understand all of it, I would just ask you to explain it to me. I would look over the parts that you built your character from, and we would work together to make something you would be happy to play. All that I would ask is that you expect to be challenged. I have even gone as far as to say to some players it would not matter if you had all 18's in your ability scores. I would still find a way to put your character through the paces.

Nothing is really broken when you look at it. Sure, there are the infinite loops, there are the abuse of classes and so on. I find that normally the players looking to totally optimize their characters fall into 2 groups:

1) Those who are tired of the whole *the DM RULES!* paradigm, so they are compensating for it by the only way that they have control over, optimization.
2) Those who get a kick out of seeing their character kick some serious butt!

So, if I eliminate the first concern, then I am left with the second. If the player wants to kick some butt, that is going to be fun for them. So give it to them!

I in no way am advocating that the player take up all the time at the table either. Part of the job of a DM is balancing the time between the players through pacing/cutscenes etc.

I have sometimes DMed a party with a mix of the two extremes. You know, the ones who want to kick butt, and the ones who want the intrigue.

I try to give both to them. Perhaps the tank wants to smash through some enemies, or protect the party from the hordes of underlings the BBEG has going at them. I give him that role. Perhaps the role-player wants to verbally joust with the BBEG. I give that to them.

Perhaps the player wants to have the wall crushing bull rusher. Sure, I may not know the extent of the rules, but I *will* incorporate that into the rules by learning them, then giving the player what they want. Why not? Is that not the reason he dreamed up the concept?

Or, as some DMs here have suggested, I can totally ban the character class, and make the player suffer because I have 300+ pages of something that I wrote in my own time.

Nothing against Caelic, but I have even tried that. I came to a realization during my years of gaming that no matter how much blood sweat and tears I was pouring into my game, over 90% of it was irrellevant. The players may not care about the economics of country X as compared to the trade of Country Y, suffered through the abdication of throne Z. What they are interested in is the events that are around them.

I do indeed come up with story lines, but I set them out to be like plot points, totally adaptable by what the characters/(read: Players) do. For instance, the BBEG plans to send a caravan down said trail in order to provide reinforcements to another location, but the PCs dispatch the caravan (totally through sheer luck)

Okay, so that plot point disappears. Now the BBEG has no reinforcements. Is the BBEG static? No, he compensates.

In an example given earlier, the players (or god forbid! one player) decides to switch sides. Do I quash that? No. That is what makes the game. The player's actions have a bearing on the campaign world. They may not be the movers and shakers of the world, but their actions should have some effect on *their* immediate world.

As for player choice in characters? I keep it open because ultimately, it is them playing the character, not me. Of course, I probably would tell someone they could not play Pun Pun, but I am pretty sure that it would not come up, because just think, what would be the fun in playing a character like that? It may be fun for about 1 session, perhaps as comic relief, but that would be about it.

Equal.

Kalmarjan

Moreover, a player miss a session or drop out altogether with (probably) little overall impact. Not so for the DM, who has more responsibility.

I would respectfully disagree with this. Sometimes a player missing a session has a big impact. Parties have died because of this. (Imagine the cleric in your party misses a session, when there are plenty of ghouls for the turning. Aside from the DM playing the character, you find out pretty quickly that D&D is a co-operative game.)

Think of playing basketball with your friends. Somebody brings the ball. It's his ball — he leaves, the game's over. Is he equal to the others? No, he's not, though if he tries to use his position to bully the other players then somebody else may bring the ball next time. He's got to treat people fairly, even if they aren't equal.

It is a good analogy, in the context of the game right then and there. What about the playing of basketball throughout the summer? Then the dynamics change. Someone else can indeed bring the ball, negating the "power" of the person with the ball. Or, if the person with the ball leaves, does not mean that the games are over, just that game of basketball. ;)

In D&D, the game is the DM's ball. He's not equal to the players, no — in the game, he has far more responsibility and far more authority to go along with it.

But when the dice are packed away, his ball is gone and he's back to being an equal. And how he treated his players for the past few hours will determine whether he gets his ball back.

Unless the DM is the only one with all the rulebooks, dice, characters, and other stuff, this does not quite match the basketball paradigm. In basketball, you require the ball to play, otherwise it is not known as Basketball. In D&D, there is no one "World", so if the DM packs his stuff up and goes home, there is nothing stopping the players from continuing on. As a matter of fact, that is how I got my DMing career started 17 years ago. Someone packed up their dice/rulebooks in a hissy-fit, and I stepped in to become the DM.

So there's my long-winded answer. I think conservative DMs are fine; they're not egotistical or immature, they're just conservative. I think liberal DMs are fine, too.

LOL. Sounds like an election platform. (Curses those liberals! Down with the Conservatists!)

In general, whatever works for your group is fine with me. I guess I would be called a "liberal" DM. For me, either way works, as long as you maintain the respect for your friends at the gaming table. The whole reason I got into this discussion was the posts regarding the players as something lesser than DMs. That is what I am arguing against. That is what I feel is immature. (Note ~ not directed at anyone, I am simply stating that having that attitude seems to show an immaturity.)

Kalmarjan

I'd like to hear more about people's experiences that led them to banning certain things outright, especially things paraded as being definitively balanced and equal like ToB, and especially in light of how easy it is to neutralize someone's powertripping silliness. I just restarted playing a few months ago after a couple years away and I'm about to restart DMing (in maybe two weeks) so although I seriously enjoy the new material and I believe I have a very firm grip on it, I'm wary.


Arael777,

My advice to you is to get to know what the players want. Then give it to them.

I don't mean hand out a +5 Vorpral Dire Flaming Burst Holy Advenger at the character creation, but if the player expresses a desire for that item, make a note of it. Give them an opportunity in game to work for it.

Same goes for a class choice that they are about to make. If they want to play the Whirling Dervish build, then I say, why not? Just make sure you adjust your encounters to make it challenging for them.

Kalmarjan

Thank you very much for your advice. That's what I mean, it seems easy to incorporate people's desires, so what has driven these others to completely ban things out of hand? I understand thematics and flavor, 'cause I've done that in the past, but I mean the other side of it, and not the 'it looks unbalanced so "no"' but instead 'this happened in my game and zomg I could never use psionics or ToB again oh no here comes CoDzilla'

As opposed to the wizard that casts spontaneously? Sure ~ your call. I would chose my way though. :D

Kalmarjan

This is now off-topic, but I assume either you've done away with wizards altogether, or you believe that the Sorcerers greater number of spellslots per day balances with the wizards more spells known.. or you use a different mechanic to balance them. I'm interested in which approach you took.

Squirrelloid - It would appear as your responses to me are based on the scenario where a single player has a dissenting opinion from the DM and the rest of the group. My analogy to a social contract is absolutely valid in this case for the DM to say "no" because his other players agree and sanction that decision.

The true test of the DM's salt comes when he wants to play a Pirates of the Caribbean theme and 3 of his 5 players express disinterest.

So what if it's not the disruptive player vs. the entire table? If 2 or 3 out of 4 players wish to play something the DM bans for whatever reason, something has to give.

I would agree that it is ridiculous for every DM to have to read every splatbook. I would counter by saying your claim is equally ridiculous. Since I have only 4-6 players and not 100s, I am not going to be inundated with requests to read every splatbook. If I have no familiarity with psionics, ToB, Complete Warrior, Incarnum, Races of Stone, etc., and have to look up the SRD frequently, then I should *not* be DMing. I am guessing most DMs when faced with this scenario have at least heard of the *single* book/concept a single PC wants to play and is experienced and intelligent enough to peruse the book, ask on the WOTC boards, etc. in a week's time to become comfortable enough to allow one in their campaign. Hell, as a DM, I enjoy using new classes/concepts in my world since my players can't metagame.

The DM has a tremendous amount of power already entrusted in her to run the mechanics of the game. Abusing that power to dictate all of the parameters of the game I view as selfish and disruptive to the game's overall enjoyment value. If one player is disruptive, that player - even if it is the DM - should not trump the others.

The DM is a judge not a god.

It seems to me that if the DM wishes to create a railroad plot for his players to run through and therefore control all aspects of the story and where it is going to go (including exactly how much damage the characters deal, at exactly which point in the dramatic climatic fight) then he is better off writing a novel. Seriously, the essence of DnD is shared storytelling, key word shared, where everyone gets to contribute to the tale. Sure, a DM could have a good idea where he wants the story to go, but in the end he should leave the details of how the party gets there up to the party themselves. Because after all, this is a story about the characters of the party. The way I see it, the DM is setting up a premise for a story... he's writing down the blurb on the back cover and summarizing the general skeleton of the story... while the PCs are the ones who are writing in the minutiae and developing the specifics of each hero.

