The Unfairness of rotating Dungeon Masters:Or Hypocrisy of Dungeon Masters

[martixy]

For me to suss out the broken stuff would require me to read and understand all those splatbooks... which leads back to "I have other things to do with my time."

To be fair, if a player had a specific class he wanted to play, I would probably work it in. The rules of my world allow for new prestige classes, so a local area or culture could have access to one or two classes that aren't generally seen on a world-wide scale. For instance I ban monks by default (because they just don't fit my setting) but I could see a local monastery if a player was really into being a monk. But that means creating a whole group of NPCs, placing them in the world, explaining why they exist and other people aren't monks... a bit more work than just OKing a splat-book. And I need to do that fitting-in work for every unique power.


I'm pretty sure my deck would be out of meta even if they never made a single update...

A detail that might put it into perspective: I give different classes different amounts of point-buy; fighters get 29 and wizards get 21, for example. So that's more work I've invested in making things make "sense."

Then allow me to offer two suggestions I think you make it easier for everyone:

a) Switch to 5e.
> It's perfect for "I don't wanna bother" people and is rather nicely designed.
b) If you're THAT much of an "I don't wanna bother" person, make sure to notify each and every person that expresses an interest in your games the precise reason as to why you lead your games the way you do.
> The way I see it, a vast majority of people stick to 3.5 for the breadth of content - yes, including(or perhaps even especially) because of all its brokenness!


I get that a bunch of random strangers on the internet have scant little chance of changing your opinion, but please do extend this simplest of courtesies to any players that might dare cross your path.

[Crake]

For me to suss out the broken stuff would require me to read and understand all those splatbooks... which leads back to "I have other things to do with my time."

To be fair, if a player had a specific class he wanted to play, I would probably work it in. The rules of my world allow for new prestige classes, so a local area or culture could have access to one or two classes that aren't generally seen on a world-wide scale.

But that's just basically how it goes. People want to play different things, so you have a look at it, and work it in, then over time eventually more and more classes are fit into the world. I include practically all 3.5 content in my world, but just because I do, doesn't mean that it's necessarily a common thing in the world.

For instance I ban monks by default (because they just don't fit my setting) but I could see a local monastery if a player was really into being a monk. But that means creating a whole group of NPCs, placing them in the world, explaining why they exist and other people aren't monks... a bit more work than just OKing a splat-book. And I need to do that fitting-in work for every unique power.

This just doesn't make sense to me though. What's the point of banning a class if you're willing to allow players to play them anyway? And just because a player is playing the class "monk" doesn't mean they necessarily have to be part of a monastery. They could simply be a martial artist, focusing on unarmed combat, maybe learning their style from some form of military training or the like.

A detail that might put it into perspective: I give different classes different amounts of point-buy; fighters get 29 and wizards get 21, for example. So that's more work I've invested in making things make "sense."

How do you handle multiclassing? If i take a level of fighter, then multiclass into wizard, do i get to keep my high point buy? Why do you think that wizards having a lower point buy makes "sense" anyway? I know it's one of the methods of balance that jaronk suggested in his tiers list, but I personally think it's the worst to implement, I far prefer his partial gestalt option honestly.

[Delwugor]

Can you explain this to me? I'm genuinely interested why you think the player is limited in their cinematic descriptions of events.

For me it's a matter of play style and expectations. Please note, I'm not saying it limits a player to what they could describe. My point was that in 3.x actions are not separated from the numbers. The numbers deter me from cinematic actions in three ways.
1. Actions separated from resolution. If I'm worried about whether some crazy stunt succeeds or not, them most likely it's not worth doing. My style is to do a crazy stunt and then see if it succeeds.
2. Zero Sum. Number escalation that doesn't really add anything for me, but detracts from what I'm attempting to do.
3. Random success. I spend an entire session setting up for a great cinematic action or event - "rolls a 3". At time players should have the ability to succeed no matter what. It should not be used often and it should always come at a cost, but for cinematic play, the players should have more control than random numbers.

There's nothing to stop the player from saying "I charge at the enemy with reckless abandon, my axe held high as I leap into the air and bring my greataxe crashing down upon him, slicing through his defenses and gashing him wildly across the chest".

You are correct that there is nothing stopping a player from saying that. I have a super hero character who always monologues ... wrestling style. Nothing to stop it and it's great fun with roleplaying his character. But that is not the same as his cinematic actions.

The difference is that the OP wants to have associated bonuses to apply to his cinematic descriptions, and wants to describe the situation BEFORE it occurs, rather than rolling the dice, seeing what happens, and THEN describing the situation in a cinematic way.

