Well, Mike Mearls got promoted. Any hope for 5e?

[Chamomile]

I played touch football in elementary school. I have no idea why someone brought football up. Maybe they watch it a lot and assumed that totally gives them enough "experience" to judge the players capabilities in tangentially related hypothetical situations.

[shadzar]

None of those things you mentioned are put in place with the idea that the trapsetter will say "Jolly good show!" to the dude that that makes it through and absconds with his valuables.

the fuck are you talking about? a trap isnt set by the person like D&D the movie to test your worth, or Last Crusade to test your worth.

Buy a dictionary and look up the word deterrent, then re-read that post you quoted.

[shadzar]

if it damages your SUPA-COOL narrative

i can only assume either you, also, need his articles and the Rob Kuntz interview on Hills Canton because you dont understand WHAT D&D is, and/or you just had a lot of bad DMs.

Because you seem to have preconceptions about D&D that are NOT true.

Has anyone here actually played football at all? What about actually quarterbacked?

If not, why are we even using that example?

a wide receiver downfield looking at and making all attempts to catch the pass, really cant focus on the line backer coming right at him to sack his as outside the endzone.

really he doesnt care if he gets sacked after the pas is complete as long as there are downs left, as the ball was moved closer towards a goal.

only AFTER he has the ball, does he worry about getting hit by the other team, cause prior to having it, getting hit would be a penalty, and yards gained and likely the down replayed.

i played, but am not really discussing their football to determine what your sense or priority are.

they are simply talking about ANS...autonomic nervous system, fight or flight response. not everyone has the same reflexes in those cases. sadly in regards to checking for traps they forget ANS is subjective, and trying to objectify it is really silly. you know, sense EACH person experiences things differently.

[Archmage]

if it damages your SUPA-COOL narrative

i can only assume either you, also, need his articles and the Rob Kuntz interview on Hills Canton because you dont understand WHAT D&D is, and/or you just had a lot of bad DMs.

Because you seem to have preconceptions about D&D that are NOT true.

Shadzar, you need to start your own thread about "what D&D is" and provide an explanation, because I still have no idea what you're talking about.

[shadzar]

if it damages your SUPA-COOL narrative

i can only assume either you, also, need his articles and the Rob Kuntz interview on Hills Canton because you dont understand WHAT D&D is, and/or you just had a lot of bad DMs.

Because you seem to have preconceptions about D&D that are NOT true.

Shadzar, you need to start your own thread about "what D&D is" and provide an explanation, because I still have no idea what you're talking about.

i think i did at once, but FBMF closed it because it went back to older editions, and people jumped on that TGD wa a primarily 3rd edition site, and prior editions didnt mean shit....or maybe it was another forum i started it on.

simply put, D&D is a game, but like the DMG says, not the kind of game you are used to. there is no win-condition.

look at its history and WHY it was made and it should be obvious what it is, why a DM exists, WHY a DM had so much power within the design of the game.

EVERY edition stated, they cannot have a rule for everything, because they dont know what ideas people would have while playing.

Kunts stated that the published adventurers were where it went wrong, because people looking for that 3rd/4th style game was NOT what it was created for. the idea was the DM and players you create things on their own, not rely on something with the "official" label.

Gary's words (without getting the book out): it is the spirit of the rules, not the letter of them that makes D&D what it is.

"Zeb" cook (again without the book): "is there an official AD&D?" only when there needs to be, otherwise people should use or not use any part that they see fit to make the game work for them. the core rules should be known including optional things such as NWPs for tournaments as they will likely allow for use all the core rules.~~~~~D&D books are not rules but guidelines.

i disagree with a majority of playstyles, but, BUT, they are allowed within D&D and I am thankful for them. but you have to understand, D&D allows them because it wasnt trying to be indecisive, or for everyone, just that the designers didnt want to tell YO how to use your own imagination. the lack of rules was not by bad design, but by designers making a NEW type of game.

this new type of game wasnt just removing the win-condition, removing the board, removing masses of miniatures, removing one-on-one play, removing competition...it was more about remove the box all those things were in. and RPG is a game, without walls or borders from the game, where only YOUR OWN limits apply.

