Author Topic: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?  (Read 33316 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

rubberduck

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 269
    • my stuff
    • Email
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #220 on: March 24, 2009, 06:36:57 AM »
By that logic, the DM should simply start the first game session with "You kill all the monsters and take their stuff.  The end."
i disagree with you on that point the challanges provided in the system are made that way they can be overcome you are supposed to overcome them...
after all it's not fun for the players to lose!
of course its also no fun if there is no challange, but i always thought that the gamemaster should provide challanges that at least appear to be tough ;-). so the players can feel like they really accomplished something by the end of the day.
Quote
If there's no challenge, the game isn't fun--at least it isn't for me, and I know it's not for the people I play with.
totally agree with that one
best online-comics i know: http://lfgcomic.com/ http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com
Looking for players? http://spielerzentrale.de/

me fail english? that's unpossible!
fear my new god! DARTH GOKUVERINE
poor literacy is kewl

pfooti

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • Pants are for Suckers
    • /castrandom - even we don't know what it's about
    • Email
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #221 on: March 24, 2009, 09:59:23 AM »
So how DO the players "ruin" the story? For example, if they manage to kill the BBEG on a whim at a chance meeting, or even while the BBEG hasn't revealed himself, how is that ruining the story? That's changing the story. If a player becomes too powerful in the sense that he actually has OPTIONS outside of what the DM thinks he should do, then IMHO that's good. Constructing storylines that are helt together by limiting player options are rarely good, IMHO. If the story wants the players to take a certain route to confront a certain bad guy, but the players choose to teleport past that place entirely, then that's not ruining the story, that's avoiding The TRAIN, which is good.

Speaking in generalities, I think the magic-mart can lead to power escalation. Happens for wizards in particular, but to a lesser extent everybody else. The right magic items are a force multiplier that can make a character far more powerful than his character level would indicate. That "power" can be expressed in ability to kill monsters, to diplomacize the King into giving the party all titles, to trivially find and disable all the traps in the dungeon.

When most of the party is expecting a dungeon crawl, and the DM prepares a dungeon crawl, and the wizard busts out one of the many spell combinations possible that lead to a "okay, after ten minutes of invisible and no-risk scouting, I've developed an entire map of the dungeon", that wizard has trivialized the gaming session. If a barbarian gets all the relevant magic items and becomes such a good grappler that he can effectively grapple anything with little to no chance of failure, he's trivialized a whole class of encounters. Good DMs will plan around this and alter their story accordingly. Other DMs will also avoid this by making sure the Barbarian never gets the +80 grapple modifier in the first place.

Generally speaking, I don't like railroaded adventures any more than the next guy. When we're stuck somewhere, but are high-level, I'd way rather wait for the wizard to figure out a way to teleport us where we're headed than deal with overland travel. Most DMs would understand and plan around that.

I'm not trying to say that PCs in general shouldn't have magic items. What I am trying to say is that the DM should be the arbiter of who gets what. When the PCs roll into town with their half-ton of gold and treasure floating behind them on tenser's floating disks (with optional tarp), they should have to WORK to find a store that deals in the ridiculously expensive goods that they want to purchase, earn the trust of the salesman (who lets an armed band of adventurers just wander around in a store that contains more wealth than the rest of the city put together?), and deal with the fact that the particular item they want may just not be available.

If a PC wants just the right item, that's what crafting rules (and feats) are for. But if a Wizard or Artificer wants a scroll of some obscure spell, they're going to have to get lucky. Despite the relatively low GP value of scrolls, I find it hard to believe that every Large Town (3000 GP limit) has a level 15 wizard living in it, writing out all the 8th-level scrolls for people to just buy. It just doesn't make sense. That means you need to make sure there's spellbooks and scrolls with useful spells in them as treasure, and it might mean that your wizard PCs end up taking Collegiate Wizard at level 1 (they should anyway, it's a huge moneysaver).

Anyway, I've rambled on and off topic enough for the morning here. Time for some coffee and whatnot. But my takeaway is: some magic items, even sometimes more than wealth/level guidelines are fine. But if you allow too much customization of magic items at the mage-mart, you're: (a) setting up situations where over-optimization can happen, and (b) creating very unrealistic role-play situations.

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #222 on: March 24, 2009, 12:39:17 PM »
Ok, actually in all the groups I've played this hasn't been much different: Most magic items have actually been made to order for the players, which makes it very simple for the DM to say: No, sorry, we don't have that spell component/material component, whatever ready, you're going to have to wait for two weeks, OR get it for us. So that's a new plot hook right there.

