From: white@tree.egr.uh.edu (Mitchell White)
Subject: Re: Bastard DM From Hell Pt 2
Reply-To: white@tree.egr.uh.edu
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:12:45 GMT

In article <phil.714031568@adam.adelaide.edu.au> phil@adam.adelaide.edu.au  
(Phil Kernick) writes:
> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
The latest ruling from the BDMFH is that if a Ranger wears armour heavierthan
studded leather then he is not acting as a ranger but as  a fighter, and so
does not gain any experience.
	If the Ranger is NOT specifically prohibited from wearing armor of
any type, the only thing I'd have studded leather do is affect his ability
to sneak around and move very quickly. Of COURSE he's still going to gain
experience. This GM is becoming more twitlike the more I hear of him. 

It is a *very* dangerous thing to says things like this in an open forum.
You may disagree with my ideas and rulings but it is *very* bad manners to
insult someone whom you don't know.

> Consider.  If a ranger wears armour when he needs to fight (gaining full  
xp)
> and takes it off at other times (so he get's special abilities) why would
> *anyone* become a straight fighter?
> Phil.
> -- 
>    _-_|\    Phil Kernick                E-Mail: phil@adam.adelaide.edu.au
>   /     \   Departmental Engineer       Phone:  +61 8 228 5914
>   \_.-*_/   Dept. of Psychology         Fax:    +61 8 224 0464
>        v    University of Adelaide      Mail:   GPO Box 498 Adelaide SA  
5001

     Other people have responded to the "why become a fighter" question, so  
I'll take a more general approach. Sort of an overview. Phil, the BDMFH in  
question, has, first, tried to limit the XP awarded to a mage who, in his  
opinion, had no intention of entering combat. Now, basically, he is trying to  
limit the XP for someone who wants to do something for his character that  
Phil doesn't really envision as being appropriate. Phil and I have discussed  
the original problem in private(mainly), and chalked it up to player bias in  
the first case (the mage). However, I find him moving in the same direction,  
again. Phil, prepare to be chastized.
     I can see why Sea Wolf jumped you. I don't really agree with calling  
someone you've never met "twitlike", but then, I didn't say it. It seems to  
me that you are trying to run your campaign in a very heavy-handed style. It  
sounds like a lot of fun for you, but not as much for the players. If one of  
your players wants to do something that you don't agree with, don't just say  
"no XP for Mikey." The only thing you'll end up doing is making all your  
players walk out, in the end. The DM has a responsibility to let the players  
have a certain amount of freedom, and it sounds like you're uncomfortable  
with that, to a greater or lesser degree. Instead of threats, try persuasion.  
Design a special suit of legendary studded leather armor, once worn by a  
great Ranger-Lord, and with added powers that are especially beneficial to a  
Ranger. Bingo. Instant adventure. The quest for the studs. 
     Alternatively, stop whoever from posting these things without explaining  
things from your end at the same time. Because, not having both sides of the  
story, experienced DMs/players like myself and Sea Wolf will find your  
rulings unsuitable, and will say so, publicly. And it can get hard to  
separate ideas from the originator.
     Mitchell(no silly quotes)White

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd