Kae'Yoss
First Post
Reynard said:That's interesting, though i was thinking more along the lines of Cleric, Dwarf, Elf, Fighter, Magic User and Thief. (That's right. No halflings.)
Ugh. *claws out eyes*
Reynard said:For a while now I have been trying to figure out what my problem with D&D is (or has been) and, after a stream-of-consciouness style journey through message boards and conversations, I figured it out: D&D 3.x is *not* the D&D I gre up with.
That's called Nostalgia. Nasty ailment, makes you think things were better "back in the day". The only cure is to give in to it, play some OD&D, realise that it sucks, and learn to really appreciate d20.
What I mean is that the D&D I grew up with -- the Red/Blue/Green/Black set, specifically -- was more focused, more specific in its emulation of the genre that is D&D than the new D&D is.
Funnily enough, there's also people who say that D&D is too fixated on its own brand of fantasy. There's no pleasing everyone.
Now, I like options and I think they can be useful in establishing tone and implied setting/genre. However, I don't like *all* the options. Moreover, I don't like that players tend to feel entitled to all those options and use them, regardless of campaign, setting or tone.
"Silly Player! D&D is not for you, it's for DMs!"
I only ever had one player who thought he was entitled to play whatever he wants with the rules he wanted. After I removed him from the game (I was not the only one who wanted him out, by the way - he wasn't exactly friendly), it was cool.
I read how DM after DM comes here to complain that the players are in open rebellion. With the exception mentioned above, I never encountered it. At the beginning of the campaign, I set the ground rules, I tell them what's in and what's out and that I reserve the right to ban stuff if I see it being a problem. My players never come to me and demand to be able to use this feat or that PrC. They request here and there, and if I don't see no balance issues or it not fitting into the campaign or campaign setting, I usually allow it.
Where are the save-or-die effects
Mostly gone and good riddance to them. What is that? You create a character, play him for months, get attached to it, never make any glaring errors, and then he dies because the DM thought that he should incorporate a feature that will kill certain players 60% of the time? Sure, if the DM somehow needs that satisfaction, he can go ahead and put 20 of them into each game session.
Dragons, well -- because of players assuming every challenge is tailored just for them, get maligned for being "too tough"
You never heard about B.A.D.D., did you?
And here's something else. I am finally willing to admit this to myself and to the world: I like an antagonist relationship between players and DM.
Thanks for the warning. Saves me the trouble of kicking you out should you have ever attended my game, or me leaving should you have ever DMed a game I play in.
Personally, I play with people I call friends. I usually like them to stay my friends.
The players should challenge and be challenged by the DM.
You know, you can do that without making an enemy out of your players.
But, if done right, a competitive relationship between the players and the DM can make for a fun game.
Competitive? That's no fun. There's to possiblilities: The DM is being competitive and the player characters all die in every single encounter, or the players get challenged properly and the DM aims to challenge them properly, not compete against them.