You make a very important point and it demonstrates a difference in styles. I don't want to roll and then describe, this put mechanics over what I want to do. Instead I want to do some action then determine the resolution.
For me players are always more important then system mechanics.

Personally, as a DM, I use these kinds of cinematic descriptions to give players insights into what kind of abilities the enemy might have, rather than just saying "the rogue sneak attacks you for XX damage"

I take a broader view of cinematic actions than attack/damage or even combat. How about a great cinematic run away?
How cinematic would it be to single handedly destroy a Rune Well (RotRL) in one round. That was one of the most cinematic and fantastic events I've ever had, and it would not have been possible without the GM over riding the technical rules. The GM had these advantage/disadvantage cards, I drew the "Destruction" card that session. "I call down the wrath of Desna on this device of evil" (I had no idea what it was at the time) and watched the gm's draw drop. The "by the rules" RAW was to use many holy waters to do "XX damage", instead I was allowed to break RAW and do something completely cinematic.

[Tommy_Dude]

I think a part of this discussion may also stem from the idea of "Custom World" DMs and "Pre-written Adventure" DMs. Many people here just assume that every campaign world comes from the talent of their DM or that the encounters are ones that DMs write.

For my case, and my case alone (I do not intend to put words into anyone's mouths) I do not have time to create my own campaign world. So I rely heavily, very heavily, on running Paizo Adventure Paths (for pathfinder) as a DM. So if players are out of the system assumptions, these can get boring very quickly. I can apply templates, add a class level here and there, but if something is obviously made with a higher power level in mind, it will trivialize encounters, even the culmination of BBEG fights, to a one round knockout. That said, I usually give 20 point build, and will allow anything paizo printed, and even third party things upon approval (this approval usually comes in the form of editing, I mean, c'mon, if you can't READ THE RULE as it's presented in an intelligible way, then how do you expect me to use this thing?). I've allowed everything from DSP (psionics, path of war, akashic), I've allowed equipment and technology from Pure Steam!, and Rogue Genius Games have showed up in my BBEG alterations sometimes. But, for every thing I allow that's not in the system's core assumption is more work I have to do. So yes, I will put limiters or politely ask players to play something else if it's too overly broken. (Right now we had issues in Kingmaker AP where, due to 15 minute workdays, the Swashbuckler was actually ending most encounters in two rounds, even APL +3, the player decided to take an archetype that toned down that level of death-bringing and actually switched to worshipping a new god in-character because of it.)

I'm even willing to use rules that are near-universally considered "broken" or "bad" such as Paizo's mythic if the players want it.

That said, it's alot of work to adjust these pre-written modules and adventures to those systems. Work that, if I'm going to be honest, only one player actually thanks me for and understands. She thanks me after every game for putting my time into this, while other players just expect it out of me.

So after DMing for all this power level, after adjusting for all these powers, at the end of the day, when I play, I'd like my 15 point buy dwarven fighter who uses a greataxe, and has Iron Will and Toughness. I enjoy just fighting stock and standard CR 1/3 goblins with no templates :). But that is my preferred playstyle. For me, my group comes first and I tend to try and make it fun for them, but at the same time, they know and acknowledge that they are on the rails, but they are great at buying into these pre-made stories and no one begrudges me for using them. But some days, I wish my players were more like me so I didn't have to adjust the pre-written encounters.

[Crake]

You make a very important point and it demonstrates a difference in styles. I don't want to roll and then describe, this put mechanics over what I want to do. Instead I want to do some action then determine the resolution.
For me players are always more important then system mechanics.

I don't see what the significant difference is to be honest? In one case you determine the cinematic action (performing a wild leap attack for massive damage), determine success or not, then describe the action, in the other, you determine the cinematic action (same as before), then describe it, but holding off on the resolution, then determining success or not, and then concluding the description? Am I missing something? Either way there needs to be a roll to determine success. If you want things like the ability to improve your chances of success, things like action dice, or the 5e inspiration mechanic help with that, but I honestly can't see any difference in what you're saying. The player failing, rolling a 1 on their attack roll, doesn't have to detract from the cinematic nature, that 1 could represent their enemy happening to dodge at just the right moment or whatnot.