If the DM wants to tell his friends this great story he has brewing in his head, then maybe he should just tell it. If he spent all that time developing some intricate story and gets frustrated when it all unravels, maybe he could have spent that time better in front of a typewriter, and instead of getting angry at his friends he might have been able to send a manuscript to random house and earn buckets of money.

In the end, DnD is just a GAME. One really shouldn't take it too seriously. DMs who spend ridiculous numbers of hours trying to forge out every detail of the world are, in my opinion wasting their time since it's highly dubious that all those details are going to be a part of the game anyway. I appreciate a DM who takes the time to build a world for the players to run around out of pure immersion, but the players should have a hand in shaping some of the scenery as well, too. Otherwise, the world is static, completely dictated in the mind of the DM.

In my opinion, the best kind of game is where the DM is making up the campaign on the fly, since then the element of surprise is ever present and it is as if all the players involved are discovering some exciting story. For the DM to punish creative PC behavior that might throw a story off on a complete tangent is simply against the spirit of pen and paper roleplaying. The reason why PnPers aren't simply playing a computer game where there are shiny graphics and hardcoded rules and a coherent world is exactly because one can do all sorts of crazy, off-the-wall, out of the box, improvisational stuff in PnP. In my opinion, PnP should always support the decision which enhances creativity and imagination the most.

I would respectfully disagree with this. Sometimes a player missing a session has a big impact. Parties have died because of this. (Imagine the cleric in your party misses a session, when there are plenty of ghouls for the turning. Aside from the DM playing the character, you find out pretty quickly that D&D is a co-operative game.)Of course, a "good" DM might take that into account.It is a good analogy, in the context of the game right then and there. What about the playing of basketball throughout the summer? Then the dynamics change. Someone else can indeed bring the ball, negating the "power" of the person with the ball. Or, if the person with the ball leaves, does not mean that the games are over, just that game of basketball. ;) When the ball's owner leaves, that particular game is over. Likely, there's a another game in the next court that they can wait for, or one of the players can go get their ball and go from a game of 21 to a game of HORSE. Whether or not the remaining players find another game to play is not the ball-owner's issue. All he knows is that he's going home.

Unless the DM is the only one with all the rulebooks, dice, characters, and other stuff, this does not quite match the basketball paradigm. In basketball, you require the ball to play, otherwise it is not known as Basketball. In D&D, there is no one "World", so if the DM packs his stuff up and goes home, there is nothing stopping the players from continuing on. As a matter of fact, that is how I got my DMing career started 17 years ago. Someone packed up their dice/rulebooks in a hissy-fit, and I stepped in to become the DM. So that particular game died in that moment and a new one was born (and it might have looked a lot similar to the old one, at least for a time).

The role of the DM and the role of the player are patently UNEQUAL, by definition. So the question becomes "How do the DM and players treat each other?" - a question of fairness. And there can be no one, true answer to that question so we should all just pack up and go now.

I think a lot of the time, players don't want to DM, they want to play. Many DMs love DMing and wouldn't give up the chance to provide a challenging scenario and an engaging storyline/world.
In those situations, sometimes the players just have to give up a little of their "outnumbering" the DM and go with what he has planned if they want to play in that game. That's not to say that they *ought* to, or that the DM has some sort of Divine Right to force them to, but rather the reality is that unless the players want to step up and DM, they go with what the DM has planned. Now, if the group is sitting down to start a new campaign and the DM says "How'd you all like to play Pirates, I've got this great idea for a campaign" and three out of the four players go "meh", well then you really don't have much of a game on your hands anyway.

Obviously the DM who says "Well, you're all gonna be Pirates ! And that's that!" is a DM we can all despise. But this is an extreme, and I'd argue, atypical.

The usual case IME is much more like
"Ok, so my last character died and I'd like to bring in this new thing I read about.. it's called a Ninja and ..."
"Hey! Wait a sec - the rest of the party are paladins, I don't see how that's going to work in the group..."
"No.. get this, right.. He's like totally awesome and he can hide and assassinate you and you didn't even see him coming.."
"Hmm. are you sure you don't want to .."
"Aww man - you're like, totally stifling my player-creativity here"

:)

As you say, if one player, even if it's the DM is disruptive, then that's a downer for the whole group. I just think most people who DM are already trying to juggle the needs of X other players, and IME, it's more likely to be a poor player who will be disruptive than a DM.

Most "conservative" DMs are simply trying to manage the effects of new material on their existing campaign than they are trying to disrupt game-play for everyone just to satisfy their selfish egos.

An egotistical DM is just as likely to allow any kind of thing in their game (and still stomp the players) as they are to ban anything to preserve control (IME).

So, Conservative != megalomaniacal Selfish Disruptive DMs any more than a player with a cool character concept is automatically incapable of fitting in with a party or campaign setting !

One side thinks the Dm is "higher" than the players.
One side thinks the Dm is "equal" to his players.[/B]


It doesnt seem like that is true in the posts I am reading.

Equal is being thrown around a lot but then followed up by statements that dont sound equal to me in some cases.

It seems that there is another side that is what is upsetting the DMs.

One side thinks the DM is just there to service the players and is there to amuse and entertain them.
That makes the player's superior and the DM just a servant.

Also, the players that hate these conservative DMs have never once mentioned (I may have missed the post that said this) how their actions affect "other players".

The DM who says I dont want to allow ToB may be saying that not to destroy his campaign world, or because he doesnt like the mechanics, but to preserve the FUN for the other player's in the group.

Is the problem the DM who doesnt allow you to use something new, because he is trying to enforce power over you or is it you getting upset and having your way may empose your fun over the fun of the other players?

This isnt the case in every situation but it is a factor that needs to be thought about.

I have seen more selfish players ruin a group then a controlling DM. One player who has to have the latest stuff or use 3rd party material will not just affect the DMs game but the other players' playing experience. It is the DMs job to make sure ALL players have fun, not just one.

To be honest... I think both sides are right, in a way.

There are selfish players and there are controlling dms, both can be wrong and hopefully a gaming group is something in the middle. The group dynamic is making sure that ALL players including the DM have fun. The Dm should be having fun as well btw.

Group dynamic - a similiar play style between all players is key I believe. Having too much of a difference in gaming styles between players is more disruptive then anything, imo.

This is now off-topic, but I assume either you've done away with wizards altogether, or you believe that the Sorcerers greater number of spellslots per day balances with the wizards more spells known.. or you use a different mechanic to balance them. I'm interested in which approach you took.

What I did was basically just take away the line that any character must memorize their spells every morning. They still follow the same spell slot progression, they still are limited to the spells that they have on hand.

Some would say this makes clerics/druids more powerful, and hoops the sorcerer. Basically, to me it was just semantics. Once I took away the whole memorization thing, I basically was left with what I wanted. I also gave the sorcerer the ability to spontaneously apply meta magic feats to their spells as well. (As opposed to the traditional penalty of time added to the casting of the spells.)

What this has done is make combat/adventuring more dynamic. Instead of the wizard or the cleric racking their brains over what spells to choose, and possibly being hooped later on, the game opens up.

It has also made combat that much more interesting, as the players/NPCs really do not know what is going to be hitting them. (IE, they will not be thinking, Hey! That wizard there really could only memorize 2 fireballs if he wanted to function with any other spells in that slot.)

As for balance, I have not seen a problem, as the rule works across the board. Why would someone choose the sorcerer class then? The answer is the other parts aside from the spontaneous casting; the knowledge of magic is in their blood.

I did not make a point system because everyone already knows how to use the slots per day, so I kept that the same as to not throw a wrench of confusion into the pile. :D

Kalmarjan

Squirrelloid - It would appear as your responses to me are based on the scenario where a single player has a dissenting opinion from the DM and the rest of the group. My analogy to a social contract is absolutely valid in this case for the DM to say "no" because his other players agree and sanction that decision.

The true test of the DM's salt comes when he wants to play a Pirates of the Caribbean theme and 3 of his 5 players express disinterest.

So what if it's not the disruptive player vs. the entire table? If 2 or 3 out of 4 players wish to play something the DM bans for whatever reason, something has to give.

I would agree that it is ridiculous for every DM to have to read every splatbook. I would counter by saying your claim is equally ridiculous. Since I have only 4-6 players and not 100s, I am not going to be inundated with requests to read every splatbook. If I have no familiarity with psionics, ToB, Complete Warrior, Incarnum, Races of Stone, etc., and have to look up the SRD frequently, then I should *not* be DMing. I am guessing most DMs when faced with this scenario have at least heard of the *single* book/concept a single PC wants to play and is experienced and intelligent enough to peruse the book, ask on the WOTC boards, etc. in a week's time to become comfortable enough to allow one in their campaign. Hell, as a DM, I enjoy using new classes/concepts in my world since my players can't metagame.

The DM has a tremendous amount of power already entrusted in her to run the mechanics of the game. Abusing that power to dictate all of the parameters of the game I view as selfish and disruptive to the game's overall enjoyment value. If one player is disruptive, that player - even if it is the DM - should not trump the others.

The DM is a judge not a god.

My basic perspective is that games should happen one of two ways:
(1) All players get together and decide what kind of campaign they want to run. They choose one of them as a DM to run it (or they already knew who the DM was, but he was an equal negotiator in the decision). Note "kind of campaign" includes such things as gaming paradigm (narrativist, simulationist, gamist, etc...), not just world assumptions (theme, etc...). This forms the basis of the social contract which the DM is obligated to enforce.

(2) The DM advertises a campaign with a setting he has in mind. Perspective players choose whether or not they want to play in it. They agree to the social contract laid down by the DM when they agree to play in his campaign. (An overly rigid DM gets no players). The DM is perfectly within his rights here - you are applying to play in a world he has definite ideas about, you are expected to respect those ideas.

I've done this before - my senior year in college someone had a bright idea to have a meeting of "all the roleplayers" (probably not all, but the meeting was advertised) so that perspective DMs could advertise their campaigns with a short speel about what kind of campaign they wanted to run, and players could listen to their options and choose one. Everyone got what they wanted, and my players are *still* talking about that campaign.

If we can agree both of those are valid formats, then I have no objection to criticizing other DM practices.

DOnt drop by the boards a few days, and look at the thread growth you miss!

Its interesting. I find the opposite occurs in my circle than erazor's experience.

I love to DM. But i love playing even more. There are many players in my immediate circle of friends, and only a few people who are willing and enjoy DMing, but the ALL prefer the player role.

Its not that one take up the mantle as an onerous burden; sometimes one has an idea of a campaign that they want to run. it usually occurs that everyonce in awhile one of the DM's will get a type of campaign that they want to run, and bring it up.

Funny enough, a specific case in point was a pirates campaign. I wanted to run a pirate campaign. It was, in fact, "youre playing pirates, and thats that!":-P Luckily, i had player who had an interest in that style.

Perhaps more illustrative was a war campaign history major friend wanted to run. His rule for char creation- no starting magic except for bard. Thats no Wiz, Sor, Cler, Druid. Now, i really wanted to play a battlefield control wizard. It would have been fine flavorwise. But thats not the campaign he wanted to run. But i changed concepts, becuase thats the campaign that he wanted to run, and i wanted to play.

Now the campaign went on, and we eventually were granted land. The campaign slowly morphed from a combat orientated on to a political one. This caused some player issues, and the campaign disbanded due to players not wanting to play that type of game.

I dont think the DM or players were at fault. There is such thing as unreconcilable differences.

While it would be a chalenge for a DM to run a different type of game when he finds most of the player dont want to play the campaign he wants to run... why should he? He isnt a computer, obligated to run what a player dictates. If there is a campaign that is brought up that no one is interested in playing, then that game isnt played, and no game ends up played. Same as if not enough players can make it on a thurs night.

It isnt so much as One DM to 4-6 players. Its not, well 4 people want one thing vs the one who doesnt. Its One DM and One Set of Players.

I suppose it comes down to the economics in your area/circle. If DM's are plentiful, you can afford to be chosey and shop around till one lets you play waht you want. If they are scarce, you in the end will play with thier final decision or not play at all. I suppose that there could be a place where a bunch of DMs really want to run and there are only a few players which would lead to more tailoring... but i havent seen that place.

When you get to make your own examples, of course the other person is going to sound bad.

This thread got retarded by about page 2.

One obvious question that people gloss over is "What does this new content offer to the story of the game?"

[size=4]
One obvious question that people gloss over is "What does this new content offer to the story of the game?"
I don't think that is the fundamental question here. The addition to the story is pretty much always that it makes the player happy. The fundamental question is what does this detract from the game, and can that problem be alleviated? Like Caelic's elf example, the obvious addition to the story line is the player gets to have elven traits. However, that situation would have detraced from the menace of the various BBEG's (the evil elves). That penalty can be removed by taking away the title/name elf. Thus, the player benefits and the story doesn't suffer. It is when DM's are unwilling to listen to how to minimize problems that I call it bad DMing

I don't think that is the fundamental question here. The addition to the story is pretty much always that it makes the player happy. The fundamental question is what does this detract from the game, and can that problem be alleviated? Like Caelic's elf example, the obvious addition to the story line is the player gets to have elven traits. However, that situation would have detraced from the menace of the various BBEG's (the evil elves). That penalty can be removed by taking away the title/name elf. Thus, the player benefits and the story doesn't suffer. It is when DM's are unwilling to listen to how to minimize problems that I call it bad DMingNo, it is the fundamental question.

D&D is a game. If new additions to it don't make it better, they just make it more complex. It lengthens character creation and it slows down game play because people have to look up rules and determine what the rule actually is (I expect to hear lots of responses like "that won't happen if people learn the rules" but that misses the point of people disagreeing on what rules mean).

The most important thing is for everyone to have fun. And while it might be inconvenient to admit, game continuity adds to the fun. To suddenly see new things that supposedly have a long history makes a person stop and think, "Where have they been?"

The exact same thing happens when you read a book and find a spelling error, you know what it was meant to say, you don't mean to notice it, but you do. And in noticing it you step out of the story and your enjoyment is interrupted.

Do I LARP? No. When my friends and I play do we only talk in character? No.

Do I allow anything in the game? Well, my players don't seem all that interested in doing the new core mechanic stuff (Psionics, Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum).

If anything Wolfman, your point seems to be that a DM denying content makes him/her a bad DM. Now that logic is pretty unfounded. This sounds like a case of correlation implying causation (sp?). For example, there is a very strong correlation between ice cream sales and murder rates in America. Does this mean that ice cream causes murder? No. It is actually because hot weather prompts people to buy more ice cream and hot weather also puts people more on edge (and more likely to commit murder).

A DM might be Bad and Deny, but Denying doesn't make them Bad.

The best D&D 3rd Edition game I ever played in was when it first came out in August of 2000. My friend and I each had one character and we didn't bother with multiclassing. This was back before the Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual. Was our game negatively impacted by a lack of content? No.

-JK

You say this:

No, it is the fundamental question.
(referring to how new content affects the story)

And then two paragraphs later say this:

The most important thing is for everyone to have fun.

Which, if I'm reading correctly, is the point. You say that continuity adds to fun, but so does advancing characters/character concepts, which is a large reason for adding new content. That's why people like the ToB, because it makes melee types fun again. So which is more important: the small bit of continuity sacrificed by adding a martial adept (that doesn't even have to be sacrificed, if a DM can think on his feet), or the large bit of fun gained by letter the melee fighter do cool stuff other than "I hit it, I hit it again, hey wizard you wanna nuke this thing already"?

Your players may not have any interest in something. That's fine, play the game you want to play. But if it's not a big deal to the setting (I think by this time we're all in agreement that playing an elf in Caelic's campaign is a huge deal to the setting, and therefore requires either an explanation of why you can't play one or a total rewrite of the character's flavour, so don't even bother with that counter-argument), and someone wants to play it, then why throw it out? It's enhancing their enjoyment of the game at no cost other than the couple of hours it takes to read over the book.

The best D&D 3rd Edition game I ever played in was when it first came out in August of 2000. My friend and I each had one character and we didn't bother with multiclassing. This was back before the Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual. Was our game negatively impacted by a lack of content? No.

