Are you playing the type of game you want?

[ES2]

I have an ideal type of game I would like to run, but I always end up with a flaky player or two that doesn't gel with how I want to run my games. But, these are just plain casual gamers that just don't really get into their characters, which makes it hard for me to really include them into my games, and I like to be fair and I feel I'm not being fair if I focus on the players that do put a lot into their characters...backgrounds, personalities, real reasons for living...but in the end I gravitate towards those players that actually get into the game...

But I would like an entire party of players that will just agree with how I want characters created, no arguments on why I do what I do with house rules...I tend to get a player or two that just doesn't want to put any effort at all into their characters, or the game, and if those players leave then I'm with no group, so so far I'm suffering.

Having a player that always questions what I do and why I do things over and over again just ends up pissing me off. I figure, if I create and spend 6 hours getting ready for the game, then I have the right to expect my players to spend 15 to 30 minutes reading something I give them to as a handout, or at least read up on their characters skills and feats...but no. I always have a player that just rebels because they feel that if I tell them I want them to do anything, they just complain. Players like this shouldn't play at all as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Wormwood]

Our first 3e game (Aug 2000 - Oct 2001) was perhaps the closest to personal D&D perfection.

It was a 'core ' game, with very little in the way of splatbooks and supplements muddying the waters.

Still, when the novelty eventually wore off we began a mad scramble of expanding the ruleset with more and more options---until the games became infected with massive rulebloat.

Same thng used to happen with our old White Wolf games, so we've seen the pattern before.

Lately the closest thing to gaming perfection was the first month of our new Marvel Universe game---but our enthusiasm for that is eroding as we speak.

I'm currently hammering out my version of Ultralite d20 (taking a Unisystem Lite approach to the d20 rules), whih will form the framework for an upcoming Ghostbusters/Buckaroo Banzai game I plan to unleash in 2004.

/Wormwood...slouching toward gaming perfection.

 

[rushlight]

too much magic.

leveling too fast.

but those are problems with the new game system not the campaign.

Problems with the game system? I disagree. The DM controls the pace and flow of the game. My campaign started as a low-magic world - and I've controlled the pacing of the levels quite well. The DM puts magic in the world, and the DM gives out XP. I fail to see how that's not a "campaign" issue.

 

[S'mon]

Problems with the game system? I disagree. The DM controls the pace and flow of the game. My campaign started as a low-magic world - and I've controlled the pacing of the levels quite well. The DM puts magic in the world, and the DM gives out XP. I fail to see how that's not a "campaign" issue.

I think 'too much magic' definitely IS a big problem with the game system, because the classes are balanced against each other with an assumption that they possess a lot of magic items. So if you reduce the magic items, certain classes such as the Sorcerer will greatly overshadow others such as the Fighter. Balancing these out again requires that the Fighter be improved somehow (eg with Fighting Styles & other freebies) or the Sorcerer be nerfed.

XP is also a problem, though less so. If the DM gives out 10% as much XP per encounter and standard wealth, PCs will end up with 10 times too much wealth for their level. If the DM gives out 10% as much wealth by encounter also, PCs will have correct wealth for their level. However this requires that most NPCs have very little wealth, which again throws out balance - a Fighter-10 with very little gear isn't CR 10.

 

[rushlight]

I think 'too much magic' definitely IS a big problem with the game system, because the classes are balanced against each other with an assumption that they possess a lot of magic items.

While that can be true, there are many ways of circumventing that. IMC, I removed the sorcerer all together - they don't exist in my world. (That wasn't a balance issue totally - they just don't fit into my world which began in 2nd ed.) The real problem here is that a DM might change one aspect (say, reducing magic available to PCs) without changing all the related variables, like NPC items, rarity of certain monsters that require magic (especially under the old DR system), or availibilty of feats that allow creation of magic items. But again, that's the DM's job.

I had no problems or complaints running a low magic world. Balance is all in the details anyway, and it's not something that PCs should even be aware of. Regardless of magic level (or any other campaign factors) the DM should know exactly what the party can do not what the book (or just in "general") says they are capable of. You then tailor the monsters and other encounters to fit their abilities. If you are doing that it doesn't really matter if you are in a low- high- or no- magic world.

