All D20 Is Broken

[scourger]

I'm sorry that's the experience you've had, but it isn't mine. The PCs in my campaign are now ECL 10 and it's actually more fun for me (DM) and them.

There isn't a "right way" to play D&D, I don't agree. That's the other way around, in my opinion: some players just want D&D to reflect all of their own "right way" to play the game while there isn't.

Once you've read the DMG through and through and understand that mechanics like CRs can translate pretty much any situation in the game into experience, you can play whatever you want with D&D.

Sure, experiences & opinions vary. I'm just not willing to work that hard at play. There is a diminishing marginal return for me.

By "right" I mean the players get unhappy when the game expereince that is delivered doesn't exactly match the game expereince that they expected. So, I think we're saying the same thing. Sometimes, it's a show-stopper.

I've read the DMG through and through. Three editions now. It's just too much information now. I love the idea of using the base D&D d20 game for other games, but the players I have don't like it. It seems easier to just switch to a different game altogether. Right now, that's Savage Worlds. I could still run Omega World or possibly Judge Dredd; but again it's relatively much more work for me which diminishes the marginal return. So, I don't.

Not to get completely sidetracked, but I do hope the next edition is simpler.

 

[Rykion]

I'm not so sure. Both groups, in my experience, want to have regular mechanical advancement to reinforce their success in their chosen field of endevour. Individuals in both groups tend to have specific 'sweet spots' where they enjoy the style of the game.

D&D and D20 do have regular mechanical advancement, it is just not as uniform as some console games or some table top RPGs.

Many console games are more uniform because they have fewer choices than D&D. In them, you might be able to buy skills and spells, but you can only choose from the handful of skills your character is allowed and most spells you can acquire are just stronger versions of ones you already have. In effect, it is shoehorning each character into the role they have to play. You are also likely to run into "filler" levels where characters gain a few HP/MP and skill points, but gain no significant abilities. A filler level character will be weaker against equal level opponents than they were at a previous level in which they gained an attack ability/spell. Console RPGs have the "DM" advantage that the player choice is limited, allowing designers to know what the party's relative abilities will be at each point in the game.

Point buy type table top RPGs also allow characters to build directly off existing abilities if they choose to, but they also allow a character to gain new abilities if they want. These games are only more consistent in advancement than D&D if the character's player wants to play that way.

In D&D you can choose to build on the same skills/feats, and choose spells that are similar to ones you had before, or you can branch out in your class or multi-class. You might not have the option to build on something you want to each level, but you still can be very consistent in your advancement choices if you desire. Each level in advancement in each class is not equal, but that is a problem in any game that has different classes and player chosen abilities.

 

[jmucchiello]

While I agree the op probably has Regeneration 5/fire among his Special Qualities

He also never responded in the thread giving him the troll template.

Your typical console RPG goes roughly 50 levels and 50 hours; the gameplay experience doesn't change immensely between level 10 and level 40. Your character grows considerably stronger, takes on tougher monsters and bigger threats, the storyline advances, you gain new abilities - but the essence of the game rarely changes. At level 5 you had Fire, at level 20 you had Fira, at level 35, Firaga, at level 50, Flare - an increase in damage or scope or utility, but still part of the same ability tree.

And I've gamed thousands of hours in my lifetime. If I were playing a system that only was intended to work for 50 hours, I might be bored by now.

I wonder if a P&P RPG wouldn't be more entertaining if it captured that same spirit of expanding power and options within the most popular style of play, rather than simply accepting that every 3-5 levels would bring an entirely different style.

This, I don't buy. My experience with D&D over the years does not point to a significant difference in play style of the course of many levels. People are comparing 1-5th level versus 6-10th level and I really don't see how those levels are significantly different except in the fragility of the lower level characters.

I'd be curious to see how some of the posters on this thread would characterize the various styles of play that D&D somehow forces onto the players. It is a basic assumption of this thread which, IMHO, is not as universally felt as the posters may think. Different posters will list different break points and focus on different effects of those levels as being the "turning point". Some of the obvious turning points are fly, teleport, raise dead, commune, etc. But how these things change play will not be universal.

 

[Solauren]

If combat is not lasting at least 5 rounds, your Dungeon Master is doing a piss poor job of selecting monsters/playing them, or your party has some massive magical firepower/massive-damage magic items.

Now, there are exceptions to that (i.e the dragon rolled a 1 on it's Fortitude Save, which happens), but in general, don't hate the game, hate the master

 

[WizarDru]

If combat is not lasting at least 5 rounds, your Dungeon Master is doing a piss poor job of selecting monsters/playing them, or your party has some massive magical firepower/massive-damage magic items.