the socially inept, that cant talk about things in the game, or dont want to put forth any effort trying, probably shouldnt play such an open-ended game. the DM that says because Bob is socially inept and cant do well doing some sort of diplomatic interaction and doesnt take into account Bob trying his best, shouldnt probably be playing. the other players seeing Bob, the socially inept, trying with success not really saying anything as well as a orator would and lowering their own level of personal skill, should probably stop being whiny bitches AND stop playing D&D.

this is where the bad DMs come in mostly, people had them but dont understand them, because the DM failed to understand D&D and the DMs job.

fel free to start a thread, and ask questions or pose your assumptions of D&D and let everyone chime in to state WHEN they began playing RPGs, what they expected and such...then i will add mine, and answer any other questions so we can keep more to the current topic here.

well it sort of IS the whole topic of the legends and lore articles...what is D&D as an overview...or rather what was it and what it became and why.

[tzor]

are you queers seriously arguing about whether texting while driving is dangerous.

Yes, they actually are.

Again, this only applies if no one else could shout a warning in those 4.56 seconds, because it would take about half of one of them for the quarterback to be ready to act. It probably won't matter whether his peripheral vision catches the incoming attacker, because he is not storming this dungeon alone.

Yes, but that's sort of sidestepping the issue in a good way. It sidesteps the issue because it relies on hearing, not on sight, and because hearing in general is normally 360 degrees. (It sidesteps the issue again because the "speed" of processing sound in the human brain is significantly faster than the speed of proceesing visual cues in the human brain.) Sound interrupts vision. Unfortunately, don't ask the quaterback what play he was last looking at before he heard the shout, because he most likely would have forgotten all about it.

P.S. the football thing came up in the discussion of texting and driving which in turn came up in the idea of intensively searching and spotting the monster in the distance.

[Chamomile]

Unfortunately, don't ask the quaterback what play he was last looking at before he heard the shout, because he most likely would have forgotten all about it.

So if the rogue's trap searching gets interrupted by an initiative check because his fighter buddy shouted a warning about the orcs charging down the corridor, he doesn't get to roll for it because he didn't complete the action. So? He is still fully prepared for the fight with the orcs.

[CapnTthePirateG]

grognard bullshit

First, my gripe in that instance is with all the assholes (and old, published adventures) where spells don't work because Space Jesus said so. The pile of feces known as "Dungeonland" comes to mind. The same advice pops up in the 4e DMG - if a ritual would reveal plot-critical information and spoil the polt, you should have it fail.

And one is forced to note, in a game about gathering power, (via levels & loot) that the first edition DMG suggested that "powergaming" players should be struck down by lightning bolts. Because, in a world where everyone was out to screw you over, gathering power was wrong.

GameSpy: Have you had a chance to play or even look at some of the current Dungeons & Dragons games?

Gygax: I've looked at them, yes, but I'm not really a fan. The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good.

Now, should I tell you what I really think?

So yes, the DM is supposed to be "master of the game" sayeth Gary. Ignoring the alignment system (which I still think is the worst mechanic in the game), and the archetypes (the fuck?) and the rest of the nonsensical rant (oh shit multiclassing and ACFs the horror!), lets look at what the phrasing "master of the game". It implies that, whatever the hell the DM does to you, you have to take it. (In a strange coincidence, Gary was usually the DM. Funny how that happened.) The DM has absolute power over you. Now why is this good for the game? We have one person at the table who wields a ridiculous amount of power in game. This might not be so bad IF this person's role wasn't specifically to antagonize the players. So you have the players, who of course have to follow the rules, against an opponent who is only restrained by an unwritten code and the desire to keep playing. It is also interesting how said opponent has all the power, and the worst of these petty tyrants generally ban rules-legal characters who could fight against their monsters from MMIII augmented by their made up rules. Shadzar, you yourself acknowledge that bad DMs are capable of destroying games, yet seem to have no idea that the game itself, which allows the DM to run rampant and gives him powers as a petty tyrant, is at fault here. The position of DM - malicious asshole god-tyrant - as written and envisaged by Gary Gygax is probably more harmful to the hobby than any poorly written rule or Incantatrix could ever be.