Lucky You! I ran a similar campaign, and man, was it negatively impacted by lack of content! Our fighter had no good feats, our multiclass spellcasters blew monkey chunks, and our wizard was gordly and completely dominated everything from level 9 right through to level 20. We played a session every day during the summer, and leveled every other session, so yes we did play right through to 20, with equal emphasis on each level, so the fact that the wizard was lame from levels one to four (he even died once and had to make a new wizard) didn't at all balance out the fact that his magic was so much more powerful then everybody else's class features put together from levels 9 to 20, (of course everybody else had lousy multiclass caster builds except the fighter, and there just weren't enough fighter feats back then). All in all, I've much more enjoyed some of the more inclusive campaigns I've run or been in, especially those willing to take a chance on some alternate mechanics (3.5 psionics in particular are well designed and can be tons of fun). Story wise, the style lent itself to something more generic (we we're testing out new rules more then forging a cohesive story), but there was still a running narrative that held everything together and held everyone's interest.

(actually, in groups with several people who can DM, but no one who wants to, I reccomend a similar format that a differant group and I worked with a couple years later: Everybody makes a character, adventures are one or two sessions long at the most, and the position of DM rotates after each adventure. It's lends itself to an episodic sort of story, with recurring themes, which can be a good style for D&D. It also builds teamwork and group storytelling skills, prevents the head-trips and conflicts that arise from the DM vs. Player mentalities, and keeps everything fresh and interesting by mixing up the game styles. This format works as a long term thing as with a normal campaign, or in a marathon style whith a game every night. It's best in this kind of format to throw out the experience rules (crafters should get a set experience pool every level for making items), and have all the characters level after a set number of adventures -ie, characters level every adventure, or characters level after completing an adventure with each of the rotating DMs or some such- So that a given DM knows what level to design their next adventure around while the other DMs are taking their turns. It's a great way to run a game, and I highly reccomend trying it sometime)



I suppose I agree with the sentiment that there is no right way, and DMs shouldn't be called lousy for having a vision. But if a DM's vision prevents a player from playing the character type they want to play, I don't see why anyone would be surprised if the player left or call them names for grumbling about it. If a DM tells me he doesn't allow any of the the extra material that makes martial characters cool, instead of just bland NPC thugs controlled by a player, I'm likely to go in search of another game. And if the DM tells me he doesn't allow the Psychic Warrior, Soulborn, Swordsage, or Duskblade because they're 'overpowered', while at the same time allowing all the spells in the PHB and all sorts of new spells and wacky spellcasting PrCs, then yes, I'm likely to deride his judgement on the boards, because he clearly doesn't know what overpowered means. He's simply been brainwashed to believe that guys with swords can't do cool things, while guys with sticks and books can.

It seems to me the thing that has been glossed over with all of the talk of 'social contracts' and 'trying to realize a concept' is the other players.

Everybody (I think at least) agrees that the point is for EVERYONE to have fun.

I'll say that again. EVERYONE to have fun. Not just a single player or DM. Funny how the rest of the players seem to get lost in all of these 'social contracts'. The mentality I see is that, if I get it past the DM, then that's it, I'm good to go. Wait, who are you sitting next to me at the table?

If I am a player joining an existing game, I'd most likely take Caelic's approach.

Why? Because I do not think its ok for me to use a shiny new class or feat if it wasn't available to those already in the game.

I want to play a Warblade. One of the existing players is having a great time with a Fighter. That player when he/she sees my Warblade is going to feel inferior. Even if she/he doesn't, are you seriously willing to take that risk of ruinign someone else's fun?

You can cry balance all you want and say if its balanced it should not matter. Just the fact that it's new matters.

You can say, 'Oh but I would talk to that player and make sure they were cool with it'. Yeah right. Here fighter player, I want to play a warblade. It makes you obsolete, but I'm sure we all can still have fun.

I have seen several posts that says if the DM is hung up on plot and story and regards it as 'his' campaign instead of 'our' campaign then he might as well be writing a novel.

If you are a player and all you are concerned about is visualizing your concept and 'your' character, then you might as well be playing Oblivion.

DnD is a team sport. Its not just the DM and its definitely not just your character.

Think of the other players.

And please, think about the children!

[quote]
Your players may not have any interest in something. That's fine, play the game you want to play. But if it's not a big deal to the setting...and someone wants to play it, then why throw it out? It's enhancing their enjoyment of the game at no cost other than the couple of hours it takes to read over the book.



But there may well be a cost. First off, in an established campaign where continuity is valued highly, there's the cost of continuity. If a new race is incorporated, players are going to wonder why they've never encountered this race before, where it's been all this time, and why it's just now turning up.

In some campaigns, "Oh, it's just always been there" works. Or, "A wizard just went "Boogity boogity." Or, "Oh, look, there's a continent you just overlooked until now."

Some people don't much care about continuity, consistency, or logic, as long as they get to kill things and take their stuff, and that's fine. As long as they're having fun, they're playing the game "right."

Others, though, care about consistency. If the city of Crow's End is to the southeast of Lake Skyre in one game, they expect it to be to the southeast of Lake Skyre in the next. If the city of Crow's End is populated by dwarves, humans, and halflings, they expect it not to suddenly be populated by dwarves, humans, halflings, Thri-Kreen, and Warforged.

Secondly, in a lot of cases, this stuff falls into what I call the "Sudden Strike" category. By this, I mean that it's an addition to the complexity of the game without really adding anything of worth to the game. (Did the game really need Sudden Strike? Is anyone's enjoyment of the game drastically enhanced because their character has 3d6 of Sudden Strike and 2d6 of Sneak Attack rather than just having 5d6 of Sneak Attack?)

In the headlong rush to answer the clarion call of "More Options Is More Fun!" I think that a lot of people have forgotten an aphorism that's been around a lot longer: KISS.

There is such a thing as overcomplicating things. There does come a point where suspension of disbelief is impossible.

Again, a lot of this probably hails from being a writer: I like my fantasy to make sense. I like it to be consistent. "Anything goes" does not appeal to me; I don't think it makes for a particularly good or compelling story, and I think it destroys any sense of verisimilitude.

Now, if "Anything goes" appeals to someone else, that's fine...but they should go find a DM who's going to be enthusiastic about running a campaign like that. I probably could run a campaign like that, but I'd have no enthusiasm for it, and it would probably suck harder than the void of space.

Depends on what you definition of "conservative" is ?

Very - Very - Very Conservative :
Gestalt classes presume 2 actions are still better than 1 better action.
So 2 commoners 'ought' to be better than XYZ co-board combo.

But clearly , Caelic , you're not that conservative. See your Artificer thread.


Very - Very Conservative :
Almost every book says something like - For Use With These D&D Products.
But usually , it mentions only the old core three , or just one more book.
So Build combos 'ought' to be 3+1or2 books only.

But clearly , Caelic , you're not that conservative. See your Bunko's thread.


Very Conservative :
honestly , I'm running out of steam here. A deity shows up for whatever deific reason.
The players need to retreat right now !! ... but they don't cause they been reading threads
from the CO Board. Bad move. Now they're petitioners dealing with random Slaadi.
Me as DM : "roll-/role- play that you pinheads" , no DM fiat involved ;)


tangent : I've thought for a while that Core Co-ing is well nigh static , but its still a pretty good game :D
{EDIT} : cross posted with you Caelic , cause I type slow , comes from being a non-writer.
Core + 2 books : Awaken Construct ( hence my name ) and ... wait I've already gotten you steamed about this combo.
Insanity is part of DMG , so are illithids , and PAO . Uggh , I can see the wince right now.
telepathy - translated : "mommy , who's my daddy" "it's what's my daddy , little Squiggly-Poo"

I read bits and pieces of the thread, and figured I'd give my thoughts.

First off, as a DM.

Currently I have two campaign settings that I'm working on. One that we're currently playing and one that I'm still working on.

The first campaign setting is an everything but cheese setting. That is, anything from an official WotC source can be used, as long as it isn't cheese. So no Thought Bottles, or saving your game before going to fight the BBEG. When a new book comes out, say MoI, I look through it and try to figure ot how it could fit into my campaign. So far I haven't had a problem finding a way to incorporate a new mini-system into my game. And not just as a "tack on" but having it actually fit within some portion of the setting.

The second campaign setting is a very controlled environment. Humans, some Human Variants (elans for example), and Warforged are the only available races. Prepared Spellcasters don't exist. Nor does Arcane Magic. Certain base classes also just don't exist (the rogue for example). If a new book comes out, once I'm done the setting and am actually playing, odds are that only Feats and Spells will be allowed.

I think that neither of these settings are wrong, nor does either one make me a Bad DM. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.


Now, as a player.

I hate being told what I can and cannot play. For me, character creation is half the fun. At the same time I also understand that some characters just don't work in certain settings.