Actually there should be a split availability level: Stuff made to order, and stuff bought ready, but very possibly used. You go to a mages guild for the former, and to an item trader for the latter.

However, that doesn't contradict my point that, given time, effort and resource investment, players should get what they want and also WHEN they want it, that usually means before tromping off into the next big bad dungeon. (I've had situations where I as a player basically had to say "Sorry, I cannot continue before I have that item, because I do think I will really need it, and suicide missions are not to my taste."

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #223 on: March 24, 2009, 02:09:31 PM »
Quote
...and far too often, people seem to forget that the DM is also there to have fun.  If I had a nickel for every time I've heard "It's the DM's job to make sure the players have fun," "It's the DM's job to be entertaining," or some variant of same, I'D be the one attempting to buy out GenCon LLD.

The reason I DM is because I enjoy the creative aspect of it.  I like building worlds.  I don't like running generic "Okay, here's a group, here's a dungeon, go kill stuff" campaigns--at all.

Has it occurred to you that the players might enjoy the same creative aspect, but under a different scope? Consider a game starting at 20th level: the characters are supposed to be one of the epitomes of adventurer existence, coming to a close second only to a few legends of the world.

Wizard20: "Alright! Time to create my private study demiplane!"
DM: "You can't do that. Genesis is not allowed in this campaign for balance purposes."
Wizard20: "Oh... okay. Well, i suppose I can still have my own castle..."
DM: "Not really. Your character isn't royalty so he's not supposed to have a castle, even if you make it from scratch. You can have a tower though."
W20: "Sweet!"
DM: "As long as it's way out in the boondocks. Oh, and did I mention there's no teleport in this world?"
W20: "Oh, alright then. I guess it's time to get my gear together. Let's see... Oooh, Thought Bottle! That sounds like such a cool item. I could store my spellbooks and have them in bottle form!"
DM: "Banned. Too much brokenness potential. Oh, and while we're talking banned, you can't use Spell Compendium either. Too many broken stuff. Oh, and I'm limiting your spells known to what you get via research. No scrolls sold anywhere."
W20: "So let me get this straight: I'm supposed to be one of the strongest Wizards in existence, second only to a few people in the world, and the only thing I really have worth of note is a tower out in the boondocks with whatever I equip it with, my gear, and spellbooks with less spells in it than a sorcerer gets?"
DM: "Actually, the tower costs too much for you to afford even clothing. And the special inks to write your spells. So you're a naked mage with a blank tome."
W20: "Fuck you."

This is, of course, reductio ad absurdum, but I think I got my point across. Part of the fun for the players is supposed to be having an effect on the world, however small it may be - being one of the things that change how the world works instead of just another gear. And part of the fun of the DM is supposed to be going along with those changes and creating something just as fun for everyone. Suppose the players are on a quest to impede the creation of Frankenstein's monster. They get to the lab too late; the monster is already "alive". This is, of course, according to the DM's plan, who assumes they will try to kill the thing and get their XP worth of trouble.

Instead, they end up killing only Doctor Frankenstein himself, not his monster, and befriending the poor guy, who happens to be in such a horrible situation, and helping him accept it and turn him into a force for good. This is only one example of an unforeseen plot twist gone right; my problem with the "player restriction" mentality is that it oftentimes act out of fear that the unforeseen plot twist will go horribly wrong and destroy the carefully engendered scenario wrought by the DM.

I have written cooperative stories for quite a few years now with a very good friend. Every time you force a character into a certain situation without the other player not getting a say edgewise, it leaves an awful taste in that player's mouth. Restricting players based on abuse that may or may not happen is as paranoid as it's harmful.

If you don't want to deal with unexpected occurrences in your campaign world, you should not be DMing.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


InnaBinder

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1610
  • OnnaTable
    • Okay - - Your Turn: Monte Cook's Message Board
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #224 on: March 24, 2009, 02:50:18 PM »
Quote
...and far too often, people seem to forget that the DM is also there to have fun.  If I had a nickel for every time I've heard "It's the DM's job to make sure the players have fun," "It's the DM's job to be entertaining," or some variant of same, I'D be the one attempting to buy out GenCon LLD.

The reason I DM is because I enjoy the creative aspect of it.  I like building worlds.  I don't like running generic "Okay, here's a group, here's a dungeon, go kill stuff" campaigns--at all.