But because you obviously don't seem to acknowledge that games should have rules and should just be a magical tea party fapfest where you get to be a petty tyrant and legitimately abuse your friends, you go on ignore. Bye![/i]

[Stubbazubba]

Quarterbacks don't look at plays once the ball is hiked, that's what the huddle and the pre-hike "Blue 42" stuff, which are called audibles, is about. I don't know where you guys got this idea, but to try this is a really bad idea, for obvious reasons. By the time the ball is hiked, each member of the team knows exactly what he should be doing, and gives his attention to that. This knowledge comes from straight up conditioning in the long hours of training. Once the ball is hiked, the QB is primarily looking to throw or hand the ball to the player that has previously been designated. He relies on the O-line to protect him from linemen, and is not actively scanning the line of scrimmage for opponents. He only notices a threatening lineman once he is moving in a significantly different pattern than the rest of his field of vision, and sometimes that notice takes too long. Looking at plays is a horrible idea for a QB to be doing during the play, though he does keep his attention downfield on his receivers.

[Chamomile]

-snip-

You seem to have missed the thread of the analogy, here. The argument is that a quarterback reading a play is like a rogue searching for traps, and since Team Monster isn't obligated to wait until "hike" to charge, it's entirely possible that monsters will attack in the middle of the rogue's searching. But the rogue has a party, so the rogue will know about it before they're in range.

[Josh_Kablack]

But because you obviously don't seem to acknowledge that games should have rules and should just be a magical tea party fapfest where you get to be a petty tyrant and legitimately abuse your friends, you go on ignore. Bye!

Well, yeah, anyone spouting that sort of nonsense get put on my ignore pretty quick. But it is profoundly disturbing to me that the guy who got most of the credit for the current edition of D&D and was then promoted to management is continually making the same arguments as random ignorables on the interwebs.

If you are a power-tripping DM who wants to run rules-lite so you can stick to a linear narrative, that's your choice, I can choose not to game with you and we don't have to upset each other.

But when you are being paid to manage the granddaddy of TTRPGs, you should damn well pay attention to how rules matter and understand why all editions to date have been rules-heavy. That Mearls doesn't leads me to conclude that he has a very different view of what D&D was, is and should be than the vast majority of the D&D fans with whom I have interacted do. Either my experience is an anomaly, or Mearls is likely to run the brand into the ground.

[Stubbazubba]

-Withdrawn-

In short, the football analogy doesn't work if you're changing the basic premises of football; the tropes of football wouldn't exist if you remove the foundation upon which they are built, i.e., the premise.

Even if you figured out how it would work, it doesn't make much sense; the Rogue is not so squishy as a QB.

[shadzar]

And one is forced to note, in a game about gathering power,

yeah, you have incorrect assumptions about what the purpose of D&D and objective of it is....

So yes, the DM is supposed to be "master of the game" sayeth Gary.

and you had bad DMs, and blame the game for both, bad DMs, and your own failings to understand what the purpose of the game is...

since i have the .HLP files from my core rules mostly back working ont his computer let me help you....

The Goal
Another major difference between role-playing games and other games is the ultimate goal. Everyone assumes that a game must have a beginning and an end and that the end comes when someone wins. That doesn't apply to role-playing because no one "wins" in a role-playing game. The point of playing is not to win but to have fun and to socialize.
An adventure usually has a goal of some sort: protect the villagers from the monsters; rescue the lost princess; explore the ancient ruins. Typically, this goal can be attained in a reasonable playing time: four to eight hours is standard. This might require the players to get together for one, two, or even three playing sessions to reach their goal and complete the adventure.
But the game doesn't end when an adventure is finished. The same characters can go on to new adventures. Such a series of adventures is called a campaign.
Remember, the point of an adventure is not to win but to have fun while working toward a common goal.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

nowhere does it state the goal it to "gain power". you really should learn what D&D is about because you came expecting one thing and got pissed off cause you didnt understand what it was offering.

it is like someone told you you were being invited for burgers on the grill, and for some reason expected a fillet mignon cause all you heard and thought about was "food", but failed to pay attention to what was said.

you ARE the reason thi latest article wa written, amonst many others, because of your position because you had bad DMs, and also the other articles, because you dont know what the purpose of D&D was, tried to do something else with it, then got pissed off when your false assumptions werent met.

understand why all editions to date have been rules-heavy.

you must think D&D began with 3rd edition, or you better take your ass back a few decades and look again.

[Winnah]

Thing is, if the rogue frequently gets attacked while searching for traps, then it stands to reason they will adapt. Every time they search for traps they will enter a state of combat readiness.