Now, there are exceptions to that (i.e the dragon rolled a 1 on it's Fortitude Save, which happens), but in general, don't hate the game, hate the master

Had you considered the option that maybe the somes players and DMs don't consider shorter combats to be a problem? Or that combats may be rendered short by good tactics and teamwork? I'm not saying that any particular combat length is good or bad...but it's not a given that short combats are necessarily bad.

 

[Rel]

I'd be curious to see how some of the posters on this thread would characterize the various styles of play that D&D somehow forces onto the players. It is a basic assumption of this thread which, IMHO, is not as universally felt as the posters may think. Different posters will list different break points and focus on different effects of those levels as being the "turning point". Some of the obvious turning points are fly, teleport, raise dead, commune, etc. But how these things change play will not be universal.

Let me preface what follows by saying that 3.X is my favorite version of D&D ever and I would NOT be playing D&D right now if 3.0 had not come out.

That said, I've seen several times when suddenly (and without warning because I wasn't paying close enough attention to what was on the horizon) the tenor of my games was radically changed by a new ability obtained by a PC. One session, things were progressing as I thought they would and the next things were VERY different and I had to alter the way that I was running the game (and other PC's in the party had to alter their role in the group) to accomodate this new feature.

A couple of early and simple ones might be Fly (as you cite) but also Levitate and Fireball. Suddenly those ranks in Climb that the Ranger had been cultivating for several levels are far less useful or critical than they had been up to that point. Fireball is a biggy because a massed group of enemies is now going to be considerably weakened before they make contact with the party unless they figure out a way to approach the group undetected or with excellent cover. In many cases, there is no reason for them to suspect that the PC's will have such magic available. In addition, the Fighter types in the group, who have been expected to "take the battle to the enemy" as soon as possible in order to catch them flat footed or give the Magic User types room to maneuver, are asked to Delay in order to let the "big bang" magic take effect first. Again, I'm not sure that I'd call these huge changes in play style but they are different than levels 1-4.

I was running my first game that went into level 10 and beyond when I got broadsided by Teleport. I should have seen it coming but I didn't. Suddenly the Wizard in the party says, "There are some supplies we need and some information that we should convey, so let's head back to town!" *Poof!*. The party had been way off in the wilderness and struggling to survive in hostile territory. Now they were seriously considering "adventuring by day and spending evenings at home by the hearth". This campaign had a very fun and satisfying finish wherein I managed to accomodate and even require Teleport as part of their strategy but it took a major shift in my thinking to do it.

The campaign I'm running right now had a similar instance. The PC's are moving through hostile Drow jungles (Xen'Drik of Eberron) and must infiltrate one of their cities. I'd planned a couple of sessions at least of them stealthily dodging patrols, setting ambushes and that sort of thing before they could sneak inside the city. Suddenly the Psion in the group says, "This new power of mine lets me shapechange into a Pegasus. I'll just fly us in using Invisibility." I was just as happy since this campaign is running just a bit longer than I'd intended but that was a bolt from the blue. Suddenly the creeping pace of overland travel is once again circumvented and the PC's have unprecedented mobility.

I'm not angry or disappointed about these sorts of changes but they do happen. I most enjoy the "early levels" from 1-7 and it is because I feel I can more accurately predict what the PC's options are in that range. I've got no interest in railroading them and happily rolled with the punches when the PC's pulled the aforementioned tricks out of their bag. But I'm a better GM when I'm a prepared GM and I want to give them the best time I can. So I like it when I have a better idea of what is coming.

For what it's worth, the next two games slated to be run in our group are Black Company (which has a much more low magic system) and Warhammer FRP (also more low magic). I'll be a player in both games and I think they'll suit me fine.

 

[Psion]

If combat is not lasting at least 5 rounds, your Dungeon Master is doing a piss poor job of selecting monsters/playing them, or your party has some massive magical firepower/massive-damage magic items.

I disagree.

The dafault guidelines for what an encounter with EL = party level is supposed to represent in a drain of ~20 of your resources.

The goal here is NOT to have a knock down drag-out fight for every even EL fight.

 

[Odhanan]

If combat is not lasting at least 5 rounds, your Dungeon Master is doing a piss poor job of selecting monsters/playing them, or your party has some massive magical firepower/massive-damage magic items.

According to Monte Cook's dungeoncraft column, an encounter of 4 PCs against an equal CR monster lasts two rounds or so. It spends 20% of the party's resources, indeed (cf. Dungeon Master's Guide).

 

[jmucchiello]

I'm not angry or disappointed about these sorts of changes but they do happen. I most enjoy the "early levels" from 1-7 and it is because I feel I can more accurately predict what the PC's options are in that range. I've got no interest in railroading them and happily rolled with the punches when the PC's pulled the aforementioned tricks out of their bag. But I'm a better GM when I'm a prepared GM and I want to give them the best time I can. So I like it when I have a better idea of what is coming.

I guess I just like being caught off-guard then.