3e players=consumers not creators

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Personnaly i like to stick with the published rules for simplicity and balance. I think it becomes difficult juggling a bounch of house rules especially when new playewrs come in or you play with an another group and the house rules are so ingrained you keep stumbling over them. At least with a list of allowed books the player either have them or can get them. The other problem i've see is it not always easy for some one to maintain game balance with thier own stuff, i've had trouble doing it, i know my regular DM can't do it to save his butt. Relying on published matterial sort of saves us from ourselves at times. It also gives a point of referance to judje things by.

There's also the fact that the more people that are publishing game material the better chance that someone will come with a good idea that you never thought of.

 

[roytheodd]

After reading the whinning about Demon power levels I was left with the burning question: Do people not understand the ease and realtive simplicity of powering up monsters in 3E?

So many threads here leave impressions that many campaigns have characters with Celestial Half dragon Were Donkey Ranger Deepwood Sniper characters in their parties, I would think some monster adjustment would be simple compared to DM'ing those characters.

The wonderous thing about 3E is one can realistically play 3e with a Celestial Half dragon Were Donkey Ranger Deepwood Sniper Character and still have a balanced non monty haul game,
porpotianality is very viable. This was not the case in 1e or 2e.

1e D&D eventually turned into a supplement feast, rules were provided by the company, Gygax admonished campaigns were all the rules were not used, claiming that if you didnt play by his rules you werent playing D&D.

2e was always a supplementfest, and this turned off many old players.

3e encouraged creativity right from the start. Rule 0 being the foundation, saying this is your game, so many of the game mechanics being transparent, and frankly waiting to after the core books were released to publish campaign settings so people if they wanted to play D&D had to make their own worlds or retrofit their old ones.

Dont be simple consumers, tinker, create, have fun.
Passive amussements are entertainment.
Fun is active and engaging.
Dont make D&D entertainment.

Spoken as 1st Ed. DM turned off by 2nd Ed. but brought back by 3rd Ed: Agreed!!

 

[barsoomcore]

This kills me:

Psion hissed:
If this mentality does indeed exist, I'll venture a guess where it comes from: the products are more worth trusting.

and

The Serge grumbled:
I think part of the reason is that there is so much out there and a good deal of it is substandard and/or of questionable balance.

Does anyone else find it great how smart people can have such wildly divergent opinions -- and both using their opinion to explain the same phenomenon? It boggles me. And I can't decide who's right.

And how is it that some of us think 3E is super-easy to tinker with and some of us say that tinkering in 3E is hard because you end up affecting everything else? I don't get it.

My two cents: 3E is far and away the easiest and most fun RPG I've ever had the chance to tinker with. Making rules changes in 3E is so simple and the results are so easy to predict that I can't help tinkering with it massively. I've found it brain-dead simple to generate new classes, new magic systems, new monsters and so on. Likewise, I find the standard of supplementary material to be much higher than I've ever seen before, and of course there's just so much of it!

This DM's in 3E hog heaven.

I still want to know who's right, though.

 

[Balgus]

Satori01:
Celestial Half dragon Were-Donkey Ranger Deepwood Sniper characters

That is priceless.... a were-donkey ranger... BWAHAHAAHAHAH

 

[mmadsen]

The thing that I find most disturbing is that people want to load the monster up, but don't think on how to build the encounter. Hazards can make the encounter much more interesting and dangerous, but are rarely brought up.

On that note, take a look at boring combat, an old thread full of ideas for sprucing up your battles. A sample:

Awhile back, I posted the Top 5 Ways To More Compelling Encounters from roleplayingtips.com:

1. Choose a compelling location. Encounters become boring if they all take place on wide city streets, in the middle of a plain or in 10 foot wide corridors. For example, place the scene on the edge of a cliff, in a beautiful garden, on a rickety bridge, beside a raging river...
2. Mix-up the weather a bit. Is it always bright and sunny? Change the weather every so often to: very cold, extremely hot, windy, foggy, hailing, or a fine scotch mist. How does the weather assist or impede the characters' actions? Also under the weather category can be placed such things as rainbows, northern lights and ball lightning!
3. Alter the lighting: dusk, dark, too bright, glowing red, strobing colors. While different lighting can affect game mechanics and character actions, it can also be used subtly to just make the encounter memorable for your players.
4. Change the footing. Just like lighting, you can change the ground so that it helps or hinders the party, and you can use it to help make the encounter stick in your players' minds for a long time to come: loose gravel, muddy, sandy, puddles, deep moss, pot holes, slime...
5. Put the reward on the end of a stick. It's fun hiding treasure to make it tough and exciting for the characters to find it. But try putting the reward or treasure in plain site on occasion to provide extra and immediate character motivation. For example, hang the treasure from the ceiling well out of arm's reach, put it at the bottom of a clear pool, have the foe wear it or use it, put writing on the wall for all to see "Here Be Treasure". Then put something in between the characters and their displayed reward and watch the fur fly.
6. Bonus Tip:
   Put more than one challenge, foe or conflict into the encounter and hit the party from all sides. Panic is a result of feeling overwhelmed. Allowing the players to focus on just one challenge at a time will not overwhelm them, so add additional simultaneous challenges to help create panic:
   • multiple foes (i.e. another foe drawn in by the sounds of battle)
   • impending doom (i.e. the ceiling's slowly dropping)
   • impending calamity (i.e. she's tied to a log that's headed straight for the screaming saw blade)
   • cut-off the party's escape
   • add a time limit (i.e. return before sundown or...)
   • add bad weather, bad footing and bad lighting!

 

[evil_rmf]

The thing that I find most disturbing is that people want to load the monster up, but don't think on how to build the encounter.

Ah. That problem. It's existed since the game left gygax's hands and hit the general public. I don't like that sort of play at all. However, one man's trash is another's treasure. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who enjoy having monsters of ever-increasing CR thrown at them. More power to them, I hope they are enjoying themselves. I like more planned out , logical-in-the-context-of-the-game-and-setting style play myslef.

 

[The Serge]

Does anyone else find it great how smart people can have such wildly divergent opinions -- and both using their opinion to explain the same phenomenon? It boggles me. And I can't decide who's right.

And how is it that some of us think 3E is super-easy to tinker with and some of us say that tinkering in 3E is hard because you end up affecting everything else? I don't get it.

My two cents: 3E is far and away the easiest and most fun RPG I've ever had the chance to tinker with. Making rules changes in 3E is so simple and the results are so easy to predict that I can't help tinkering with it massively. I've found it brain-dead simple to generate new classes, new magic systems, new monsters and so on. Likewise, I find the standard of supplementary material to be much higher than I've ever seen before, and of course there's just so much of it!

This DM's in 3E hog heaven.

I still want to know who's right, though.

I, my dear barsoomcore, do not grumble; I decree.

Now that we've cleared that up... I suspect that a good number of people who've participated in some of these conversations as of late are fairly intelligent people. However, this does not mean we will all agree and I'm sure you don't need me telling you that. These matters are subjective (like most opinions) but, what matters to me is how well crafted and conceived that opinion is. I happen to disagree with some people I happen to respect quite regularly and I'm capable of keeping personal feelings out of it. I am more likely to perceive certain arguments as more valid even if I disagree with them because I can sense the intellect and thought process involved (Upper_Krust, Nightfall, and a few others are the kinds of people I often disagree with but value their positions because of the strength and thoughtfulness of their arguments). Now, I'll get off my soapbox.

As for 3ed being customizable, I agree whole-heartedly. I think the d20 system is a god-send and I like the system, flaws and all, because it's consistent. And, as I stated in my most from which you quoted, I support and by many secondary source material. However, I do so with care and with a critical eye. I think the fact that some things are being changed Sword & Sorcery's original Relics and Rituals are an example of the fact that many of the earliest materials were flawed and not balanced because the system was so new... and there continue to be questions raised about Green Ronin's Legions of Hell and the CRs given to some of the monsters therein (to be sure, there are questions about WotC's monsters too, particularly after Advancing them and between high CR and epic CR... but that's another story). That's what I mean when I say that a good deal of secondary source material is of questionable balance.

 

[barsoomcore]

I, my dear barsoomcore, do not grumble; I decree.

I am suitably chastised.

These matters are subjective (like most opinions) but, what matters to me is how well crafted and conceived that opinion is.

