> watched his Mystara game from the sidelines (which was hilarious,
> Muaa and James go at it) for the entire campaign.
I aim to entertain 8-)~

> deal with such situations if I can avoid them. Another little DM tactic
> that I personally can't stand is changing the rules mid-game to deal with
> those players that get "too powerful"... which basically means they have
> been able to use a little innovative thinking and gain some sort of
> advantage that other players don't have.
While I mind that, I don't mind it so much as I do the feelings of futility
that come from hard-wired "Storylines". It depends on the extent and the
purpose of the rule changes. If the rule changes are implemented to make
sure that all players, playing a variety of realms, can have an enjoyable
time and a reasonable chance of success, I don't mind. . .as long as the
rule changes aren't so sweeping or extensive that they negate all the
previous preparation and effort I (or other players) had put into
strengthening the realm (opperating under the rules as they were and seeing
that doing thus and such would be a good way to become stronger or more
survivable or whatever, then the DM later decides that things are getting
out of hand and thus sweeps away that provision). There are, IMO, good and
bad ways to implement rule changes. For the most part the best way is to
make as small a change as possible while still insuring the game is
enjoyable. I've had changes made right when I was about to reap the
"advantage", and the like, and while it has been bothersome, so long as I
know the DM is doing it to insure the game stays enjoyable and not to keep
the players down or "in their place" it isn't overwhelmingly upseting
(having to change carefully planned out strategies is always frustrating,
but still.)
In a perfect world, no changes would ever have to be made in mid game. But
we don't live in a perfect world, nor even under a "perfect" set of
Birthright rules. IMO, as published they are good, bordering on greatness -
just as the original late-70s rules were good, but needed tinkering and
"house rules" and eventually several subsiquent versions ultimately leading
to AD&D 2nd Edition which still isn't a perfect rules set, etc. Given that,
and the fact that even now people are still learning, I don't object to
changes *too* strenuously if they're done with the game's, and the players
(all of them) best interest in mind. I'm very good at using the rules as
they are presented (both in the BR Rulebook & whatever House Rules the DM
publishes) to my own advantage, not unlike Memnoch, and in finding the
"holes". IMO, part of what a player should do is not just take advantage of
the "gaps" where benifits out of line with what can be achieved in other
ways exist, but also pointing that out to the DM (and not *only* in cases
where it is to one's own advantage to see the loophole closed, though IMO
each player should be their own advocate) where they are and that perhaps
they should be closed (Mirrors of Mental Prowess anyone?)
Anyhow, that was a rather long digression. . .To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line