I think the search/spot mechanics need to be dropped in favour of something like the Awareness or Danger Sense NWP's from 2e, or even Perception from 4e.

I also believe that the majority of traps need to function like monsters, especially those that can re-arm and attack repeatedly. Use or location activated traps need to function like weapons (players might want to use landmines or glyphs or something) and other types of traps need to function under hazardous terrain rules (webs/caltrops/whatever). That should cover the bases for most kinds of devious mechanisms. It also leaves room for the special kind of DM fiat traps, if they are needed as a plot device or for forcing some narrative (Not condoning this, but it may be perceived as neccesary for someones game).

Nowhere near perfect, as I am probably missing plenty of edge cases and complications arising from this kind of system.

[Hieronymous Rex]

But when you are being paid to manage the granddaddy of TTRPGs, you should damn well pay attention to how rules matter and understand why all editions to date have been rules-heavy.

Except OD&D and the three versions of Basic.

[Hicks]

understand why all editions to date have been rules-heavy.

you must think D&D began with 3rd edition, or you better take your ass back a few decades and look again.

WHAT - THE - FUCK.

EVERY edition of D&D, except for the Red Box, is a THOUSAND page cluster FUCK of byzantine rules interactions. YOU LIE, ON THE INTERNET! FOR SHAME!

EVERY PLOT that could be accomplished in a later edition can also be accomplished in an earlier edition, ONLY IN A MORE OVER POWERED, EXTREMELY BYZANTINE WAY.

IN FACT, with the exception of 4e, each newer edition uses fewer rules than the previous edition.

The unification and streamlining of the 3.x rules system was a huge leap forward in gaming, and it REDUCED the amount of rules required for action adjudication.

In summary:

[*]YOU LIE

[*]EARLIER EDITIONS ARE BYZANTINE

[*]3.X WAS MORE RULES LIGHT THAN ANY OTHER EDITION 'CEPT RED BOX.

[Wrathzog]

I'm so conflicted... Shadzar is talking an amazing amount of sense right now.

the game itself, which allows the DM to run rampant and gives him powers as a petty tyrant, is at fault here.

This is a dumb idea. Tabletop games, by their format, will always be at fault as you describe it. The problem is regardless of how many rules you have and regardless of how perfect those rules are, the system is ultimately adjudicated by another human being. A system like that is Fundamentally Flawed... like, seriously subject to multiple layers of failure that the game cannot and should not take into account.

If you are a power-tripping DM who wants to run rules-lite so you can stick to a linear narrative, that's your choice, I can choose not to game with you and we don't have to upset each other.

And this is basically the correct answer. If a DM is being a cock, then you stop playing with him. Alternatively, you talk with the guy about how much of a cock he is. Maybe you can reach a compromise and then everyone else can go back to having fun.
Maybe there needs to be a section of the PHB that goes over basic human interactions and conflict resolution techniques.

[shadzar]

Maybe there needs to be a section of the PHB that goes over basic human interactions and conflict resolution techniques.

like this?

We have just constructed a simple role-playing game. It is not a sophisticated game, but it has the essential element that makes a role-playing game: The player is placed in the midst of an unknown or dangerous situation created by a referee and must work his way through it.
This is the heart of role-playing. The player adopts the role of a character and then guides that character through an adventure. The player makes decisions, interacts with other characters and players, and, essentially, "pretends" to be his character during the course of the game. That doesn't mean that the player must jump up and down, dash around, and act like his character. It means that whenever the character is called on to do something or make a decision, the player pretends that he is in that situation and chooses an appropriate course of action.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

or you mean basic human social interaction, outside of the gamespace...like "how to tell your DM to fuck off being a TPK out to get you, nothing you do will work, listen to me tell you the bedtime story i wrote, and roll some dice when i tell you otherwise keeps your mouth shut and do what i say jerk"?

[CapnTthePirateG]

And one is forced to note, in a game about gathering power,

yeah, you have incorrect assumptions about what the purpose of D&D and objective of it is....

So yes, the DM is supposed to be "master of the game" sayeth Gary.

and you had bad DMs, and blame the game for both, bad DMs, and your own failings to understand what the purpose of the game is...

since i have the .HLP files from my core rules mostly back working ont his computer let me help you....