Has it occurred to you that the players might enjoy the same creative aspect, but under a different scope? Consider a game starting at 20th level: the characters are supposed to be one of the epitomes of adventurer existence, coming to a close second only to a few legends of the world.

Wizard20: "Alright! Time to create my private study demiplane!"
DM: "You can't do that. Genesis is not allowed in this campaign for balance purposes."
Wizard20: "Oh... okay. Well, i suppose I can still have my own castle..."
DM: "Not really. Your character isn't royalty so he's not supposed to have a castle, even if you make it from scratch. You can have a tower though."
W20: "Sweet!"
DM: "As long as it's way out in the boondocks. Oh, and did I mention there's no teleport in this world?"
W20: "Oh, alright then. I guess it's time to get my gear together. Let's see... Oooh, Thought Bottle! That sounds like such a cool item. I could store my spellbooks and have them in bottle form!"
DM: "Banned. Too much brokenness potential. Oh, and while we're talking banned, you can't use Spell Compendium either. Too many broken stuff. Oh, and I'm limiting your spells known to what you get via research. No scrolls sold anywhere."
W20: "So let me get this straight: I'm supposed to be one of the strongest Wizards in existence, second only to a few people in the world, and the only thing I really have worth of note is a tower out in the boondocks with whatever I equip it with, my gear, and spellbooks with less spells in it than a sorcerer gets?"
DM: "Actually, the tower costs too much for you to afford even clothing. And the special inks to write your spells. So you're a naked mage with a blank tome."
W20: "Fuck you."

This is, of course, reductio ad absurdum, but I think I got my point across. Part of the fun for the players is supposed to be having an effect on the world, however small it may be - being one of the things that change how the world works instead of just another gear. And part of the fun of the DM is supposed to be going along with those changes and creating something just as fun for everyone. Suppose the players are on a quest to impede the creation of Frankenstein's monster. They get to the lab too late; the monster is already "alive". This is, of course, according to the DM's plan, who assumes they will try to kill the thing and get their XP worth of trouble.

Instead, they end up killing only Doctor Frankenstein himself, not his monster, and befriending the poor guy, who happens to be in such a horrible situation, and helping him accept it and turn him into a force for good. This is only one example of an unforeseen plot twist gone right; my problem with the "player restriction" mentality is that it oftentimes act out of fear that the unforeseen plot twist will go horribly wrong and destroy the carefully engendered scenario wrought by the DM.

I have written cooperative stories for quite a few years now with a very good friend. Every time you force a character into a certain situation without the other player not getting a say edgewise, it leaves an awful taste in that player's mouth. Restricting players based on abuse that may or may not happen is as paranoid as it's harmful.

If you don't want to deal with unexpected occurrences in your campaign world, you should not be DMing.
I'm going out on a limb here to say that most campaigns don't start at 20th level, and as you said, your example is essentially a strawman.  There is a difference between dealing with the unexpected in your campaign world, and maintaining a semblance of consistency.
Winning an argument on the internet is like winning in the Special Olympics.  You won, but you're still retarded.

I made a Handbook!?

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #225 on: March 24, 2009, 06:53:17 PM »
Quote
I'm going out on a limb here to say that most campaigns don't start at 20th level, and as you said, your example is essentially a strawman.  There is a difference between dealing with the unexpected in your campaign world, and maintaining a semblance of consistency.

The example was absurd exactly to illustrate the point: let "restrictions" go too far, and things go south incredibly quick.

I can understand a setting restricting certain things (particularly a low-magic setting). That's all fine and dandy. Using the scenario as an excuse to maintain "balance", however, is not. Also, I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to play with a DM who essentially sucks the fun out of things by making the sandbox too tight.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


Surreal

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1430
    • Email
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #226 on: March 24, 2009, 07:23:03 PM »
I think something that we're glossing over (and something that I've brought up in the past) is player vs character knowledge. We here in CO tend to approach things from an almost omniscient standpoint. We know all the gear and spells and items and combos etc that have been printed. Most PCs do not have this knowledge. Heck, most "normal" players don't have this knowledge either, but they still have fun in the sandbox. If the player then buys a new book but the DM doesn't want to introduce any of the new material into the current game, does that mean the player will have less fun? (that's a rhetoric people; no need to be nitpicky)
---
"The late, sedate, and no to great." ~Surreal

Some Handy Links for CO Work (WotC 339 version) - a compilation of links for base/prestige class handbooks, tactics, spellcasting, character builds, D&D databases, etc.
Archived version of the above with working links