If I'm given a legitimate in game reason for why I can't play a certain character, and if these restrictions are clear up front, then I can usually deal with it. If I was told that I couldn't play an elf, because they're extinct in the current setting, or that I can't play an artificer because it's a low magic game, I would deal with it. However if I get told that I can't be a psion just because, or that I can't use anything outside of Core, then I'm likely going to just leave.

Perhaps it's time for some examples as a player.

There's one guy in our group who occasionally D/Ms, who I refuse to play DnD under. He's a great storyteller, and always has interesting plots and characters, but his complete refusal to allow anything outside of the core books drives me nuts. Especially since he's often one of the first to use that extra material for his PCs. He's also one of the guys who thinks that the Warlock is the most over power class ever, and that a high level core only fighter is still a viable character.
There's other things besides just core only that I disagree with him on, but it is one of the major reasons I don't play when he DMs.

Another guy who used to DM for us was running a 3rd edition Darksun game, right around the time 3.5 was coming out. It was fun playing under him. He didn't know the rules that well, having played almost exlusivley 2nd edition, increased the strength of the monsters we fought, despite the fact that we had low wealth due to the setting, and was stingy with exp. However if there was a class from some book that he didn't own that I wanted to use, I could talk to him about it, explain it's strengths and weaknesses, and then he would approve or ban it based on how he thought it fit the setting, as well as the power level of the game. Often times he was willing to work with us to change the flavour of the class to make it fit.

Despite the fact that the first guy was a better DM, I still enjoy playing DnD with the second DM more, simply because he was willing to work with the players, instead of just banning everything.

So yeah, those are my thoughts, make of them what you will.

Well, I seem to be joining the debait a bit late. My oppinions:

I run the games I run in an open manner, largely because I like teh weird and fantastical. The planes generally exist and are accessible from the major cities, meaning that nothing is beyond belief

I play in games that are not so open, where DMs do just reflex-nerf/ban stuff. I mean, just last week my DM reflex-nerfed Benign Transposition (to a 2nd level spell, from 1st) just because he thought it was more powerful than a 1st level spell should be... He's also previously reflex-nerfed Fist of Stone in a similar way. Although I was once allowed to take a level of Warblade in a 19th-20th level game he was running, he didn't allow any ToB stuff in his current game.

Do I consider him to be unimaginative? No. Perhaps a little too quick on the draw with the nerf-pistol, but his games are fun and it's not like there aren't other classes or spells I can take to optimal effect.

Those are no mere semantics. I tend to choose my words carefully. In fact in the very quote that prompted you to start this thread you will see I specifically said not to level the very charge you take exception to (i.e. ‘inferior’). The other words are most certainly negative and yes, I fully admit they are very much intended to connote the contempt they explicitly say.


I suggest to you that it would be extremely difficult to make the case that a DM who exhibits all of the characteristics you listed is not an inferior DM; many of the words you chose would carry the connotation of "inferior" to a reasonable person.




You without fail say “my” table. You have no trouble remarking, “I don’t care.” Or things like, “I Know that…” and “I refuse to compromise that for anyone.”



Yep. Part of that comes from the fact that the cast of players changes, and the campaign continues. In a very real sense, the campaign does take precedence over the individual players. I have to balance the wants of Player X against the wants of Players Y and Z...and also against the wants of hypothetical Players AA, BB, and CC, who will be joining the campaign two years from now.

If you're suggesting that I'm self-confident to the point of arrogance, you're entirely correct. I believe, however, that my campaign has succeeded as well as it has because of that.




So it would not be “our table,” it is “yours.” How is negotiation possible with such a scenario or mindset?

...I am simply uncomfortable at the unrestrained power you seem to yield and unwavering tendencies in which you more than imply in your posts about not sharing that power.



I think you may have missed some of the points I have made. It's not that I don't believe in "sharing the power." I simply believe in a strict division of powers.

My "power" when it comes to adjudicating the game-world in general is absolute; no player may contradict me in that area.

The player's power when it comes to adjudicating their own character's thoughts, motivations, and actions is similarly absolute; I may not contradict them in that area.

Note: this isn't just "I won't." It's "I can't." In my opinion, I, as a DM, have no authority whatsoever to tell a player "Your character wouldn't do that." I can certainly assign consequences for rash actions, or actions which violate the character's ethos. A Cleric of Pelor who goes around baking puppies is going to get a dose of divine smackdown. But I don't have the authority to tell that Cleric of Pelor, "No, your character wouldn't bake puppies, do something else instead."

The player's authority is as absolute as mine; it's just authority in a different area.


If I am intrigued about playing something from Tome of Battle, in speaking to the DM I should not have to feel like:


I am asking my boss for a raise
I am in a medieval court in which I must bow before humbly presenting my case
I will probably be rejected
I have to understate my case as if buying a used car
I am trespassing on the DM’s hallowed campaign
The almighty Lord is bequeathing me a favor




While we're indulging in hyperbole, allow me to continue. As a DM, if a player is intrigued by the possibility of playing something from Tome of Battle, I should not have to feel like:


I'm the guy behind the counter at Burger King and a customer is berating me because he wanted extra mayo.
There's something wrong with me if I don't understand that my efforts are hopelessly inferior compared to the Official Published Supplements, and I should get down on my knees and thank them for giving me new rules.
I'm a representative at Blizzard listening to a WoW player scream "omg teh nerfzz u suxx0r blizzard i hate u!"
The player is doing me a favor by graciously consenting to let me entertain him each week, and I haven't been grovelling enough lately.




You DMs know who you are that make your players feel like this. Even if you don’t admit it and convince yourselves that Johnny from Small Town, USA really enjoys playing a Fighter 11 in your campaign and is looking forward to taking the “dodge” feat next level.



I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that there might actually be a few players out there who do enjoy just that?


Really, what is the fascination with power that compels DMs to impose their wills upon PCs? Does it make DMs feel good? Are DMs that bothered by perceived inconsistencies of a story they are sharing with the PCs? Why do they get upset and whine to the boards that melee class X wiped out their BBEG in two rounds?


Would it be better if it came from the other players? "Man, that sucked. I came to play, and I got to sit there and watch melee class X wipe out the BBEG in two rounds. I didn't get to do anything."

Of course, here on the CharOp boards, the likely-as-not response to that is "Obviously your Op-Fu is weak, you suck, and you should be more powerful."



Why do DMs feel compelled to cheat (note: not fudge) dice rolls so the action fits their conception of how the story should unfold – yeah, you DMs that intentionally drag out the “climatic” fight, I hate you. Please do me the courtesy and tell me beforehand not to bother memorizing the spells you deem so non-dramatic that your precious BBEGs will roll a 1 behind the DM screen and save anyway. Perhaps we dispense with the actual die-rolling and I watch you determine on your whims whether or not my fighter hits and how much damage she does...that's what happens anyways behind that screen.



I "cheated" by your definition just last week. The characters are currently in a situation where they will be unable to get back to civilization for weeks if not months. None of them is capable of raising the dead. On my first volley of attacks against the party Cleric, I rolled...out of five attacks...five confirmed crits.

I could have let the dice lie, and told that player, "Sorry, guess you're dead, go find something else to do with your Saturdays, I'll call you in about a month when we can work in a new character."

Instead, I fudged...excuse me, "cheated." I left the Cleric down, but not dead.

A bad thing, by your book? Or is it only "cheating" if it doesn't benefit the players?




Dispersal of power is a good thing, trust me. It works in real life. It tends to make the game more enjoyable for all involved.



...which is why classrooms where the teachers says "Do your own thing; the important thing is that you're happy" work so much better than classrooms where the teacher presumes to have rules and expectations and clearly communicate them to the students. Likewise, we've come to understand that the anaestheseologist, nurse, and orderlies are partners in the surgery procedure, and need to have equal input into the triple-bypass. No more of this tyranny of the surgeon barking out orders!

Right?

Sometimes, dispersal of power is a good thing. Sometimes, it results in aimless milling about and a lack of accomplishment.

Quote:
It is a good analogy, in the context of the game right then and there. What about the playing of basketball throughout the summer? Then the dynamics change. Someone else can indeed bring the ball, negating the "power" of the person with the ball. Or, if the person with the ball leaves, does not mean that the games are over, just that game of basketball.

When the ball's owner leaves, that particular game is over. Likely, there's a another game in the next court that they can wait for, or one of the players can go get their ball and go from a game of 21 to a game of HORSE. Whether or not the remaining players find another game to play is not the ball-owner's issue. All he knows is that he's going home.

