Should this be fixed

[S'mon]

DANGER DANGER

If the DM is struggling with 3.5 now, at 9th level, she needs to be aware it is only going to get MUCH WORSE. I strongly suspect that you guys are not going to have much fun.

My advice to the DM would be: look to wrap up this campaign with an exciting finale at 10th level, take a break, then start a new campaign beginning at 1st or 2nd level, using lessons learned (Eg: don't go over 32 point buy). She might like to consider E6; she might also like to consider Pathfinder which has somewhat better class balance than 3.5. Another good idea is to halve XP awards so PCs are in the 3e 3rd-8th level sweet spot for longer. And don't try to GM above 8th level unless she is very comfortable with a much more authoritarian style in terms of eg what sources are allowed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

S'mon is right.

3.x assumes characters level at the same rate throughout their careers, but characters become exponentially complex to challenge properly. This means that, as the characters gain levels, it becomes increasingly more difficult to DM. In addition, decisions that seemed okay at lower levels might come back to bite the DM, as in this case.

One quick fix to make the game work better might be to play with the XP chart, so that characters require exponential XP to level past 2nd. That way, you can have a longer time in the lower-level "sweet spot", and your DM can actually know what your characters can do before they get a whole slew of new powers.

Good luck.



RC

 

[Elf Witch]

I am going to suggest that she wrap up things and we move on to something new.

We have been getting all the Pathfinder adventure paths and everyone has been wanting to play a pathfinder game and in it as rules for slow XP progression.

I think it might be the answer that and make more realistic characters and basically don't experiment with the rules until she has more experience.

 

[eamon]

I said:

I'm going to go against the flow here and say the DM does have a bit of a responsibility here. Not to replace the lost treasure, but to manage expectations and for her part in the miscommunication.

I don't see any miscommunication here. There was no mention anywhere that the player was not made aware of how the game world in this campaign operated.

It really does not matter what the DM says to the player about her world he does what he wants to. Most of the time it is not an issue. And she does adapt things for example knowing him she would never try to introduce a good drow.

Maybe "communication" has the wrong nuance. It's a clash of expectations. Is that a clearer term? Neither the player nor DM are here, and as to whose fault it is... Well, the blame game certainly isn't going to improve matters, so avoid it.

As to how not to solve the problem:

I would tell her not to change her DMing style one jot.

You don't have to knuckle under, but with that attitude, you're unlikely to resolve anything either. If you take this stance, you've basically decided you want to lose the player.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As to how not to solve the problem: You don't have to knuckle under, but with that attitude, you're unlikely to resolve anything either. If you take this stance, you've basically decided you want to lose the player.

If I had a player who played with the intent to be jerk to everyone else because the game world didn't work exactly like he wanted it to then yes the player can take his dice bag and dangle.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If I had a player who played with the intent to be jerk to everyone else because the game world didn't work exactly like he wanted it to then yes the player can take his dice bag and dangle.

Indeed.

Just because someone is willing to play, it doesn't follow that the person is worth keeping as a player.

I'm just sorry I can't XP ExploderWizard right now!


RC

 

[Aeolius]

...the player can take his dice bag and dangle.

Anyone else get a mental image of a chrome dice bag hanging from a trailer hitch?

 

[eamon]

If I had a player who played with the intent to be jerk to everyone else because the game world didn't work exactly like he wanted it to then yes the player can take his dice bag and dangle.

If that's what you want... but it doesn't sound like it's the OP's preferred solution. Except for the good feeling of telling somebody what's what, this course of action has nothing to recommend it. Even if the player is being annoying, that may well be because, well, he's annoyed. You're not playing the game he wants. And if that's the case, you can just say so instead of making a scene. And maybe if you ever meet at a different table, you can both enjoy a different game.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I am going to suggest that she wrap up things and we move on to something new.

We have been getting all the Pathfinder adventure paths and everyone has been wanting to play a pathfinder game and in it as rules for slow XP progression.

I think it might be the answer that and make more realistic characters and basically don't experiment with the rules until she has more experience.

This sounds like the best solution, especially with what else has happened. Good luck and good gaming. And for what it is worth, I'd like to play with your GM. She sounds like a really good one!

 

[TarionzCousin]

Regarding the dwarf, there is a big difference between Lawful Good and Lawful Stupid. If the DM says something isn't evil, then in her world it isn't evil. The dwarf's player insisting it is evil is just an excuse for being a PITA.

I am going to suggest that she wrap up things and we move on to something new.

We have been getting all the Pathfinder adventure paths and everyone has been wanting to play a pathfinder game and in it as rules for slow XP progression.

I think it might be the answer that and make more realistic characters and basically don't experiment with the rules until she has more experience.

Do it. Start at level one with regular characters. And I would suggest having the group collectively determine their origins--make the characters know each other, work for a common group (like the Pathfinder Society), and/or agree not to develop character traits and goals that harm the party in general and specific characters.

If one player wants to have goals that are detrimental to the party, I wouldn't allow it. Everybody needs to work together.