The only argument I can see, which isn't one you actually brought up, is needing to spend character resources to achieve some of the more cinematic maneuvers with bonuses. For example, any player can say they kick up a wall and swing down heavily on their opponent to represent a power attack or even just a regular attack, but only players with the right feats can gain actual bonuses from that, like extra power attack damage, and bonuses to hit from coming down onto your opponent (these are actual feats and abilities from cityscape iirc). A DM who ignores those feats and just passes out benefits to players is essentially penalizing any character who picks up those feats.

[Tvtyrant]

The only argument I can see, which isn't one you actually brought up, is needing to spend character resources to achieve some of the more cinematic maneuvers with bonuses. For example, any player can say they kick up a wall and swing down heavily on their opponent to represent a power attack or even just a regular attack, but only players with the right feats can gain actual bonuses from that, like extra power attack damage, and bonuses to hit from coming down onto your opponent (these are actual feats and abilities from cityscape iirc). A DM who ignores those feats and just passes out benefits to players is essentially penalizing any character who picks up those feats.

No he isn't. D&D isn't a competition, someone else getting a bonus in no way penalizes another player. That's like saying that allowing someone to optimize their character penalizes people who don't look up optimization guides on the Internet. Tit-for-tat penalties and bonuses aren't nearly as important as having fun and a general balance between players.

[Yahzi]

a) Switch to 5e.

Well, I have a lot invested in 3E; but more to the point the minute I saw that in 5E you are completely healed after 24 hours regardless of how much damage you have taken, I knew I would never be able to deal with 5E. There's tons broken in 3E when it comes to running a realistic world, but that just strikes me as utterly giving up.

b) If you're THAT much of an "I don't wanna bother" person, make sure to notify each and every person that expresses an interest in your games the precise reason as to why you lead your games the way you do.

That... has never been a problem. But for me, character creation is always the first session. The idea of showing up with a character when you don't even know the world just seems weird.

then over time eventually more and more classes are fit into the world

Sure, and that's fine; but that is a very different position than "all splatbooks by default, go ahead and bring your half-dragon half-troll asimar warforged gunfighter to my Merlin campaign."

This just doesn't make sense to me though. What's the point of banning a class if you're willing to allow players to play them anyway?

Because I am trying to create a whole world. For instance, the decision to allow clerics means Zone of Truth is a thing that virtually every town should have access to. This is important for the same reason other technologies (like crossbows) are important. You can't just have one gun-fighter in an adventuring party; either gunpowder is a known tech or it isn't.

Also, classes in my world are actual tangible things, not merely abstractions representing training (a weird idea, I know, but it works really well). A trained fighter has a STR of 16 instead of 12. A level of Fighter is a supernatural enhancement.

How do you handle multiclassing? If i take a level of fighter, then multiclass into wizard, do i get to keep my high point buy?

Of course. Anybody who dilutes their levels of wizard with a non-casting class automatically deserves the best possible point-buy. The, ahem, point of point-buy is to impose some balance, and a 19 Wiz/1 Fighter is significantly weaker than a 20 Wiz, so he is more than welcome to a few extra stats.

Why do you think that wizards having a lower point buy makes "sense" anyway?

Mechanically, balance; fluff, because wizards are spending their time learning academics instead of being well-rounded. I give NPC classes even better point-buys and they pay half as much XP per level, in attempt to make them reasonable choices (at least at the lower levels, but then 9th lvl is really high in my world); the justification being that only a truly exceptional person would try to become a hero with an NPC class.

Also, the point-buy limitation is the least intrusive. I want my guide to making a sandbox world to be usable by everyone, so by restricting to Core and fiddling only at the edges, people will be able to implement them with minimum effort.

[Crake]

Sure, and that's fine; but that is a very different position than "all splatbooks by default, go ahead and bring your half-dragon half-troll asimar warforged gunfighter to my Merlin campaign."

It's not that different really. It's more a stance of "all splatbooks by default, but I reserve the right to veto anything I don't want in my game/setting", which is the stance I personally hold tbh, but I mean, if it makes you feel better to instead say "core only, but if you bring me something outside of core that I like, I'll allow it" sure. Logically they're the same thing.

[Yahzi]

Logically they're the same thing.

Not quite, because limiting it to Core means the players know what to expect. I run a sandbox world, so the players pick their own adventures. This means they have to have a way to make informed choices. Because levels and classes are tangible in my world, they know the Baron is 5th level, they usually know his class, and a little investigating or common sense will tell them probably what magic items he has. This lets them make their own decision about whether they should make an enemy of him.

Of course there will be monsters or NPCs with unknown powers; but generally these will be marked in such a way the players know they don't know what they are facing.