You know not as much as I hate to argue analogies if you're playing 3on3 and one of the players goes home, or quits to play in the pickup game on the next court then (game b) is ostensibly over too. You're down to playing 21 yourselves.

Further Pheonixinferno as far as players and Dm's role being patently unequal... First is was about whether or not you felt Dm's are higher than the players in the game. I don't,well hell because everyone in my group dms.
I think my veiw comes from the reality that... well all of us have balls ( no pun intended). I actually play in a group like mentioned above were we all take turns dm'ing. Its kind of like being on "duty" in the military if you're familiar with that. I'll dm for a set time or until I simply cannot, then eventually someone else gets a turn to advance the story.

You can get up and leave with your books and dice and whatever but belive me the game will go on.

I've read a lot of Dm's in this post say, something like "Well I'd have no problem kicking your ass to the curb" and you know what?
I'd have not problem kicking your ass to the curb either, and depending on the social rubric of the group your in well it becomes a popularity contest.

That type of scenario just splits the group though, because the Dm and any Player can terminate the game, its not just walking away its the social impact to the rest of the group that happens when we walk away.

My issue in making characters, really is about balance. Balance between players, between players and the MM's, balance between available material.
I suppose living in a "shared world" were I'll only be dm'ing for levels 4-6 and then I'm back in my characters "body" keeps all in perspective for me.

Caelic
If you've been Dm'ing the same game for 20 years.... I can imagine that you feel some sort of entittlement to that world. However, playing that same game for 20 years "dm'ing it" without change well... you wouldn't even be playing 3.5 would you? No.

I after reading this and getting a few pms here and there, how blessed, are those who live in a DM plentiful area. Though I hope and pray that if you are dealing with a-hole players or a-hole Dm's you have the gumtion to start you won game or game on the internet or hell play wow.
Dm's and the players share the game equally where I'm from. The responsibility and creativity too... I never really talk to my group about if they're on these boards. Anybody, Live in Arlington, Tx? Work at Lonestar comics? I just wanna say thanks for making D&D worth my time.

Of course, here on the CharOp boards, the likely-as-not response to that is "Obviously your Op-Fu is weak, you suck, and you should be more powerful." This is true sometimes too...

Sometimes, dispersal of power is a good thing.
Yeah but not if you're the guy without the power. Slavery was a "great" deal in America for Rich White slave owners not such a good deal for middleclass workers... not to mention slaves...

I could have let the dice lie, and told that player, "Sorry, guess you're dead, go find something else to do with your Saturdays, I'll call you in about a month when we can work in a new character."
The first part... I would rather die in game and know that you could be trusted, what the hell is the point of building a good character if there's no chance he'll die? WTF? I'm like when the BBEG shows up... Your Boogeyman for exapmle (bravo by the way)... Effectively, under that reasoning it doesn't have HP at all it has a set number of rounds to live regardless of what the players have done or do. And in my humble opionion thas just unaceptable.

The second part... The find somethin else to do with your saturdays work in a new character call you in a month... it should be, alright well start rolling up a ne character and I'll work him in next time. What you said ... thats not condusive to friendships or gameplay. Man thats damn shame, I can hardly belive there's people who belive this way. I can't even comment on that further currently, Forgive me.

Good day gentlemen.
~M~

I used to be the *ban first, ask questions later* kind of DM. As I gamed more, I found that it was better to set aside the "traditional" player/DM arguments, and go with the flow. I have learned some things along the way doing this.



Interesting. My experience has been exactly the opposite: that new and inexperienced DMs tend to have "Anything goes" campaigns where the letter of the rules is what's important and being published in The Rules is considered good enough reason to use something. The art of learning to do more with less takes time to master.

It seems to me the thing that has been glossed over with all of the talk of 'social contracts' and 'trying to realize a concept' is the other players.

Seems like we agree as I posted a similiar statement above.

Your example of the warblade is a good one as it happened in one of my games but the opposite.

A new player came into an existing game who only had the PHB... he made a gnome rogue.

My group consisted of a Warforged Crusader, Changeling Binder, Shifter Druid (using the shifter variant), and an Artificer. He was seriously made ineffective by the others in the group and never really got into it even thou I tried to help by adding story hooks for his character, special items, or even helping him rebuild his character using some of the newer books. He loved the game but he had a hard time playing in this group.

As a DM it was more difficult to plan because he was so much weaker than the others that the normal encounter levels I was tossing at the party nearly killed him in almost every encounter. His tactic soon became - combat = hidding till combat is over.

In the end, he just didnt have fun and quit.

I am also running another game where I am much more restrictive - the group is always trying to add in new stuff, but I am being more strict. Half the group are not optimizers and the other half are. If I let the player's run wild... one side would soon not have much fun. The optimizers still have fun as they try to work with in the system I provide. Everyone has fun.

Personally, I just balk at the Idea. If Someone seriously said that to some of the people in my group... I'm the Dm, so I'm "higher" that person might get knocked the F-:eek: - out! Though at the very least be informed his service as dm is no longer required.


Wow. I have to say, I'm pretty glad I'm not in that campaign. Y'know, I've heard a lot about how conservative DMs don't respect their players, but I haven't seen any conservative DMs in this thread posting about how a player who did X in their group would "get laughed out of the room" or "get knocked the F- out."

Comments like that...even jesting comments...seem a whole lot more disturbing to me than comments about how a DM has the final say.

But clearly , Caelic , you're not that conservative. See your Artificer thread.


You confuse theoretical discussions on this board with what I actually do in a game. This is a board for discussion of theoretical rules concepts and applications; that is a pastime which is distinct from playing D&D. The two may influence one another, but they are not the same thing.

Here, people want rules-as-written optimization, so I stick to that. In real life, my players want a good game, not silly and unrealistic outcomes from overly literal readings of the rules--so I toss RAW out the window and do what works and makes sense, instead.

Comments like that...even jesting comments...seem a whole lot more disturbing to me than comments about how a DM has the final say.

I'll agree, the implied profanity was completely unnecessary, and made our side of the arguement look bad.

That said, there was a whole lot of 'kick to the curb' talk earlier, it's a notion that's been brought up by both sides of the arguement. More then one pro-con-dm here has mentioned a willingness to kick the 'spoiled brats' out of 'their' game at the least provocation. Superior attitudes and lack of respect seem to come from both sides.

Which I mentioned earlier. The whole thread started with 'players don't respect their DMs', but it's quite clear that that isn't all players, just as its quite clear that some DM's don't respect their player's either. You just hear more complaints from the players here because ther are more players. If you head over to 'what's a DM to do', there's enough spoiled DM's whining about players there to convince you that this isn't a one sided problem.

That said, there was a whole lot of 'kick to the curb' talk earlier, it's a notion that's been brought up by both sides of the arguement. More then one pro-con-dm here has mentioned a willingness to kick the 'spoiled brats' out of 'their' game at the least provocation. Superior attitudes and lack of respect seem to come from both sides.




I can agree with that, but a lot of the time, what happens is that a reasonable action gets portrayed as unreasonable. A DM who has a reason for not allowing something--perhaps a reason the player doesn't like--is portrayed as "just banning it because he's a bad DM." A DM who realizes that a player just isn't fitting in well with the group and suggests to him that he might be better off in another group is portrayed as "kicking the player to the curb."

I have suggested to players before that they would find another game more agreeable. I have only once "kicked a player to the curb," and that was for actual RL theft. Sorry, not gonna be polite about that one--get the heck out and if you come back, we're calling the cops.

Wow. I have to say, I'm pretty glad I'm not in that campaign. Y'know, I've heard a lot about how conservative DMs don't respect their players, but I haven't seen any conservative DMs in this thread posting about how a player who did X in their group would "get laughed out of the room" or "get knocked the F- out."

Comments like that...even jesting comments...seem a whole lot more disturbing to me than comments about how a DM has the final say.

Well... I wasn't jesting... but I some of the things you say equally disturb me so it fair I guess. I play with a bunch of knock-around guys anyway most of us are fighters who work in tough-guy fields.
An occasional ass-whupping may get laid out over beers but the D&D takes the place of what other people do for poker night. I understand though how that would frighten some people. I don't expect everyone IRL to be a warrior.

That's just me and has no bearing on what those who are player rights advocates are saying. Just a personal anecdote, you can't use me to discredit them and thats how I view that, a weak attempt to discredit the opposing view.
I hate to say it because based on your optimization posts it comes as such a surprise. But based on what you've said in this thread....

I'm pretty glad you're not in our campaign too...

(we might run out of band-aids or gauze or alchol swabs.)
now thats in jest.