The Mango Index - a giant index for all things D&D and where to find them
The Mango List Reborn! - rehosted by KellKheraptis

Lists of Stuff - listing of class features etc and how to get them, etc. sort of like above but a little more specific and sorted by category
Polymorph, Wildshape and Shapechange, oh my! (comparison charts) - side-by-side comparison of all the various form altering abilities
Alternative Class Features
alternative ways to get class skills

skydragonknight

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3297
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #227 on: March 24, 2009, 07:45:08 PM »
I'm of the mind that the awesomeness of the magic item should (usually) reflect the amount of effort put into acquiring it. Nearly everything should be acquirable with a few exceptions(typically of the Belts of Battle/Dust of Sneezing and Choking kind) that can trivialize encounters on their own.

If a player really wants something from Obscure Source X(In this example we'll say a Scout looking for a Sparing Dummy of the Masters) that is likely not to be found for sale in the current environment(say, a medieval kingdom), he and the DM can work out a roleplayed path to acquiring one.

Not having magic marts doesn't mean items are unavailable. It just means the player has to stop being lazy for 5 minutes and ask their DM between game sessions. :P
It always seems like the barrels around here have something in them.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #228 on: March 24, 2009, 07:45:45 PM »
If the player then buys a new book but the DM doesn't want to introduce any of the new material into the current game, does that mean the player will have less fun?
Probably, if the player bought the book with the impression they'd be able to use the material.  Especially given the stupidly high Australian prices.  I know I'd be irritated if I bought a book and couldn't use it.  OTOH, books that people plan on getting are discussed before the gameplay actually gets going, so YMMV.  If the GM encouraged the purchase then forbade the material, yeah, that would diminish the fun.


(that's a rhetoric people; no need to be nitpicky)
Don't worry about it, our nitpicking is complimentary.  
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

awaken DM golem

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3294
  • PAO'd my Avatar
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #229 on: March 24, 2009, 08:17:40 PM »
" ... omniscient ... "
Well, no, but, there are Knowledge/Spellcraft Checks.
4 ranks + take 20 + Aid Another = even the smallest town knows about really big magic.
As long as they sit around the campfire every now and then.

There are optional rules about training.
Using them puts pre-existing knowledge into the game.
How did D&D's adam and eve, learn how to Heal Check their rug burns (err, grass burns) ??
Easy solution is:
Far Realms causes whatever-time.
Limited Wish uncovers all sorts of training info.
They accidentally didn't get enslaved by the Aboleths - there in the Garden of DeDen.
Problem solved.

If a DM really said there's no training for X available around here,
that would cap just about any game.
But somehow the game is uncapped.


Caelic

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #230 on: March 24, 2009, 11:10:32 PM »
Quote
I'm going out on a limb here to say that most campaigns don't start at 20th level, and as you said, your example is essentially a strawman.  There is a difference between dealing with the unexpected in your campaign world, and maintaining a semblance of consistency.

The example was absurd exactly to illustrate the point: let "restrictions" go too far, and things go south incredibly quick.



Yep.  And I could use the same kind of reductio to show how quickly things go south if the DM doesn't exercise some control--and I guarantee you that my example would be just as over-the-top as yours.

In the real world, though, I tend to be guided by my experiences.  I've been playing for a good long while; in that time, I've seen a lot of "anything goes" campaigns, a lot of what I'll term "reasonable restriction" campaigns, and a handful of "DM is an anal control-freak" campaigns.

The "Anal DM" campaigns fold quickly.  The "anything goes" campaigns generally last a bit longer, but not all that much longer.  I've never seen an "anything goes" campaign last more than a year and a half.

Every one of the campaigns I've encountered that lasted longer than that had restrictions based on the setting.

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #231 on: March 25, 2009, 12:35:52 AM »
I disagree, slightly. Restrictions based on the setting are not as important as restictions decided upon by the group before hand.
Now we've touched on this before.
Little know fact: Midnight_v doesn't like elves. The rest of the group was doing an elf game (or I was joining an elf game or whatever)
So we're in that worlds "Elf-home" or whatever.
Should I be forced to play an elf?  If the dm says "NO! Elf only!" even if the rest of the group says... "Its cool if you can find something that will fit in, a changling or hell, a present  visitning Dwarf ambassador when the adventure begins."
  You know I suggest reasonability too but the PCs are the stars no the "setting" or the "story" to some exctent they're allowed to change the setting's long standing rules, cause they're the heroes.
hmmm....I'm not sure I'm being entirely clear. Some restrictions are good, cohesion between the people involved in gaming together is important.
Kind of ...uhmm....
"Be on the same page rule"
We're both in the "No magic" campaign, we signed up for that. Knew going in, wanted it (good fun by the way)
but it's unreasonable to some degree to focre that on to people who are your friends etc... blah blah who have expectations of playing "standard idea" d&d. Course there are also "problems" and a lot of "variance" with the "standard idea" D&D and the actual implementation.
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