When my campaign began, only the mage had access to an item creation feat - create scrolls. All the others were not available. As the campaign progressed, and the mage (and cleric) gained power, the few magic items the party did find were "fighter-based" items. A +1 sword here, and a +2 shield there kept the fighters balanced with the mages. Not to mention that they weren't always fully rested when an encouter occured. Sometimes I had to make a few changes to a monster so that they could have a chance (like dropping the DR, or reducing HPs and save DCs). I did this because I wanted them to fight a particular monster, for story reasons. However, I wanted them to actually have a chance. It worked out fine.

 

[diaglo]

i noticed that a few people mentioned that they disliked leveling too fast...is it really that bad?

YES


you ask what type of game i'd like. i like time to get to enjoy every aspect of my character. i prefer 1 real world year to gain 1 level. roughly 900 hrs of roleplay.

 

[S'mon]

While that can be true, there are many ways of circumventing that. IMC, I removed the sorcerer all together - they don't exist in my world. (That wasn't a balance issue totally - they just don't fit into my world which began in 2nd ed.) The real problem here is that a DM might change one aspect (say, reducing magic available to PCs) without changing all the related variables, like NPC items, rarity of certain monsters that require magic (especially under the old DR system), or availibilty of feats that allow creation of magic items. But again, that's the DM's job.

I had no problems or complaints running a low magic world. Balance is all in the details anyway, and it's not something that PCs should even be aware of. Regardless of magic level (or any other campaign factors) the DM should know exactly what the party can do not what the book (or just in "general") says they are capable of. You then tailor the monsters and other encounters to fit their abilities. If you are doing that it doesn't really matter if you are in a low- high- or no- magic world.

When my campaign began, only the mage had access to an item creation feat - create scrolls. All the others were not available. As the campaign progressed, and the mage (and cleric) gained power, the few magic items the party did find were "fighter-based" items. A +1 sword here, and a +2 shield there kept the fighters balanced with the mages. Not to mention that they weren't always fully rested when an encouter occured. Sometimes I had to make a few changes to a monster so that they could have a chance (like dropping the DR, or reducing HPs and save DCs). I did this because I wanted them to fight a particular monster, for story reasons. However, I wanted them to actually have a chance. It worked out fine.

Thanks for your response & analysis. Perhaps it's a bigger problem for me because I rarely tailor the encounters to the PCs - although most encounters probably have some relation to the party's EL, some don't - and I used to see the spellcasters dominate in my lowish-wealth campaign setting. Most opponents were humanoid & giant types. Hasted Sorcerers fireballing 2/round, Clerics buffed to the max, would totally dominate the fighters of equivalent level in combat. I haven't seen this problem since I started running 3.5 though, 3.5 is definitely better balanced IMO - with buffs nerfed, although clerics are still more powerful than other classes the difference is far less noticeable, and the change to haste keeps the arcane casters in line.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Perfect? Not quite, but pretty darn close. D20 finally has given me a fairly balanced system I can use to set up the techno-magic world that I've always wanted to play in with all the things I loved about RPG's. No other system has even come close. Could it be better? Sure, every game can, but I'm having more fun now than I have had in 12 years of gaming.

Kane

 

[Reprisal]

You ask what type of game i'd like. i like time to get to enjoy every aspect of my character. i prefer 1 real world year to gain 1 level. roughly 900 hrs of roleplay.

Let's see... (4 hours per session) * (50 weeks of play per year) = 200 hours a year. That's way more than playing one four-hour session every week or so... I simply cannot do that with my scheduling. Work and school makes it hard enough to play once every week for about four hours. Though I understand that your situation is different from my own, players in my group would simply quit if I presented a timetable of character levelling at this pace. For my situation and playing style, one level every six sessions might be too little, too late.

In my last campaign, I think a level was gained every three sessions or so... everyone seemed to enjoy that.

*shrug*

In response to the original question, no. I don't think I've ever played the type of game I want simply because I've played exactly once in my D&D "career." I tended to run the type of game I'd like to play in, but that precludes any playing ability. So, I guess you'd have to ask any players in my game, heh.

- Rep.