They are absoltely never going to say it, but I don’t think there’s any question that’s the strategy.
Actually, until they make public the policy for transferring codes, there is most certainly a question. You don’t know whether or not they will want to lock a book to a single person and make it non-transferable yet.
(Actually, I should rephrase, because I agree that they would want to lock one book to one player; a company’s goal is to maximize its earnings however it can. Whether or not they consider it worth pissing off their customer base is a different matter entirely.)
The Complete Arcane, Page 173
Sounds fine so far. Unfortunately, the passage continues on after that…
They then go on to basically say that you should never restrict classes or abilities, and that characters can always have some excuse to take an ability. You can give bonuses but never penalties. :rolleyes:
I think that as these strategies are becoming more common, companies are losing any fear that a few loudmouths (and I am far from the most cynical and disgruntled of their core market) make a difference to their bottom line. There couldn’t be any clearer case of a company witholding content so they can upcharge you for it later than Bethesda’s rolling out mods soon after the release of Oblivion that were apparently already in the game you bought, but weren’t unlocked. Yet, the outrage over that subsided and the fans sucked it up and paid. Likewise, the severe hatefullness spewing from the Fallout fan sites has not intimidated Bethesda. On the contrary, it has made it those fans a sunk cost for them.
What’s so objectionable about that passage, bandit? Sounds like good solid advice on how to run a campaign, to me. I’ve seen more than one group break up because the GM had a very particular idea about how he wanted “his” adventures to work, while his players wanted to do something different. Role-playing is supposed to be a collaborative effort, after all. The players should have a voice in what sort of campaign they’re participating in, and that’s all that quote seems to be saying.
smiling bandit, I went and looked up that entire passage, and it’s as Miller says; it’s mainly suggestions and advice on how to work with your players. A DM who places absolute restrictions on their world and refuses to hear alternatives or loopholes isn’t a very good DM unless they can provide sound reasoning; the characters and thus the players are part of the story, after all.
As for “You can give bonuses but never penalties,” that’s standard advice to any administrator. If you want to encourage one action or behavior over another, you offer positive reinforcement for the behavior you like, and don’t penalize the behavior you don’t like unless it’s necessary. It’s also not as hard and fast as you make it sound:
Lastly, Wizards has said outright that the Dungeon Master’s Guide, Player’s Handbook, and Monster Manual trump all supplementals if there’s a conflict. Thus:
Lo, does Complete Arcane become invalidated should there be a good reason for it.
I never said anyone actually follwed that rule. I was, however, mighty ticked that they ever put it in the first place. Aside from which, people survived for years (and got some great games) when Dwarves were forbidden to be Wizards. GM’s can allow these things, but to try and say that they must do so is the height of arrogance.
But they never used the word must, is the point. They used “You should” and “It is preferable,” but never “You must.”
And for that matter, it’s in a section discussing suggestions for the creation of new schemas of magic.
But in the context of the statement that “you should never allow your personal sense blah blah”. In other words: you can’t say things work differently in your world. If the gods made dwarves without arcane magic, or they can’t be warlocks, too bad. Your characters are “exceptional” and get to have it anyway.
Shrug
Maybe I’m being too critical. But I read that passaage and see them trying once again to borgify my game.
Only in that they’re saying it’s bad form to say “No, you can’t, uh-uh, no exceptions.” Which is true. If you have a really good reason, your players might go along with it. Or they might say screw you and then you don’t have players. It’s a collaborative effort; while the DM calls the shots, the players are there to have fun, too, and each needs the other in order to play.
I read that passage as a warning to DMs to make their unique campaigns interesting, so players want to participate in it. A draconic DM might look at the first part of the passage as carte blanche to rewrite the game mechanics governing magic and force it down his players’ throats as a means of controlling them: for instance, dictating magic can only be used by women, because he knows one of his players hates playing female characters.
I mean, really: that passage even contradicts itself. The DM can set it up however he likes, however, players don’t have to obey the rules the DM sets up.
It’s a difficult question, and I can see why the Complete Arcane is in favor of player flexibility. After all, few players want to be a generic human fighter. People love exceptions; I would wager more people play good dark elves than evil ones, because they love the idea of being unique. And that’s okay.
The problem is as a DM it’s difficult to deal with a party of freaks. In the past I’ve limited the decisions as a group. Like, you can’t all be monstrous humanoids. I don’t want to deal with you people trying to walk into a tavern that way. One per group. Someone wants to play a paladin with different alignment? Possible, but one per group. Someone else wants to play a historically evil race as good? One per group. If any of the above don’t work out, I reserve the right to alter, remove or – if you’re really on my nerves – actually kill off your character.
As DM, I am God. I want a balanced game, and one that makes sense for my universe. Nobody wants to write for characters that are a total pain in their ass. When you get too inventive, you can end up with a party where an evil thri-kreen kleptomaniac is playing with a saintly paladin who wants to smite the wicked. Great. You guys are going to work together on what, exactly?
I won’t buy 4.0 most likely, I have plenty of 3.0 and some 3.5 books and I’m happy to keep using them. I see no reason to change, if I want a wholly different system I still have my 2nd edition books. Any problems I simply sort out with house rules. But then again my campaigns aren’t that combat-driven so I find people do expand heavily into languages, diplomatic skills and utility spells so I don’t really worry too much about out of balance things unless they’re really awful.
In that case, I would wait to see how 4.0 handles diplomatic relations before giving it a pass. Supposedly they’re reworking the mechanics to be more accomodating to social situations. Diplomacy is broken in 3.5 anyway.
But yeah, the DM is God. But Gods need followers. 
If the players respect your desires, that’s perfectly awesome. If they want to do something you don’t want and you both have good reasons for your positions, it’s better to work together to find a compromise than drop a brick wall in front of them, which breeds resentment and isn’t conducive to a fun game.