Well... I wasn't jesting... but I some of the things you say equally disturb me so it fair I guess. I play with a bunch of knock-around guys anyway most of us are fighters who work in tough-guy fields.
An occasional ass-whupping may get laid out over beers but the D&D takes the place of what other people do for poker night. I understand though how that would frighten some people. I don't expect everyone IRL to be a warrior.



Not everyone feels the need to resort to physical violence over a game. I don't think that not feeling that need equates to being "frightened." Then again, I probably wouldn't use the word "warrior" to describe someone who does.





That's just me and has no bearing on what those who are player rights advocates are saying. Just a personal anecdote, you can't use me to discredit them and thats how I view that, a weak attempt to discredit the opposing view.



You mean like the sweeping generalizations about how conservative DMs are weak/lazy/inferior/mean/don't respect their players?

Okay, fine.
(pointedly ignoring further warrior talk)

Caelic we already talked about insults and generalizations on pg 8 I think.
There have been generalizations on both sides.
Personally, I haven't called you anything, nor made any sweeping generalizations to the best of my recollection, made effort to discuss "me" and my experience to elaborate "why" my opinion is what it is and I talk about what "you" i.e. individual people. Have said. I think people all have experiences that have shaped how they play and what they want in their games. I kind of argue from a position based on, Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen ala John Locke.
How does that pertain to players vs dms?
"The principle of any sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation. No body, no individual can exert authority which does not emanate expressly from it."

In this example I equate the players to the nation, any authority as a DM may be "granted" by the players is just that, "granted". Thus, it can and should be taken away from said body (i.e. Dm) should it attempt to misuse that power.

I understand that about half the people disagree and believe in the "divine" right of the Dm to rule "his" world, but again. We aparently, thankfully,live on our own prime material earths. Thats it for me for now.
I'll pop in to see Caelics response to this and then its back to optimization for me. Good luck finding common ground gentlemen.
Your erstwhile companion,
Midnight_v

I feel the need to add to Midnight's thing that it sorta assumes the DM is a player as well, which he or she is, and when you come from a group where everyone rotates as DM and everyone plays their campaign ideas out and it's about everyone's enjoyment, including the DM's with that ability to restrict or rework ideas to fit the campaign, there's no anti-DM bias you guys keep screaming about. The DM isn't a servant to the players or subjugated by player wishes, won't be walked all over by the players, according to those who oppose the OP, the DM is a player. I can't believe some of the extreme and totally unrepresentative examples of the DM acquiescing the OP's side are typing up, because it's not 'I wanna be a elf hurrrr you better compramiz else ima leavin' it's 'I really have the urge to make an elf this time, is there any way we can fit in something along those lines? And if not, your idea is totally superawesome anyway, maybe next game.'

You know not as much as I hate to argue analogies if you're playing 3on3 and one of the players goes home, or quits to play in the pickup game on the next court then (game b) is ostensibly over too. You're down to playing 21 yourselves.

Further Pheonixinferno as far as players and Dm's role being patently unequal... First is was about whether or not you felt Dm's are higher than the players in the game. I don't,well hell because everyone in my group dms.
I think my veiw comes from the reality that... well all of us have balls ( no pun intended). I actually play in a group like mentioned above were we all take turns dm'ing. Its kind of like being on "duty" in the military if you're familiar with that. I'll dm for a set time or until I simply cannot, then eventually someone else gets a turn to advance the story.

You can get up and leave with your books and dice and whatever but belive me the game will go on.
You confuse continuity of the gaming group with continuity of the plot. When you switch DMs, the story is dies. When a new DM takes over, a new story begins, although its history is directly related to the previous ones, unless you all know where the story is supposed to go - in which case, where's the suspense/mystery/sense of awe?

Secondly, you should try reading your post before you hit "Submit Reply" - half of your post is gibberish.

Flawed analogy. To begin with, the DM's "world" is an intellectual construct, not a geopolitical one. If he acts like god, well...he actually did create the universe, in this case.

A better analogy would be that of a company that provides a product. The customer certainly has the right to offer suggestions about what might make the product better; he certainly has the right to choose another product if he finds the one my firm offers to be unsatisfactory.

He does not have the right to march out onto the production floor and start ordering changes on the grounds that he, the customer, would be happier if the product did X, Y, and Z.

I, as a producer of this product, have no particular obligation to alter it to suit the stated wants/needs of every single customer. I have a responsibility to provide a product and not to be deceptive in representing that product. If I'm not insane, I want to provide a product which will satisfy a majority of customers, because I will have no business if I do not.

Therefore, I am going to make business decisions which I believe will contribute the most to my product's long-term competitiveness--whether or not that fails to satisfy any given individual customer. I may take feedback from customers into account; I certainly should do so if I'm any kind of a businessman. Ultimately, though, the decisions are mine.

You confuse continuity of the gaming group with continuity of the plot. When you switch DMs, the story is dies. When a new DM takes over, a new story begins, although its history is directly related to the previous ones, unless you all know where the story is supposed to go - in which case, where's the suspense/mystery/sense of awe?

Secondly, you should try reading your post before you hit "Submit Reply" - half of your post is gibberish.

?? Don't you usually wait to switch DMs until the story is over or the story gets worn out? Also, even trying to be helpful the second paragraph there sounds like an ad hom.



He does not have the right to march out onto the production floor and start ordering changes on the grounds that he, the customer, would be happier if the product did X, Y, and Z.

I, as a producer of this product, have no particular obligation to alter it to suit the stated wants/needs of every single customer. I have a responsibility to provide a product and not to be deceptive in representing that product. If I'm not insane, I want to provide a product which will satisfy a majority of customers, because I will have no business if I do not.

Therefore, I am going to make business decisions which I believe will contribute the most to my product's long-term competitiveness--whether or not that fails to satisfy any given individual customer. I may take feedback from customers into account; I certainly should do so if I'm any kind of a businessman. Ultimately, though, the decisions are mine.

You're forgetting the fundamental philosophy difference between the sides, that of the shared story told by all versus that of the characters exploring just a tiny piece of a world you've spent twenty years creating.

'I really have the urge to make an elf this time, is there any way we can fit in something along those lines? And if not, your idea is totally superawesome anyway, maybe next game.'


Well, no; at least, that's not the position a number of posters have taken. It's more like, "I really have the urge to make an elf this time, and if you say no, I want an explanation, and it had better be a good explanation, and if it's not, then you'd better reconsider and give me what I want or you're (check all negative superlatives which apply.)"

?? Don't you usually wait to switch DMs until the story is over or the story gets worn out?

Why should the story get worn out? That, to me, is the one objective reason I prefer my approach to "Anything goes."

I have never seen an "Anything goes" campaign that lasted for what I consider to be a significant length of time.

I like campaigns to last for a significant length of time.

Therefore, I prefer unique, thoughtfully-designed settings to "Anything goes."

You confuse theoretical discussions on this board with what I actually do in a game. This is a board for discussion of theoretical rules concepts and applications; that is a pastime which is distinct from playing D&D. The two may influence one another, but they are not the same thing.

Here, people want rules-as-written optimization, so I stick to that. In real life, my players want a good game, not silly and unrealistic outcomes from overly literal readings of the rules--so I toss RAW out the window and do what works and makes sense, instead.

I was soo ready to post a response , and the air just went out of my balloon. Kinda like the Enzite comercial.
Always go for the Book of Vile Darkness joke.
I can't actually Detect Thoughts , what you "actually do in a game."
As for calling me confused ...
LoP's Omni- premises section includes his claim to be of sound rhetoric and mind.
I can claim neither of those. Caelic , you partially caught me. otoh ...
The fact that a person has to say : "I'm not crazy" or some euphemism there-of ,
indicates ... what? ...
umm ...
All-knowing-ness ===> disappear for a while , some DM's are blank. { fill in the blank }

?? Don't you usually wait to switch DMs until the story is over or the story gets worn out?You need to read the entire thread because you just jumped in the middle of an analogy.Also, even trying to be helpful the second paragraph there sounds like an ad hom.You must not know me very well - because I don't give a :censored:.

You're forgetting the fundamental philosophy difference between the sides, that of the shared story told by all versus that of the characters exploring just a tiny piece of a world you've spent twenty years creating.



I'm not forgetting it at all. To continue the analogy, I know my clientele, and my clientele consists of those who like long-term storylines in a consistent and logical fantasy mileu.