mans0011

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
  • Too much Aizen Hate to go around....
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #232 on: March 25, 2009, 02:50:22 AM »
I disagree, slightly. Restrictions based on the setting are not as important as restictions decided upon by the group before hand.
Now we've touched on this before.
Little know fact: Midnight_v doesn't like elves. The rest of the group was doing an elf game (or I was joining an elf game or whatever)
So we're in that worlds "Elf-home" or whatever.
Should I be forced to play an elf?  If the dm says "NO! Elf only!" even if the rest of the group says... "Its cool if you can find something that will fit in, a changling or hell, a present  visitning Dwarf ambassador when the adventure begins."
  You know I suggest reasonability too but the PCs are the stars no the "setting" or the "story" to some exctent they're allowed to change the setting's long standing rules, cause they're the heroes.
hmmm....I'm not sure I'm being entirely clear. Some restrictions are good, cohesion between the people involved in gaming together is important.
Kind of ...uhmm....
"Be on the same page rule"
We're both in the "No magic" campaign, we signed up for that. Knew going in, wanted it (good fun by the way)
but it's unreasonable to some degree to focre that on to people who are your friends etc... blah blah who have expectations of playing "standard idea" d&d. Course there are also "problems" and a lot of "variance" with the "standard idea" D&D and the actual implementation.

You make plenty of sense to me. But I'm also kinda drunk right now, lulz.
OOC-well for that matter he could just ride on my sword, that's about 15' ;)
OOC - That's what SHE said!  But, otherwise, that works for me, if you guys are willing.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #233 on: March 25, 2009, 10:22:00 AM »
Quote
I'm going out on a limb here to say that most campaigns don't start at 20th level, and as you said, your example is essentially a strawman.  There is a difference between dealing with the unexpected in your campaign world, and maintaining a semblance of consistency.

The example was absurd exactly to illustrate the point: let "restrictions" go too far, and things go south incredibly quick.



Yep.  And I could use the same kind of reductio to show how quickly things go south if the DM doesn't exercise some control--and I guarantee you that my example would be just as over-the-top as yours.

In the real world, though, I tend to be guided by my experiences.  I've been playing for a good long while; in that time, I've seen a lot of "anything goes" campaigns, a lot of what I'll term "reasonable restriction" campaigns, and a handful of "DM is an anal control-freak" campaigns.

The "Anal DM" campaigns fold quickly.  The "anything goes" campaigns generally last a bit longer, but not all that much longer.  I've never seen an "anything goes" campaign last more than a year and a half.

Every one of the campaigns I've encountered that lasted longer than that had restrictions based on the setting.


Well, I've played plenty of campaigns as well. In my experience, while some (not all) "anything goes" campaigns have folded relatively quickly, they were ALL a blast. The semi-restrictive campaigns have lasted longer, but haven't been quite as fun, and I'm in a campaign where the DM is an anal control freak right now, where I want to choke him with his own intestines.

I see little sense in restricting magicmarts because DMs have, literally, god-like power. Heck, if they start an anything goes campaign and at some point decide it isn't going well, a good DM would weave the change into the story (easiest way being? Have BBEGs raid magicmarts. Now the players have to face hordes equipped with magic items, and find the good stuff).
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


Caelic

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #234 on: March 25, 2009, 11:52:15 AM »

Now we've touched on this before.


Yep.  Here's the thing, though: you seem to be assuming restrictions that are just arbitrarily sprung on the players at the beginning of the first game session.

I agree that that's a really bad idea, and that it shouldn't be done.

What I'm talking about is a situation where the DM lets the players know in advance, "This is the campaign idea I have, these are the ground rules."  If the players have really serious objections to the idea or the rules, the campaign doesn't get run; simple as that.

The flip-side of your example (which I know we've also discussed before) is my campaign world, where most of the planet considers elves to be either long dead or mythical.  A very few elves still exist, but every one of them is incredibly old and stark raving mad.