The Goal
Another major difference between role-playing games and other games is the ultimate goal. Everyone assumes that a game must have a beginning and an end and that the end comes when someone wins. That doesn't apply to role-playing because no one "wins" in a role-playing game. The point of playing is not to win but to have fun and to socialize.
An adventure usually has a goal of some sort: protect the villagers from the monsters; rescue the lost princess; explore the ancient ruins. Typically, this goal can be attained in a reasonable playing time: four to eight hours is standard. This might require the players to get together for one, two, or even three playing sessions to reach their goal and complete the adventure.
But the game doesn't end when an adventure is finished. The same characters can go on to new adventures. Such a series of adventures is called a campaign.
Remember, the point of an adventure is not to win but to have fun while working toward a common goal.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

nowhere does it state the goal it to "gain power". you really should learn what D&D is about because you came expecting one thing and got pissed off cause you didnt understand what it was offering.

it is like someone told you you were being invited for burgers on the grill, and for some reason expected a fillet mignon cause all you heard and thought about was "food", but failed to pay attention to what was said.

you ARE the reason thi latest article wa written, amonst many others, because of your position because you had bad DMs, and also the other articles, because you dont know what the purpose of D&D was, tried to do something else with it, then got pissed off when your false assumptions werent met.

understand why all editions to date have been rules-heavy.

you must think D&D began with 3rd edition, or you better take your ass back a few decades and look again.

Ok, first, how the fuck is there "one objective" to D&D? It's a goddamn RPG, so you can do whatever the hell you want. Fine. But it's funny to hear you talk about how the game is NOT about gaining power when the ENTIRE REWARDS SYSTEM IS BASED AROUND POWER. You level up, you grow more powerful - and if you want to talk about older editions, you get people following you around and castles and shit. So please don't tell me it's not about power, because it is. If you want to pull out the but its a story card, go right ahead, because most, if not all fantasy stories, revolve around the hero gaining power, even if it is just "I get better at some shit." Sure, you want to do all this cliched crap, but you sure as hell aren't going to do it as "Steve the Crap-Covered Farmer".

Second, the point I am trying to make is that the game in the past ENCOURAGED this kind of bullshit attitude, that the DM is god and entitled to fuck over the players. Maybe if the game had said something in the past like "you're the referee. You don't particularly mind the players winning, but, you know, try to fight them using the monsters we provide at the appropriate CR/whatever" then I wouldn't be so pissed off, but there's an entire culture and history of GM masturbation and shit starting with Gygax himself. So no, I don't really trust pick up street GMs, why do you ask?

My point is that the game is steeped in a culture of DM bullshit from 1e onward and later editions haven't completely managed to shake this off.

Although I freely admit I've mostly (well, pretty much all but 1 or 2) had bad DMs, hence the rage.[/i]

[Daztur]

understand why all editions to date have been rules-heavy.

you must think D&D began with 3rd edition, or you better take your ass back a few decades and look again.

WHAT - THE - FUCK.

EVERY edition of D&D, except for the Red Box, is a THOUSAND page cluster FUCK of byzantine rules interactions. YOU LIE, ON THE INTERNET! FOR SHAME!

EVERY PLOT that could be accomplished in a later edition can also be accomplished in an earlier edition, ONLY IN A MORE OVER POWERED, EXTREMELY BYZANTINE WAY.

IN FACT, with the exception of 4e, each newer edition uses fewer rules than the previous edition.

The unification and streamlining of the 3.x rules system was a huge leap forward in gaming, and it REDUCED the amount of rules required for action adjudication.

In summary:

[*]YOU LIE

[*]EARLIER EDITIONS ARE BYZANTINE

[*]3.X WAS MORE RULES LIGHT THAN ANY OTHER EDITION 'CEPT RED BOX.

Um, are you aware of any of the various versions of D&D that came out before AD&D? At all? Even a little bit?

[Josh_Kablack]

Except OD&D and the three versions of Basic.

OD&D is 23,000 words in wall-o-text format

That's a lot thinner than more recent editions, but it's still more than what I would personally consider a rules-lite system.

Even if you disagree and consider that small enough to be rules-lite, I would still want to point out that the general trend for the D&D line has been for later editions to at least maintain, if not add greater rules crunch. This trend continued even as various rules-lite alternative TTRPG systems developed as competitors (and as RPG-based videh games moved closer and closer to an immersive shared group experience). That says to me that the people who have historically bought D&D have wanted rules crunch on the heavy side.