I cater to those clients. While I might choose to alter my business plan to go after the "Restrictions are bad" market, experience suggests that companies that attempt to be all things to all people don't do well, and so I choose to remain a specialized firm catering to a specific clientele.

Why should the story get worn out? That, to me, is the one objective reason I prefer my approach to "Anything goes."

I have never seen an "Anything goes" campaign that lasted for what I consider to be a significant length of time.

I like campaigns to last for a significant length of time.

Therefore, I prefer unique, thoughtfully-designed settings to "Anything goes."

I cater to those clients.

Hahaha storytelling skill is sometimes directly related to stress and time, no? I like conclusions, myself, so shorter campaigns are what I'm for. You sound like an awesome DM and I think this flamewar sort of argument isn't as much about your campaign as it's about bad DMing. You work with your players and make them happy, because they obviously want your campaign. The bad DMs in question would tend to flat out refuse stuff not for storytelling reasons---I mean, I joined a campaign a little bit ago and I was just getting back into dnd. I made a rogue/monk and was having fun, but then I discovered the warlock. I approached the DM and he said "No, absolutely not, the two classes I don't allow [in his mostly anything goes campaign] are warlock and favored soul. And psionics, but that's different. Can you imagine being able to shoot that eldritch blast every round?!" I just don't understand it, is all.



Well, no; at least, that's not the position a number of posters have taken. It's more like, "I really have the urge to make an elf this time, and if you say no, I want an explanation, and it had better be a good explanation, and if it's not, then you'd better reconsider and give me what I want or you're (check all negative superlatives which apply.)"


But anyone would in opposition to that, and that's what people have been saying. They've been saying that it has to make for a good story if you're gonna wrest control from the players.


You need to read the entire thread because you just jumped in the middle of an analogy.

You must not know me very well - because I don't give a . I didn't understand what he was trying to say - if he wants to get his point across, he'll do it.


I read every word of the thread, I understood his post, sorry oops

Caelic
That analogy is Not flawed.
To begin with, the DM's "world" is an intellectual construct, not a geopolitical one.

I'm not talking about the DM's world (which again I say it shouldn't be "his" world but then thats one of the big differnces) The gaming group itself is the vehicle through which the Dm gets any power.
The real life group, in this reference is the political body...
Thuogh, I realize, it's a futile argument.

Phoenixinferno, sure pal, if it was gibberish, I was tired so, thanks for spending your time deciphering. GodBless.

EDIT!!!
Phoenixinferno
You must not know me very well - because I don't give a XXXX! and it shows...

Caelic
That analogy is Not flawed.


I'm not talking about the DM's world (which again I say it shouldn't be "his" world but then thats one of the big differnces) The gaming group itself is the vehicle through which the Dm gets any power.
The real life group, in this reference is the political body...



The flaw, though, is that nobody is saying that the DM has the right to govern the players without their consent--which is the crux of "Rights of Man."

It's not about whether I can force you to accept me as DM; it's about whether, having been accepted as DM, I have the right to make unilateral decisions as part of that acceptance.

So why balk at the DM deciding against letting an elf into his world ? What's the difference ? One is against the rules about Fighters, and the other is against the "rules" of the game-world. I can't see that the former is stronger than the latter.

Thats it. The only people complaining are the players who have never really had to shoulder the responsibility of running a protracted campaign.

I'm not forgetting it at all. To continue the analogy, I know my clientele, and my clientele consists of those who like long-term storylines in a consistent and logical fantasy mileu.

I cater to those clients. While I might choose to alter my business plan to go after the "Restrictions are bad" market, experience suggests that companies that attempt to be all things to all people don't do well, and so I choose to remain a specialized firm catering to a specific clientele.

Cool. We are on the same page then. This is exactly what I am talking about. You anticipate the needs of your "clients" (players) and fill that need. I do the same thing.

I have not had the luxury of playing in one group for a period of 20 yeaars, as I moved around a lot when I was younger. What that did give me though is a sense of how to jump in and be the DM anywhere.

When I first read the original post, I did not get a sense of what you were talking about here. Perhaps it was due to the frustration you were having with the other thread, but I took it the wrong way. I did not post however, until I saw other jumping on the bandwagon, defending your position with flagrant and blatent disrespect for thier players.

For the record, I would like to play in your game, if only to see where it was going. A new experience can always be cool and refreshing. :)

Kalmarjan

Hahaha storytelling skill is sometimes directly related to stress and time, no? I like conclusions, myself, so shorter campaigns are what I'm for. You sound like an awesome DM and I think this flamewar sort of argument isn't as much about your campaign as it's about bad DMing. You work with your players and make them happy, because they obviously want your campaign. The bad DMs in question would tend to flat out refuse stuff not for storytelling reasons---I mean, I joined a campaign a little bit ago and I was just getting back into dnd. I made a rogue/monk and was having fun, but then I discovered the warlock. I approached the DM and he said "No, absolutely not, the two classes I don't allow [in his mostly anything goes campaign] are warlock and favored soul. And psionics, but that's different. Can you imagine being able to shoot that eldritch blast every round?!" I just don't understand it, is all.


I think that's just it, though, arael. I haven't gone on and on (and on and on and on...) about my own campaign to show that I'm a really swell guy and a groovy DM.

I've gone on about it to illustrate a point. Hearing about my campaign the way things are typically presented on the boards..."Hey, there's this DM who disallows all sorts of things, doesn't use psionics at all, he doesn't even allow ELVES!"--people would conclude that I was just one more unreasonable "Ban-Hammer" DM.

So how do you know that the majority of "unreasonable ban-hammer DMs" aren't in the same boat? How do you know that the majority of them don't, in fact, have reasons for what they ban?

I strongly suspect, as I have said before, that the boogeyman ban-hammer DM exists mostly on boards such as this, and in the minds of players who feel wronged because they didn't get their way.

Furthermore, I'm still flabbergasted by those who insist that a DM who simply doesn't have the free time to learn (or doesn't want to spend what free time he has learning) new rules systems (in addition to designing encounters, adventures, and all the other things that go into a campaign) is selfish, lazy, or inferior. That just seems to be the height of thoughtless disrespect to me; it assumes that naturally the DM has enough free time to do so, and that learning new rules to make his players happy should be his first priority. Heaven forbid he should say, "I finished the adventure for tomorrow. I could spend the next two hours reading a new rulebook, or I could spend it with my wife...I think I'll spend it with my wife."

Who the heck are these people to presume to declare how much free time the DM has, or how he should be spending it?



But anyone would in opposition to that, and that's what people have been saying. They've been saying that it has to make for a good story if you're gonna wrest control from the players.



I read every word of the thread, I understood his post, sorry oops[/QUOTE]

What bothers me here is the sanctimonious, self righteous attitude from so many players that its THEIR game, THEIR choice and who is the DM to intefere with their choices, irrespective of what it does to the game, the story, party cohesion, etc.

These aren't players who realise that they are part of a team based activity. These are solo players who would be better of PVPing in WOW than roleplaying.
These are players I can do without.

Interesting. My experience has been exactly the opposite: that new and inexperienced DMs tend to have "Anything goes" campaigns where the letter of the rules is what's important and being published in The Rules is considered good enough reason to use something. The art of learning to do more with less takes time to master.

Ah. See, when I started playing/DMing, there was not really all that much concern about the whole character optimization. There was min/maxing, but the scope of which it exists today just was not feasable when you had situations where being an elf made you a class.

So there was not really any room for error in what you let in. (Save the assassin class - but that's a different story)

I made mistakes on the amount of treasure I gave out.

This brings me to a good point. I used to ban stuff in 2e, like elves, mainly because of the overload of Bladesingers. That was my response, because I just did not know better. Every book I had read by TSR at the time said that to be a good role-player, you basically had to "be in character" and such stuff. You should never say, "you hit, and do 109 damage!". That was discouraged. You got a sense that you had to write a novel in order to do that. That was fine for some people, but then you had the others that were just interested in the amount of damage their characters could dish out.

See, the game was different for those people. They were obstrasized, called "min/maxers" and other nasty stuff.

Then I discovered Planescape. Anyone who has played in that setting knows that pretty much anything goes. You could have any kind of character concept, and it would fit in. And you know what? The world did not implode! We actually had fun. The "min/maxers" got what they wanted, the roleplayers got what they wanted, there was something for everyone.

I actually developed my whole gaming philosophy as I was climbing the ranks as a chef for Fairmont Hotels. They had this program for interactively managing people. A whole lot of corporate gobblygook. But the good thing to come out of that was that I learned how to anticipate the ne