That's an integral part of the story.  It's not something I can change without completely changing the history of the world.

There's another thing to consider, too: the other players.  A lot of them have spent a long time learning the lore of the game world, and a lot of them have made build decisions based on that lore.  If it just suddenly changes, that's unfair to them, because it forces them to change THEIR characters to accomodate someone else.

For instance: there's a character in the party who has an absolutely obsessive hatred of elves (with very good reason.)  If he sees an elf, he will do everything in his power to kill it--no ifs, ands, or buts.  There are two others who aren't quite as zealous, but would help him without question and without stopping to talk to the elf.

If a player comes along who just absolutely MUST play an elf, and I say something like "Okay, a time warp opens up, and an elf drops in from another universe," I'm not just changing one of the key conceits of the game--I'm also creating a no-win situation.  Either the new character is going to get gutted within seconds of stepping in-play, or I'm going to have to tell three existing players, "You can't do what your characters would do"--something I consider to be one of the worst sins a DM can commit.

It's a two-way street.  The onus of compromise is not just on the DM.  Players have a responsibility to be reasonable, too--and "I must must MUST have EXACTLY this race/class/feat or the game is RUINED!" isn't being reasonable.

ErhnamDJ

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #235 on: March 25, 2009, 05:57:24 PM »

Whoops. Wrong thread.  :blush
« Last Edit: March 25, 2009, 09:02:29 PM by ErhnamDJ »

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #236 on: March 26, 2009, 12:56:58 AM »
Quote
There's another thing to consider, too: the other players.

Quote
It's a two-way street.  The onus of compromise is not just on the DM.  Players have a responsibility to be reasonable, too--and "I must must MUST have EXACTLY this race/class/feat or the game is RUINED!" isn't being reasonable.

Based upon this we find ourselves at a point of agreement.

going back to my last post.

Quote
If the dm says "NO! Elf only!" even if the rest of the group says... "Its cool


If the whole group is mature and the everyone ooc knows what's going on then things should be fine.

The scenario you present:

Quote
"Okay, a time warp opens up, and an elf drops in"
Is actually a workable idea.  Even withe the over-zealousness and racism of the other characters.
If you've given the guy a chance to hide the fact that he's an elf. Similar to the people who've played the "hidden dread necromancer" or whatever.

That scenario could open up interesting paradigms and hooks. Lets examine.
 The is from another time.
1. How did he get to the future. *(or past)
2. Why is he not insane.
3. Why are all the elve of this time plagued with madness.
4. How does his character deal with that knowledge.
5. How well has he been able to hide his elf heritage.
6. He's traveling with this band of elf haters for what?
   A. They hunt elves and know a lot about them
   B. Through them his is most likely to encounter a real live of the time.
7. After adventuring with the party, saving thier lives countless times (i.e. several levels at least)
if it's revealed that he's an elf, how will the party react to it? He's clearly not "Mad" like the rest of the elves, and we're already a party ... what do we do?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now these things can be "good" if everyones on the same page. Earlier when I said "a mature group" what I mean is a group that is capable from keeping OOC knowledge affecting the game.
This type of scenario won't work if, from the moment the "elf" is introduced to the party someone starts making "Spot: elf checks".

Still though. Your answer seems to be the same as mine.
Yes everyones supposed to have fun. Everyone should be flexible enough to accomodate fun for all if you're friends or whatever.
Frankly I don't like elves due to the huge elf-fetishism but hey, I'm not going to try to stop you if everyone else is cool with it.
Thats the deal.
If we go to "no elf" world and the player are cool with having an elf(sane variety) then it does seem unreasonable for one person to be screaming "BUT there are no ELVES!!!" No elves... just on elf. yay.
 ;)



\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

Omen of Peace

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1053
  • Wise Madman
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #237 on: March 28, 2009, 02:27:03 PM »
i disagree with you on that point the challanges provided in the system are made that way they can be overcome you are supposed to overcome them...
after all it's not fun for the players to lose!
of course its also no fun if there is no challange, but i always thought that the gamemaster should provide challanges that at least appear to be tough ;-). so the players can feel like they really accomplished something by the end of the day.
This is not quite on-topic, but it's a topic dear to my heart : IMO, PCs should sometimes lose. Or rather, potentially lose - the outcome should naturally not be rigged. For most campaigns it would be "losing a battle but winning the war" but with the right players & DMs the campaign could be about losing the war...
Of course it has to be part of the DM-player contract.