Agreed, and of course. I just found it fascinating that you and Psion were using totally different opinions on the standard of publications to explain the exact same phenomenon. I don't have enough information to decide who's opinion is better (my collection of supplements is small compared to some, but I use it well), so I'm really just watching from the bleachers.

That's what I mean when I say that a good deal of secondary source material is of questionable balance.

Like I say, I don't know enough about it. I still like Deities and Demigods, though.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Beyond the people who have little or no time for a lot of customization, it strikes me that there are many who get hung up on the actual mechanics to the point of not being able to see how easy it is to personalize their game. I'll try to explain what I mean.

Spells are perhaps the best example, or rather the whole D&D magic system is. Many seem to think that D&D magic is cast in one certain way, a way that somehow does not jibe at all with the magic from whatever book or movie happens to be a favorite. It's a metagaming mentality - "well, the guy in the book didn't cast the spell that way, so the entire D&D system has to be scrapped!" I've seen that a lot in regards to Middle Earth, for a specific example.

What is disregarded is that the mechanics are there to ensure that the spell works consistently with the rest of the game. The way the casting of the spell is described is far more mutable. Vocal components can be singing, forceful speaking, poetry recitation, mathematics equations, jokes, patter, a barely audible hum, a prayer, gibberish, whatever. Somatic components can be anything from sweeping and impressive arm-waving to a "robot dance." Material components can vary just as much. Any number of other effects can be added, from a blue nimbus around the caster's head to translucent demonic figures swirling around the caster. Whatever you want.

Beyond those cosmetic things, complaints are levelled at everything from spell slots (which are simply not that different from spell points) to levels (the characters don't run around saying "I went up a level, and now I can cast third level spells!" Levels just provide a game guideline, not necessarily setting atmosphere.). It really takes just a little rationalization, and almost no actual rules-changing, to make any of these factors unique to one's campaign.

Excuse the rant. I know it's nigh-incoherent. And I know that a flurry of posts will come along to tell me how wrong I am. So, to pre-empt it - You're right. I'm wrong.

Well, I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I must disagree in that you are missing a few possible elements. To begin with, you indicate that the spell mechanics are there to keep the magic system consistant. But sometimes it is this very consistancy that is the problem. Spells levels, for instance, are categorized by Levels based on their power and effect, usually in regards to combative situation, but often with little regard on effect on story. Example: In a game where mystery of ages past and solving these mysteries are more important than combat, than comprehend languages becomes far more impacting than 1st Level would seem to indicate, and such themes are downplayed since the translation of such cryptic writings is little more than a cheap parlor trick.

Another example is one of commonolity and ease of use. 3E makes an assumption that magic is just lying about and any one can simply become a spell caster. There's little difficulty in learning or using magic. These elements, if desired in a setting, aren't easily described over the game mechanics as written, but require actual changes to the rules in order to make it true (my personal take was a Mage Born Feat and Casting Fatigue). It is indeed better to have rules where such things are true as opposed to trying to "simply justify" someone else's arbitrary decision that magic is easy to learn, use and obtain.

I wouldn't consider any such thought or effort to be "metagame" thinking simply because metagaming can only occur while the game is being played. Outside of the game, such line of thought becomes more akin to "I wonder what would happen if..?", which may easily evolve into "How would I make this work..?" That's not metagaming; That's game design.

 

[diaglo]

*sigh*

The d20 publishers produce a wide variety of material for a wide variety of tastes. Back in 1e and 2e, there was only one source of material, almost exclusively - the few third-party publisher products were hard to come by - and you either had to take it or leave it. Variety is good; a huge volume of same-old/same-old isn't. But I get the feeling there is no point in trying to make this point.

i saw ads in The Dragon all the time for other publishers of materials for 1ed.

at the time i bought Mayfair's Role Aids stuff. and Judges' Guild. and Harn. and a few others i forget.

i relished the fact that they released Dungeon Magazine.

i never used a single: supplement, hardback, accessory, module, boxed set, magazine, whatever as is. it all had to be adjusted to fit my group's style of play.

my comment is that 1ed, 2ed, and now 3ed that hasn't changed.

each group has to decide what they will or won't use.

so the original comment about 1ed and 2ed (and excluding 3ed )as supplement fests doesn't hold water. you can exclude supplements or include them however you see fit for all editions.