And while it might very well behoove D&D to market beyond its traditional fanbase, a developer claiming that D&D should return to an "oldskool" feel by moving in a rules-lite direction is not making that argument. He is paradoxically ignoring the history of the brand in his appeal to nostalgia.

[shadzar]

Ok, first, how the fuck is there "one objective" to D&D? It's a goddamn RPG, so you can do whatever the hell you want. Fine. But it's funny to hear you talk about how the game is NOT about gaining power when the ENTIRE REWARDS SYSTEM IS BASED AROUND POWER. You level up, you grow more powerful - and if you want to talk about older editions, you get people following you around and castles and shit. So please don't tell me it's not about power, because it is. If you want to pull out the but its a story card, go right ahead, because most, if not all fantasy stories, revolve around the hero gaining power, even if it is just "I get better at some shit." Sure, you want to do all this cliched crap, but you sure as hell aren't going to do it as "Steve the Crap-Covered Farmer".

Second, the point I am trying to make is that the game in the past ENCOURAGED this kind of bullshit attitude, that the DM is god and entitled to fuck over the players. Maybe if the game had said something in the past like "you're the referee. You don't particularly mind the players winning, but, you know, try to fight them using the monsters we provide at the appropriate CR/whatever" then I wouldn't be so pissed off, but there's an entire culture and history of GM masturbation and shit starting with Gygax himself. So no, I don't really trust pick up street GMs, why do you ask?

My point is that the game is steeped in a culture of DM bullshit from 1e onward and later editions haven't completely managed to shake this off.

Although I freely admit I've mostly (well, pretty much all but 1 or 2) had bad DMs, hence the rage.[/i]

you seem to think only about power as the focus of the game. the method used to progress the game from point A to point B is NOT the purpose of the game, otherwise golf is about walking and riding golf carts; because that is how you get to the next portion of the game.

Again you are deriving a goal from something other than the games purpose. you are coming to D&D thinking of other types of games and trying to emulate them within D&D, and that is where you are going wrong.

I have had to explain this to new players before, when they here level this and level that, and so on, that these are just stages of the game. i also explained to them about a 20 year old game that is played monthly using 1st edition AD&D and the characters still havent reached name-level yet.

you are under the hype of 3rd and 4th with its level advancement speeds and such, and think in the video game terms where you MUST level in order to continue playing.

you realize that you could play D&D forever at level 1, or any other level you choose right?

yes it is about the story, but again you have misconceptions about that as well.

and then you really show your ignorance mentioned "hero" as part of a story. prior to the assertion in 4th, the adventurers were just that adventurers, NOT heros.

the point of D&D wasnt to create someone who is already a hero in the world and play them, but to just BE n that world and SEE what you could do with it.

this may be a part of your problem understanding D&D, that you thought you were supposed to start out as the hero, but you really are just the protagonist of the story. whether you become a hero or not, will depend on your play and the actions taken with your character as the story develops.

again YOUR experience with bad DMs does NOT indicate truth to your statement for the game as a whole. maybe you should read some of the old edition material and find for yourself what it said. ToEE, ToH, etc were not defining of what D&D is or was, but just defining of what those modules are/were.

the DMG should have said something to a DM?


like this?

The Fine Art of Being a DM

Being a good Dungeon Master involves a lot more than knowing the rules. It calls for quick wit, theatrical flair, and a good sense of dramatic timing--among other things. Most of us can claim these attributes to some degree, but there's always room for improvement.
Fortunately, skills like these can be learned and improved with practice. There are hundreds of tricks, shortcuts, and simple principles that can make you a better, more dramatic, and more creative game master.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

oddly enough titled the same as the recent legends and lore article.

or how about this one?

Introduction

You are one of a very special group of people: AD&D® game Dungeon Masters. Your job is not an easy one. It requires wit, imagination, and the ability to think and act extemporaneously. A really good Dungeon Master is essential to a good game.
The Dungeon Master Guide is reserved for Dungeon Masters. Discourage players from reading this book, and certainly don't let players consult it during the game. As long as the players don't know exactly what's in the Dungeon Master Guide, they'll always wonder what you know that they don't. It doesn't matter whether you have secret information; even if you don't, as long as the players think you do, their sense of mystery and uncertainty is maintained.

Also, this book contains essential rules that are not discussed in the Player's Handbook. Some of these rules the players will learn quickly during play--special combat situations, the costs of hiring NPCs, etc. Others, however, cover more esoteric or mysterious situations, such as the nature of artifacts and other magical items. This information is in the Dungeon Master Guide so the DM can control the players' (and hence the characters') access to certain bits of knowledge. In a fantasy world, as in this world, information is power. What the characters don't know can hurt them (or lead them on a merry chase to nowhere). While the players aren't your enemies, they aren't your allies, either, and you aren't obligated to give anything away for nothing. If characters go hunting wererats without doing any research beforehand, feel free to throw lots of curves their way. Reward those characters who take the time to do some checking.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

you seem hung up on the underlined portions therein, and ignored what i have highlighted in red for ease of seeing it.

funny the DMG DID explain these things, jsut you seem to have some long harbored ill-will towards a DM, maybe a specific one, or you jsut didnt like Gygax, that you cannot take a step back for self-reflection to realize you are really fucking up, or just have NO clue what you are talking about due to accidental ignorance.

Giving Players What They Want

Players in most AD&D games use the same character over many game sessions. Most players develop strong ties to their characters and get a thrill from watching them advance, grow, and become more successful and powerful. Your game's success depends on how much your players care about their characters. For these reasons, it is important to let they players create the type of characters they really want to play.
At the same time, watch out for a tendency in some players to want the most powerful character possible.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

Dealing with Dissatisfied Players

All of the above notwithstanding, you don't want to force a player to accept a character he doesn't really like. All you will do is lose a player. If someone really is dissatisfied, either make some adjustments to the character or let him roll up a new one.
When adjusting ability scores, follow these guidelines:


Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

there are just a few more describing how the DM shoudl work WITH the players...

it really sounds to me like you had a real asshole DM and got burned by them, and NEVER read a DMG before in your life, otherwise you would see these things present.

the DMG states that you should read it ALL AFTER reading the PHB, so you can get the grasp of it, but sadly, and probably a source of where many bad DMs came form and will continue to come from; is they skip just to the section they want to read first, and ignore the rest printed in the book, such as the excerpts i have provided here.

so you are wrong. the game wasnt about the DM screwing the players, nor empowering the DM to do so. the game isnt at fault for this happening anymore than the players that allowed this DM to continue DMing. moreso the players are at fault for allowing this behavior. the book cant teach a human proper behavior when dealing with others, nor can it force anyone to read any part of it.

you just have to chalk it up, you got screwed over by one of more DMs, and accept that and move on, if you cannot do this by yourself, then seek professional help.

when you clear your head, you may understand things better as to what D&D was about, why the DM had so much "power" as well the responsibilities, and maybe, just maybe YOUR behavior lead your DM to want to cease your character, because they really didnt want to play with an asshole in their game, and tried best to remove you from it in a passive-aggressive manner.

if you come to a new group acting like a rules lawyer because you got burned by a previous DM, came acting like a total munchkin, and many other things, could have caused the DM to not want you around.

as a player, you have to take actively take a stance in curbing the bad DM problem. TSR, T$R, WotC...none of these can fix a bad DM. as Mearls said, no amount of rules will stop a bad DM.

im sorry you have had them, but you need to take a step back and think about that before blaming the game and such for it. 3rd brought in MANY people that probably should not play TTRPGs, and created a much bigger problem with bad DMs. i have said this many times before here. they existed before 3rd, but the number of players were so sporadic you didnt always find them as much as you do today.

you got to put this behind you and relearn the game, and in the future get rid of the bad DM yourself. the game only provides a structure to play in. you have to pick the right people to play WITH.

if the DM is a problem at a venue, then complain to the owner of the venue, complain to the company if at a con with a problem DM...nobody here, and nothing in the books will ever fix bad DMs. you just have to deal with them yourself.

i dont like, so dont allow bards and assassins and psionics in D&D. i knew someone that was a total asshole that played an orc PC, but that one asshole doesnt make me blame the orc PC from the game.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Except it kind of is. Your golf example is kind of shitty, because if you replaced "golf cart" with "put ball in hole" it'd work equally well.