I leave you with this text by the author of the Amber roleplaying game (ignore the references to Amber mechanics like Bad or Good Stuff/Karma).
[spoiler]Two Great Characters

As a Game Master, I've got two favorite characters.
Back in 1985, when the first Attribute Auction was held, and I was the first novice Amber Game Master, there were many interesting characters. Some players came up with powerful characters, in fact, with the most powerful Amber characters I've seen, or ever expect to see. I love those powerhouse guys!
But they weren't my favorites.
My favorites were the two who were flawed, yet not fatally. Two characters very much of Amber, yet misfits. Were, and came to be, people totally apart from their players.
Don Woodward came up with Carolan, noble and forthright, an honest innocent among the cynics of Amber.
Mike Kucharski came up with Morgan, vile and underhanded, a rat among men.
These two characters, one based on Good Stuff, the other on Bad Stuff, were wonderful.
Because they were tragic.
They made mistakes.
Not little piddling mistakes.
No, Morgan and Carolan made world-beating, gasping, horrific and apocalyptic mistakes.
They were like the two sides of the Amber character.
Carolan was a Good Stuff kind of guy. Trusting, honest, and earnest about Amber. As Game Master I stomped all over him, abused his trust, and sent the worst of the elder Amberites to manipulate him shamelessly.
Morgan invested in Bad Stuff and loved it. No good guy he. He enjoyed back stabbing, murder and mayhem. In response to his Bad Stuff his luck was always out, and behind every door the Game Master placed enemies seeking his blood. Morgan, in his haste to eliminate opponents, also killed his share of innocents.
Six years later, I know why they were, and are, my favorites.
It's because they honestly grew.

Carolan, embittered by fate and his own gullibility, managed to maim a feared Uncle, and kill a beloved Aunt. He experienced betrayal of his every honest emotion. And turned to denial, denying responsibility for his own actions.
Don, the player, complained bitterly about a game where nothing was "fun" and where he found pain everywhere.
Worse, he seemed to bring pain to everyone he loved.
Eventually he got through it. Full circle, Carolan faced his guilt, and conquered it.

Morgan left a trail of bodies and saw nothing gained by it. Those he killed were no challenge, and were, in retrospect, blameless. He found fulfillment where he least expected it. He, Morgan, sought a team of killers. He found them, but in them he also discovered his own weakness. He turns out to be a better father than he thought possible.
And, Mike, playing Morgan, had plenty of cause for complaint, when I turned his lovely children into a new batch of argumentative player characters. Now tempted by violence, Morgan finds reasons to turn the other cheek.

Each of them, Carolan and Morgan, had to question their motives, and their character. With each turn of fate they grew.
Now, six years into the campaign, they each remain among the hunted, banished from Amber for their crimes, their lives forfeit by the order of the King.
Why are they my favorites?
Because they, unlike any characters I've ever witnessed, have been through the baptism of fire. They've been hammered, and bent, and hammered again, like swords in a forge, until their characters have emerged in glory.
Nowadays, when Morgan, or Carolan, speaks, there is no confusion. The characters have become real, and deep, and there is no simplicity
left within them ...
So, why go on about these guys?
Well, maybe it11 tell you something about putting together an Amber character.
[...]
The main thing, though, is that they both saw that they were making a beginning for their characters. They didn't try to do everything, or be all-powerful. Instead, they recognized, maybe subconsciously, that they were in the game for the long haul.
They took the time to grow.
[/spoiler]
I'm not saying he got everything right either : there's that player that complained about not having fun ; and not everybody wants this kind of deep playstyle. But I figure it could be thought-provoking for D&D optimizers. ;)
The Malazan Book of the Fallen, Steven Erikson

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #238 on: March 28, 2009, 05:55:40 PM »
i disagree with you on that point the challanges provided in the system are made that way they can be overcome you are supposed to overcome them...
after all it's not fun for the players to lose!
of course its also no fun if there is no challange, but i always thought that the gamemaster should provide challanges that at least appear to be tough ;-). so the players can feel like they really accomplished something by the end of the day.
This is not quite on-topic, but it's a topic dear to my heart : IMO, PCs should sometimes lose. Or rather, potentially lose - the outcome should naturally not be rigged. For most campaigns it would be "losing a battle but winning the war" but with the right players & DMs the campaign could be about losing the war...
Of course it has to be part of the DM-player contract.

