jrrt@hogpd.UUCP (R.MITCHELL) (03/04/85)
If I had my way, my players would spend most of their time in a state of complete bewilderment, not knowing exactly what is possible, and what is not. In fact, since I have mutilated AD&D beyond recognition, and not shown the players many of my modifications, this is largely the case. They cannot quote the rules at me , because I make them up as I go along. They know that, and accept it. -Nigel Gale Well, Nigel, I can pretty much agree with you, with a few caveats. I like playing as much as I like DMing, and I know that as a player I like the suspense of not knowing everything. That's why I've tried not to memorize the Monster Manual(s) -- it's more fun basing the PC's reactions on his/her own experience within game context, rather than on the player's overall memory. That's part of role-playing. I also agree that the DM should take charge of the game and modify anything that s/he wants. I just offer two qualifiers. The changes should be consistent (If a Neutralize Poison works on a Cloudkill today, it should work on one tomorrow), and the changes should preserve game balance. Ideally, the changes should also contribute to the solidarity or believeability of the campaign itself. I've made a lot of changes to the AD&D rules, partly to streamline combat (thereby emphasizing the role-playing) and partly to experiment with new ideas. Some ideas work, and some don't. In any event, my players trust me to be an honorable DM. I won't arbitrarily change spell effects, for instance, without a good reason. Also, the NPCs live by the same rules as the PCs (with a few specific, well-thought-out exceptions). My reasons will not always be immediately clear to the players, but that's OK. They *trust* me to keep the game balanced and fun. If I ever lose that trust by some heavy-handed, unfair manipulation, then the players should look for another DM.