As well as hero and protagonist...the terms are used interchangeably. Deal with it. I don't know about you, but if I wanted to be some random ordinary dude, I'd just put away the computer and do some work. And if the low levels are the shit, why is it that players always describe their characters in terms of level? And I suspect that 99.9 percent of players would say that they enjoy leveling up and getting loots because that's how the game rewards you for doing stuff.

Also, I love the way the bolded quote actually encourages the DM to reward rules knowledge, but you go out of your way to condemn the rules lawyer because ...shit. God, I hope you don't play any other games. I can see you at a chess tournament screaming about rules lawyers because some dude moved a pawn two squares.

And if you live by those quotes, shouldn't you let guys play assassins, bards, and psionicists under the "dealing with dissatisfied players" or should I just ignore that little bit of hypocrisy?

Lastly, I notice none of your examples comes anywhere close to justifying why the DM has the fuck you you all die power, the morality police alignment power (fuck you paladins), or any of the other random fuck you powers. So the DM has them but isn''t supposed to use them? Makes perfect sense to me.

[shadzar]

And if you live by those quotes, shouldn't you let guys play assassins, bards, and psionicists under the "dealing with dissatisfied players" or should I just ignore that little bit of hypocrisy?

Lastly, I notice none of your examples comes anywhere close to justifying why the DM has the fuck you you all die power, the morality police alignment power (fuck you paladins), or any of the other random fuck you powers. So the DM has them but isn''t supposed to use them? Makes perfect sense to me.

how about remembering the DM is a player also, not an employee, so doesnt have to run shit for you.

again your attitude is probably why a DM wanted to kill you off, because you think they owe you something for THEM doing all this work so you can play....no wonder DMs kill off specific characters...to get rid of their players....

the power given to the DM is BY THE PLAYERS. once you pick the DM, anything after that is your own fucking fault. if you dont like them as DM, then quit the game, find a new DM, whatever. that isnt the job of the game, ANY game to make work for you.

you have some social problems that need to be worked out in your group. you had bad DMs, but want to blame the game because of them, rather than accept blame yourself, because you couldnt stand up to the schmuck and say, "you fucking suck as a DM so you arent going to DM anymore."

did you or anyone else you played with WANT to play D&D, and did you ever read any of the books to understand it? or did you jsut assume it was like monopoly and the rules were a short list with everything spelled out for you?

do you understand that in ALL TTRPGs, you have to work with the other players, and if ONE player isnt working WITH the group, then they are a problem player...remembering the DM is also a player and CAN be a problem player?

what you have is group and personal issues, and these are not something the game should be fixed for your malcontent group, you need to find a group of decent people to play with, and become a decent person yourself that others wish to play with.

[icyshadowlord]

You have some social problems that need to be worked out in your group. You had bad DMs, but want to blame the game because of them, rather than accept blame yourself, because you couldn't stand up to the schmuck and say, "you fucking suck as a DM so you arent going to DM anymore."

Did you or anyone else you played with WANT to play D&D, and did you ever read any of the books to understand it? Or did you jsut assume it was like monopoly and the rules were a short list with everything spelled out for you?

Do you understand that in ALL TTRPGs, you have to work with the other players, and if ONE player isnt working WITH the group, then they are a problem player...remembering the DM is also a player and CAN be a problem player?

Okay, this reminds me of a problem involving a DM who was very much a control freak in the bad way. He seemed to deliberately go out his way to make me listen to all his stories and ideas, while when I presented my homebrews (which were NOT overpowered or gamebreaking in any way), he decided to arbitrarily ban them from EVERY campaign he brewed up with the reason "because I can", even after promising once to let me play one of my characters in one of his campaigns, only to suddenly change his mind and use the same excuse again.

The group blamed ME of being the problem. I called out the DM for sucking as a DM, but the group simply sided with him and told me I was the problem. Make of that what you will, but I told them to fuck off, left the game and then realized something: Almost nobody wants to be a DM around here where I am. I myself happen to DM a game, and I don't punish the players for coming up with silly stuff that usually drives me crazy (that's because IT'S FUN!!) but I also noticed that sometimes I AM NOT HAVING FUN. They didn't want my NPC following them around anymore, even though I had some of my most fun times as pretending that I am still a Player in the group. Being DM inevitably seems to lead to "you're not a player, you're a DM. Now go on and lead us" kind of thing that really made me feel annoyed now.

Or maybe I'm just delving into this too deep, which I usually don't do around here.