Flavorless 3e- Advantage- players

[Belen]

Well, I wanted to see what you all thought about this situation. Recently, I have been created some world specific flavored rules for my newest campaign world. The rules are designed to enhance some attributes of the world itself.

I ran a few of them by my players and instead of "cool" idea, I got some fairly negative responses. The gist of the response is that there were already rules for that or why should it more difficult to do such and such.

Of course, they want to use the generic rules provided by WOTC. Maybe this is part of what bugs me about the girth of player options in 3e. They are always quick to embrace supplements that grant them more power or cool abilities and have a lot of arguments for why x feat from a splat book should be used, but seem to always fight against things that add to the flavor of the game.

In general, 3e have little real consequences. Almost everything is quickly cured or healed. The players can do almost anything and the consequences are quickly solved. It's like a video game. Poisioned for 6 seconds, then fine etc.

What's the big deal with adding consequences for excessive use of negative energy? If in your world, negative energy connects to the source of all evil, then why not have a game penalty for using it all the time.....

Personally, I think that creating challenges, consequences of conditions that cannot be overcome with simple spell is fun.

Am I wrong? And why do the "rules" support players rather than GMs?

(edit: clarifying point)

My point: The rules, as written, provide little flavor and the generic nature of them cater to the players whims rather than being inclusive to the GM.

I do not advocate changing all spells and abilities in order to hobble players.

I do advocate the need to write new rules to create challenges for players that are more unique than the next monster of the week. An adventure that has players overcoming PERSONAL dilemma's will mean far more than defeating the next dragon.

Not that I am saying that no point exists in fighting monsters and those fights can be made meaningful with appropriate story points added.

However, the game should be about more than combat, and writing rules that can lead to personal obstacles and challenged will be far more rewarding than 4 combats per session every week.

 

[S'mon]

Am I wrong? And why do the "rules" support players rather than GMs?

There are more players than GMs, so this strategy sells more books.

Seriously, I think this what d20/OGL is for - almost all fantasy OGL d20 games are far less videogamelike than standard D&D. In my experience it's probably easier to build a new campaign off the d20 rules in Conan, Slaine, Midnight, Wheel of Time etc, rather than try to run Scrooge-D&D.

I was thinking about this recently, though. I have a lowish-magic campaign world, but the way D&D works, it doesn't seem to do much harm to let PCs be even more powerful than normal. NPCs can be tougher still, and protected by powerful magics. If the Red Cloak city guards are 8th level Warriors have 80 hp and cloaks of Fire Resistance-20, fireballs are suddenly a lot less scary - and this can still 'look' like a low magic world. This sort of thing is standard in videpgames as a means of PC-control. Arguably Monte really missed a trick when he insisted on retaining DMG demographics that keep most soldiers 1st level & hopeless.

 

[WizarDru]

In general, 3e have little real consequences. Almost everything is quickly cured or healed. The players can do almost anything and the consequences are quickly solved. It's like a video game. Poisioned for 6 seconds, then fine etc.

What's the big deal with adding consequences for excessive use of negative energy? If in your world, negative energy connects to the source of all evil, then why not have a game penalty for using it all the time.....

Personally, I think that creating challenges, consequences of conditions that cannot be overcome with simple spell is fun.

Am I wrong? And why do the "rules" support players rather than GMs?

I guess it's difficult to answer any of those questions without seeing some of the proposed changes. Are these to a new game, or one already in progress?

It sounds like what you did was approach the players and say "Hey! Guess what? I came up with a new set of rules that penalizes you much more than the monsters, and it's an inconvienece and extra set of house-rules for you to memorize or forget! They make things more complex and change the way some core mechanics work, but I really like them!"

All of which is fine, but if they aren't compelling to the world setting, don't be suprised if the players don't cotton to them, directly.

 

[Piratecat]

I'd need to know more before blaming the rules or the players. For instance:

- do your proposed changes discriminate against one particular class?

- are there mechanical difficulties with the new rules?

- is there change just for the sake of change, or changes that don't feel logical?

- are the new rules hard to remember, or a pain in the butt to keep track of?

- are these players especially resistant to change, or have they been burned by bad house rules before?

This is worth asking because I just haven't seen any wholesale player resistance to an altered rules set. Lots of beloved settings change the rules, and people don't tend to complain about them.

 

[muhcashin]

Because players are not DMs. They don't understand the whole creative process of the D&D. Players who don't have DMing experience are used to being spoon fed. Some players tend to think that the DM's job is to give a hard time to the PCs. So they see the new rules as some kind of punishment, and won't put up with it. However, if a rule is published in a WotC splatbook, then it generally rewards players. I don't remember ever seeing a new rule, or spell, or feat that had any inherent disadvantages. Unlike let's say GURPS, there is no perk/flaw mechanism in D&D. So PCs cannot suck in game terms.

Your campaign flavor rules are great. I'd use them.

 

[diaglo]

take alignment.

in the older editions...change of alignment had penalties.

now it has some...as noted by certain classes (paladins, barbarians, monks) but no overall penalty.





i agree. players have more options now as dictated by what rules are found in what books. but what you should remember....the DMG is a DM book.

if the players want to say i can build item X for Y price b/c it says so in the DMG. tell them to RTFM again. tell them to show you where in the PHB it says item X costs Y price.

 

[Belen]

This is what I added:

Taint: The Taint is an infection that slowly darkens the soul. The Taint occurs from prolonged exposure to negative energy and can be felt as an oily sensation along with minor nausea. Those who work with negative energy slowly become corrupted with only the strongest staving off undeath. Undead are the ultimate result of constant exposure to negative energy. Those killed by Undead have a chance to rise as undead if the taint was strong enough. Those using negative energy must make a Fortitude save DC 10 + ½ HD+ Cha. Modifier every week.
Effect: A tainted individual will grow to hate life and all those who cherish it. The people no longer care to groom themselves and slowly loose the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Each time a person fails a Taint save, they loose one point of Constitution. If they die from con loss, then they must make a Will save DC 10 + ½ HD+ Cha. Modifier. Failure means that rise an unintelligent undead.

It really will not affect them much. I guess it is my fault for letting them have too much in the past games. One guy argue that this was restrictive against necromancers, yet none of them are planning on playing one! (sigh)

I am not out to get them, but I also do not want some things to be easy.

(PS: this is for a game that will start in a few months)

 

[Piratecat]

Cool! I love it, and they're probably just bitching. My advice is to craft a fun world that is based on your ideas, and ask the players to give it a chance. I'm sure they'll have fun if you handle it fairly.

 

[clark411]

If you put all the house rules that are bad for them on one side of a scale, and measure them against all the house rules you've made that are good for them on the other side of that same scale, do you think it's balanced?

Personally, any flavor that translates into "here's another bad thing for you to deal with" is clearly more likely to be met with boos and hisses if there's nothing good coming with it. What player in their right mind would gladly take 8 house rules that impacted them negatively over only 3? What player would take 1 hp over 7? Perhaps one who wanted to play a guy with a deficiency here or there, or one who used it as a central theme for his character, but I can't see 4-5 players coming together and liking things that will hang over their head for an entire campaign.

It can be as interesting as possible, but push comes to shove, you can't be flabbergasted at the thought that players don't like flavor that comes with serious penalties when they aren't up for those penalties, or when none (or very little of your flavor) is beneficial.

 

[Belen]

I figured that there would be a level of grumbling. I just did not figure for passionate arguments against add rules that were not player friendly.

I wonder if it is a sign of the times. After all, the rules discriminates against necromancers by associating them with undead, and really, necromancers are people too!