An observation (ok, possibly a rant)

[elliott20]

homebrew does not get much love because of

1. homebrew material, more often than not, is just not very well thought out. (Especially when it's from someone on the internet who does not really explain or justify the material or the choices made)

2. homebrew material usually does not have a lot of support outside of the immediate author, which is not always the most reliable.

3. usage. some homebrew material just won't see a lot of usage because of the extremely specialized nature of it.

personally, I feel this sort of thing you just can't help, since most of the time, you're homebrew or rule-0ing something just so it's more usable for you. And that's fine by me.

[steveflam]

Possibly but if , say, you know enough and have read enough of say any setting and know the rules, there should be no problem at all

And I mean if you have understanding players, especially with the 3.5 rules galore, there should not be a problem at all.

[elliott20]

it should never be a problem when it comes to your own players, me thinks. The problem with homebrew is pretty much an online one, in my opinion.

[steveflam]

it should never be a problem when it comes to your own players, me thinks. The problem with homebrew is pretty much an online one, in my opinion.

True enough. Unless the group has been playing a long time online as a collective, then that shouldn't change anything IMO

[GoldenGoblin]

There were many times being a player when we (players) would hand out DM experience when he did something that was truely amazing with either story and interesting outcome. I think our old DM was about 15th level.

I as a Dm rarely use anything as printed. I usually mod something change story and such. But Dms loosing their mystique is buried in repetition. To many of the printed adventure are in structure the same. There are expectations and they are usually right. Making those expectations into something else is the ultimate goal as a DM. What that is, is for you to do.

[artemis wands]

Insofar as this attitude exists at all, I'd trace its origins to the rise of video games. Allegedly "interactive," there's never a GM and the player is always at the helm with cheat codes and such, ignoring the game's story as suits his or her whim.

This expectation carries over into table-top RPGs, and much of WotC's marketing seems to take it into account and encourage it. Some of it even slipped in WW's Ravenloft material (the PHB, IMO, should not have included anything about the powers of vampires, etc., and as few references to the Mists, domains and so on as possible; because average starting PCs would not know any of that, the players should not know it, either).

[alhoon]

*Scratches head in confusion.*

How can a playgroup decide to overrule the DM on something like starting level? Even if they say "We're starting at level 9 instead of 2 like you wanted," the DM can just say "Okay, sure. Roll initiative against the pit fiend that just showed up to 'say hello' to your level 9 characters."

Seems to me the DM has all the cards in a contest like that. I grant you, with the two sides coming to the table with that kind of attitude it's going to be a short and unpleasant game, but the point is how can a group even try to pull that?

No he hasn't. As you said dropping pit fiends on 9 level characters won't make an entertaining game either... not to mention that none of the players will agree to take part in such a combat. I.e. If the DM brings such an attitude to the game table, the players will refuse to play and there will just be an argument until one side backs down (or they both agree on middle ground)

[JinnTolser]

But by refusing to play, the players can't exactly play their characters of a different level than the DM specified, can they? Point is, you can't have a game without a DM, and while no good DM would try to force all his players to do everything his way, the players can't do so either, unless one of them is going to take over DM duties.

[Jack of Tears]

I see this attitude quite frequently on gaming theory and discussion forums like The Forge. There is a push for games which minimalize the GM and put players at the helm. I have read more than one post claiming that the GM is merely a position for the power hungry.

I think alot of the DM elitism has worn off and people have grown tired of putting up with DM's crap.

As demonstrated by comments like this.

Where they railroad them through whatever story they want and the player's are forced to jump through hoop after hoop for the DM.

I'm not quite sure what that means ... it is the GMs job to design storylines for players; which will certainly include challenges the pcs must overcome. (hoops they must jump through?) I have had players who wanted me, as game master, to merely hand them their successes after a minimal ammount of effort ... but that makes for neither an interesting, nor involved game. As someone else noted, this is find for a computer game, but hardly appropriate for an rpg.

Where the rule book is over-ridden because Rule 1 say the DM is god.
It's a reaction to that older school of gaming.

