Can getting what you want ruin your fun?

[SkredlitheOgre]

No version of any game I've ever played has given me everything I ever wanted. I can say that because I don't know what 'everything' I want is.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My groups have always appreciated limits--obvioulsy so, and this was true even at age 14. It is still true now. Even when our group plays something like Fantasy Hero, will we self-impose major limits on what the campaign and characters can do. For us, it is a creative necessity, as we are all of the type that "limits are freeing". The limits provide the base from which our creativity can emerge.

The exact limits in D&D have not always fit well with what we want. Worse, some of those limits are terribly arbitrary but still so embedded as to resist easy change. You might say that I don't inherently dislike, for example, racial level limits in early D&D. I can conceive of a fun campaign where those make good sense. However, I most definitely dislike having those racial level limits so tied to balance that you can't easily replace them with something else. That is one of the reasons I prefer Rules Cyclopedia over all the early versions--the authors considered that problem.

 

[TheYeti1775]

We always waved the level restrictions in 1E.
To us they didn't make sense how an Elven Mage was limited like that, but every story told of High Elven Magics.
We did keep to class restrictions though.
Dwarf Wizards still make me shudder.

But 3E did take a step in the right direction for me with the lifting of all those limits, though I do keep the racial restrictions in the back of my mind when creating characters.
I found the progressions to be more intuitive with my gaming style. It allowed for the real jack of all trades person that I tended to play but was shoehorned in because of Multi & Dual Classed rules.

The point of fun ruining would probably be when the power creep starts becoming unwieldy, but that's where my old 1E mentalities kick in and characters start retiring or setting up fiefdoms etc.

 

[delericho]

Yes, getting what you think you want absolutely can ruin it.

That said...

Today the latest versions of games within our hobby have lifted the restrictions that we may have chafed at in bygone years. Have these changes, that allow you to do things you were prohibited from doing, diminished your fun?

Racial level limits and class restrictions...

Niche protection (though I doubt that's what it was called) was one of the motivations behind classes. Skills have emerged as an important part of the experience...

I disagree with you on both of these things. For me, reading 3.0e was a revelation; it was exactly what I didn't know I had always wanted.

However, for all that it was amazing, 3.0e was not perfect, and the iterations since seem to have taken us further away from the ideal.

I really wanted the delve-format. It looked so easy, cool and developed in the first photos that popped up. Soon the delve-format was added to modules. I was aching to try it out. Alas, the delve-format was a complete catastropy.

Agree 100%. It looked so good, but worked out so badly.

 

[Mallus]

Have these changes, that allow you to do things you were prohibited from doing, diminished your fun?

No. I think you're on to something about the the value of not always getting what you (think) you want, but I disagree with your focus on certain mechanics.

Limitations have been lifted or entirely erased. This has a profound effect on power.

Does it? In 3e, human was widely considered one of, if not the best racial choice, optimization-wise.

Racial level limits and class restrictions were included before to balance out races that were considered more powerful.

But that's classic example of front-loading. Demi-human level limits only come into play if the campaign lasted to those levels. Which was hardly a given. Most 1e/2e play I saw ran from levels 1-9, with the rare campaign going past level 12.

The result has been that ability score bonuses have increased both in value and quantity.

Which, given the general number inflation/proliferation of both kinds and sizes of other bonuses in later editions, means quite a bit less than it used to.

Classes that were once considered somewhat pathetic in battle have been reshaped into combat classes.

This is a bit of a wash. The way different classes participate in combat has changed, but all classes had combat roles, because monster-fighting has always been a core activity.

Sure, later editions give classes like "rogue" and "cleric" flashier new combat abilities/spells, but they also give monsters more HP and higher ACs. In AD&D --which I'm running now-- a thief with a good DEX and a short bow is quite effective in combat. They can't sneak attack every round, but their opponents have far fewer hit points (mostly) and their ACs don't scale like in 3e or 4e.

Like I said, a wash.

The erosion of niche protection, power creep, more maths and balance issues have been my bane.

Niche protection isn't a big thing for me --I like cafeteria-style point buy systems like HERO/M&M-- and the power creep is largely illusory IMHO, but I'm totally with you on the more maths thing. Later D&D is plagued by bigger numbers. They're unnecessary -- a few sessions running AD&D really drives that one home.

Now if we turn the focus towards the actual events of a campaign; PC goals instead of PC build mechanics, then there's an unquestionable value to the players not getting everything they want. A setting that denies the players (some of) their wishes seems a lot more real. A world you have to push against to make headway is simply more believable (not to mention dramatic).

 

[Wiseblood]

[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] I'm not clear on what you are disagreeing with me about.

The examples I gave were ones that I chafed at. I looked at any way I could avoid racial level limits. Not that they ever came up.

I always wanted to fight just a little better as a rogue and sneak even a little as a fighter.

[MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION] Humans got a power boost BECAUSE the limits were lifted. This appears to be in response to inherently powerful racial abilities that no longer carried the specter of a glass ceiling.

Front loading still exists but it is now only tempered by immediate consequence.

Are you agreeing with me? The increase in the number of bonuses simply is increasing math not really changing outcome.

Well not every class got as much of a boost in combat. The last in line got to close the gap on characters that were once very effective in their vocation.

The cafeteria style would make characters more organic. (If that word fits there.)It would take some real genius to keep people off each others toes.

I personally try to focus on events. Character building is fun though. I would much rather engage in actual play than design characters. Even if characters were fairly rigid in their capacity. Character building is a metagame construct. It is often divorced from actual playtime. (seeing playtime there made me think of kindergarten)

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm not talking rules here.

I've had to tell DMs to give me what I (as a player) want and not what my character wants. Characters often want to retire, run a business, or whatever... that's not good for an adventuring game.

 

[delericho]

[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] I'm not clear on what you are disagreeing with me about.

The examples I gave were ones that I chafed at. I looked at any way I could avoid racial level limits. Not that they ever came up.

Ah, my mistake. I've just re-read your OP, and it seems I misread it the first time out. Sorry.

 

[Lwaxy]

Ignoring alignment restrictions was one of the first things we did in most campaigns, and we once had a wonderful paladin bard and a well thought through story behind the order as well.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Have you ever had to explain to a child why reverse psychology works so well on them? This discussion is bringing up old memories.