I leave you with this text by the author of the Amber roleplaying game (ignore the references to Amber mechanics like Bad or Good Stuff/Karma).
[spoiler]Two Great Characters

As a Game Master, I've got two favorite characters.
Back in 1985, when the first Attribute Auction was held, and I was the first novice Amber Game Master, there were many interesting characters. Some players came up with powerful characters, in fact, with the most powerful Amber characters I've seen, or ever expect to see. I love those powerhouse guys!
But they weren't my favorites.
My favorites were the two who were flawed, yet not fatally. Two characters very much of Amber, yet misfits. Were, and came to be, people totally apart from their players.
Don Woodward came up with Carolan, noble and forthright, an honest innocent among the cynics of Amber.
Mike Kucharski came up with Morgan, vile and underhanded, a rat among men.
These two characters, one based on Good Stuff, the other on Bad Stuff, were wonderful.
Because they were tragic.
They made mistakes.
Not little piddling mistakes.
No, Morgan and Carolan made world-beating, gasping, horrific and apocalyptic mistakes.
They were like the two sides of the Amber character.
Carolan was a Good Stuff kind of guy. Trusting, honest, and earnest about Amber. As Game Master I stomped all over him, abused his trust, and sent the worst of the elder Amberites to manipulate him shamelessly.
Morgan invested in Bad Stuff and loved it. No good guy he. He enjoyed back stabbing, murder and mayhem. In response to his Bad Stuff his luck was always out, and behind every door the Game Master placed enemies seeking his blood. Morgan, in his haste to eliminate opponents, also killed his share of innocents.
Six years later, I know why they were, and are, my favorites.
It's because they honestly grew.

Carolan, embittered by fate and his own gullibility, managed to maim a feared Uncle, and kill a beloved Aunt. He experienced betrayal of his every honest emotion. And turned to denial, denying responsibility for his own actions.
Don, the player, complained bitterly about a game where nothing was "fun" and where he found pain everywhere.
Worse, he seemed to bring pain to everyone he loved.
Eventually he got through it. Full circle, Carolan faced his guilt, and conquered it.

Morgan left a trail of bodies and saw nothing gained by it. Those he killed were no challenge, and were, in retrospect, blameless. He found fulfillment where he least expected it. He, Morgan, sought a team of killers. He found them, but in them he also discovered his own weakness. He turns out to be a better father than he thought possible.
And, Mike, playing Morgan, had plenty of cause for complaint, when I turned his lovely children into a new batch of argumentative player characters. Now tempted by violence, Morgan finds reasons to turn the other cheek.

Each of them, Carolan and Morgan, had to question their motives, and their character. With each turn of fate they grew.
Now, six years into the campaign, they each remain among the hunted, banished from Amber for their crimes, their lives forfeit by the order of the King.
Why are they my favorites?
Because they, unlike any characters I've ever witnessed, have been through the baptism of fire. They've been hammered, and bent, and hammered again, like swords in a forge, until their characters have emerged in glory.
Nowadays, when Morgan, or Carolan, speaks, there is no confusion. The characters have become real, and deep, and there is no simplicity
left within them ...
So, why go on about these guys?
Well, maybe it11 tell you something about putting together an Amber character.
[...]
The main thing, though, is that they both saw that they were making a beginning for their characters. They didn't try to do everything, or be all-powerful. Instead, they recognized, maybe subconsciously, that they were in the game for the long haul.
They took the time to grow.
[/spoiler]
I'm not saying he got everything right either : there's that player that complained about not having fun ; and not everybody wants this kind of deep playstyle. But I figure it could be thought-provoking for D&D optimizers. ;)

Which reminds me of the age-old debate about optimizers versus "serious role-players". I always find that the "serious" people intentionally screw themselves out of part of the fun... for the purpose of having more fun. Seriously, WTF?
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


skydragonknight

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3297
Re: no more magicmarts - restrictive gaming or responsible DM'ing?
« Reply #239 on: March 28, 2009, 10:12:31 PM »
Which reminds me of the age-old debate about optimizers versus "serious role-players". I always find that the "serious" people intentionally screw themselves out of part of the fun... for the purpose of having more fun. Seriously, WTF?

I'm not sure exactly, but there's something about self-imposed rules for the sake of a greater challenge that can be enjoyable. I've never done it with roleplaying, though I've played RPGs at the lowest level physically possible and I've watched someone play through one of the early Zelda games without a sword(you can do everything except defeat Ganon).

What one person sees as silly or a perversion of a game another person sees as an extra challenge. *shrugs*
It always seems like the barrels around here have something in them.