That is probably the most important rule in any book as it prevents the GM from falling victim to players who think they know everything, or want to hold the GM hostage with the rules as written. Mind you, if a game master is going to change a rule, it is incumbent upon him to make it clear to the pcs before they attempt to rely upon it for their own well being. (had a gm change the way scrolls worked three times in a campaign, resulting in our "teleport" scroll escape plan becoming useless during the very battle we'd prepared it for) But this is not a board game, the art of storytelling does, at times, necessitate divergence from the "book of laws".

Plus the role of DM has gotten easier. Back in the day it was a chore.

Don't kid yourself, GMing is still, and will always be, a demanding job. Reducing the ammount of time required for book work is great, but the majority of a game master's energy is spent merely designing the adventures, the world, the npcs, and drawing all that into an engaging story. One could give me flash cards with every single rule made simple in an easy file index and it would only reduce the difficulty of my job by 20%.

Monsters had to be prepared, DMs had to own more books, they had to know all the crazy rules, etc.

Don't see how that has changed much. I had to buy a hundred dollars worth of material in preparation for my Star Wars game - material my pcs didn't have to own. And the GM still needs to prepare monsters and know the crazy rules ... just because pcs have more access to the tools doesn't let the gm off the hook.

Players just played.

In my many years of gaming I've known only a handful of players who "just played" ... most of them became quite knowledgable about the rules sets as well ...

Now more rules are in the PHB so it gives the player more knowledge and power.

More knowledge, yes ... more power? How so? The pcs are still limited to what they can know or do IC. And informing the players doesn't give them some mystical ability to leverage the game in the direction they want .... I guess I don't understand this idea of "empowering players" ... they're the main characters of a story made for and about them ... how can they have more power? (even in persistant worlds that evolve external to the players, the adventures are still about them ... otherwise their is no game)

Plus alot of the micromanaging for the DM had grown easier so it's less hard to find someone willing to sit in the big chair.

I haven't seen evidence of this ... seems to me finding a GM is about as hard as it ever was. Sure, more people are willing to try ... but after a few efforts many realize it's alot harder than it looks and go back to playing.

For years there's been this adversarial relationship between DMs and players where the DM was actively trying to kill the players and his fun was almost more important.

It is easy to mistake the idea that a GMs fun is *as important* with the perception that it is more important; if the pcs aren't having fun, a game won't last very long. And I always find it amusing when people claim a GM is 'actively trying to kill the players' ... it isn't a difficult thing to kill pcs and if a GM wants to, he can manage it with very little effort. The GM is holding all the cards, he controls the environment, the battlefield, the advantage in a fight, the weapons at hand, the obsticles, etc. There is no party I could not kill in a single night of gaming if that were my goal as a GM ... but what would be the point? After all, if I kill the party how am I going to cram my storyline down their throats?

[Jester of the FoS]

As demonstrated by comments like this.

Where they railroad them through whatever story they want and the player's are forced to jump through hoop after hoop for the DM.

I'm not quite sure what that means ... it is the GMs job to design storylines for players; which will certainly include challenges the pcs must overcome. (hoops they must jump through?) I have had players who wanted me, as game master, to merely hand them their successes after a minimal ammount of effort ... but that makes for neither an interesting, nor involved game. As someone else noted, this is find for a computer game, but hardly appropriate for an rpg.

This was a comment about railroading adventures. Most DMs tend to have a bit of storyteller and author in them. They have a big idea for a huge epic tale and triumph of good versus evil with the rise and fall of empires and romance and drama and betrayal...
But players always move stories off track. They have a pesky habit of wanting to do their own thing. They don't want to stop the evil necromancer, they'd rather team up with him, betray him, and them rule in his stead. Or they'd rather just crawl through a dungeon at their own pace.
So some DMs lead their party by the nose, having them jump through hoops like a lion tamer. Just so he can tell his story.

Now, not ever DM is like that. A good majority aren't. But there are enough bad DMs to warrant more rules, restrictions and controls.

[Ancalagon]

Sorry to hear you've obviously had a lot of bad experiences with DMs. But added rules, restrictions and controls just to deal with bad DMs is just crazy talk; adding to the rules bloat of WotC D&D helps no one.

If you are unsatisfied with your DM, and discussing the situation brings no resolution, then find a new group. If your group is unsatisfied, then let the DM know a change is desired and someone else must step up and become the DM. Or bring in a new DM from outside. Those options are the ultimate controls.