Admittedly this is a bit different than the some D&D games. I don't create encounters with appropriate WBL and ECL. I create a whole world and then you tell me what you do in it. If you want to level quickly, take big risks and win. If you want to play safe, run away from things that look dangerous. I generally find the whole process of leveling somewhat boring; what is interesting to me is who the players choose to befriend or attack. Of course I still have plot hooks; the NPCs are pursing their own agendas, many of which probably do not favor the PCs. But it's up the to PCs to figure out what to do about that, or even if they should.

You can see, with all of this going on, why I need to minimize the purely mechanical interactions of the world. I have established that 1st level Fighters on horseback with horse and lance are in fact a dangerous foe to almost everyone; knights are therefore well-respected, every Baron employs a number of them, and people know not to jack around with knights on open ground. I have no idea what a Swordsage can do, but if one of his 1st level powers shuts down mounted lance charges, then that doesn't just change what a character can do; it changes the entire shape of society, as Fighters become liabilities and war horses become obsolete.

In other words, limiting the classes available establishes the fluff of the world (or as Gygax would say, the mileu). A world with War Forged as ordinary citizens is very, very different than a world with Sir Gawain and Lancelot, or for that matter Conan and the Grey Mouser. Now it is true that the entirety of published sources constitutes a specific mileu, but a) I don't think that mileu makes sense in the way I have carefully structured my world to make sense, and b) I don't want to run a game in that mileu. Part of a DM's job is creating a unique world with a specific flavor, and control over fluff/mechanics can be part of that.

[EldritchWeaver]

Sounds like your more interested in rollplaying then roleplaying. You might be in the wrong game or the wrong group. Sounds like you just don't like the system.

Sounds like you need to read the Stormwind Fallacy: wanting to play powerful or competent characters does not preclude roleplaying. Sometimes you want to be Bob the level 1 fighter who can't do anything because his gear keeps getting stolen. Sometimes you want to play Batman. You know, someone not boring and lame.

System mastery has no negative correlation with roleplaying. To claim that is like saying that because someone is good at math/science (he mechanical, fact driven side) they are bad at creative writing (the fluff, imagination driven side).

If anything, higher system mastery increases the ability to roleplay. Because you find ideas that mesh together into a greater whole than what you'd have had playing with core only.

For example, one character I wrote was for a gestalt eberron game. I love playing warforged, so that's where I started. I remembered hearing about a thing called Warforged, so I looked into it. It's basically pseudo-undead warforged, best represented by the tomb-tainted soul feat. I made a soldier who was lost in one of the great battles of the war. He was affected by the necromantic magic, and found he could bring himself back to strength. Though he was a peerless warrior (we were level 6 in eberron), he also had skills at manipulation, with an instinct for fear.

Mechanically, I used Hexblade and Dread Necromancer. Hexblade gave me the martial stats I needed, along with some debuffig power. Dread necromancer, however, was the real enabler of the build. A fear aura, a spell list with multiple fear effects, and the ability to go into the Dread Witch prestige class (also known as I scare things immune to fear). I could send PALADINS running in fear for their altars. I could scare things that were freaking mindless. That is a true incarnation of terror.

If I hadn't had the system mastery to go for Dread Witch, he would have been a robot with a scythe who scares people in a highly inefficient way (since there is no way to get a free Intimidate check when you tear someone's spine out with a scythe). The ability to create a character who was mechanically powerful ENHANCED my ability to make him into a character.

While I agree on the Stormwind Fallacy, there is another possibility: Various systems have a different amount of rules. While with various books it is possible to get the result you want (or close enough) most of the time, it takes a lot of knowledge to get there. Some people do not want to invest that much time. For example, Numenera is light on explicit rules and allows to fluff your character any way you want to fill out the gaps. In D&D, refluffing is more the domain of the DM. So to some extent switching the rule system can actually help.

[Delwugor]

I don't see what the significant difference is to be honest?

Yes, and I have ran across many others that haven't. For 3 years it was very frustrating and I had so many bad experiences trying to find a new group (I had been with the old one 15 years) that I almost stopped gaming all together.
What I ended up learning is that it wasn't them I had a problem with, just as I don't have a problem with what you are saying. It turned out that my style and expectations didn't match 3.x without heavy modifications.
The one shots I had done with other systems always met my expectations. I started reaching out to groups who play other systems and my gaming experience improved quickly.

One caveat, I'm still in the PF RotRL game, but that is because of the great GM and the other players. We play similarly to the OP and having a blast when we can get together. Of course how many people can brag they destroyed a rune well?