Dealing with essential impossibility

[Ridley's Cohort]

Yes, they do... As a result of most of my experiences with "low magic" games, I tend to mentally cringe when someone talks about running one. Not always, but a majority of the time it actually seems to mean "low magic PCs vs. overpowered magic equipped enemies". It's even worse when the DM doesn't address the inequality that develops between caster and non-caster PCs in those kind of games.

QFT.

I think a lot of DMs naively think that low wealth will stress the non-magical aspects of the game. In actual play, the opposite tends to be true.

Life becomes a slog for the Fighters, but the Wizards and Clerics are doing even better because their magicks have a more decisive effect on game play, both PCs and NPCs.

If you want me to play and effective Fighter qua Fighter, I may not need magical boots, or a magical ring or a bagful of potions, but I sure as heck need a Belt of Str +2 and a +2 Sword, more desperately so than in any vanilla game.

 

[moritheil]

While I don't prefer this kind of game, many DMs here on ENWorld run successful campaigns based on this premise. So the campaign is not in and of itself problematic.These things happen. Some encounters push a party to the brink. This in and of itself is not indicative of a problem.Here is an actual issue. The DM from his comment seems to still be judging encounter difficulty based on standard CRs, when he's modified his game so as to make them relatively useless. Without a standard array of magical powers, he's going to have to eyeball each encounter and guage the difficulty himself.

I'd suggest that you politely and in a friendly fashion point out to him that the CR rating is built on the assumption of standard wealth, and therefore he may need to re-evaluate monsters based on his own judgment, rather than relying on CRs.

I honestly don't think there's a serious problem at this point. Your DM may be quite willing and capable of tailoring his monster selection to your actual power levels. His comment indicates that he may not have thought of this necessity thus far, but does not necesarily indicate he is unwilling or incapable.

Give it some time. If, after five or six more sessions, he's TPK'd you guys several times and still clings to CRs as a justification for his choices ("These guys are only CR6! They're perfectly appropriate!") then you have a legitimate issue to deal with. Until then, consider it a DM's growing pains, as he learns how to handle the kind of campaign he wants to run.

Pendragon's advice is sound, though I'd probably call the DM out well before "several" TPKs. It's all up to you.

I should mention that I ran a 10-person campaign for over a year with a disclaimer that stated that the only balance consideration would be ECL. No one complained about tough encounters, and there were never any TPKs. (The group had agreed beforehand that they would retreat in a hurry if things went bad.) The campaign had several players who were new to 3.x. This leads me to believe that if a DM has a high TPK rate, one should be wary of incompetence or outright malice.

 

[Thurbane]

The new system might not be perfect, but it's still better tahn 2e. That (insert monster here) is more of a challenge for your Fighter 3 than for a fighter 20. The old system ignored that.

Actually, in 2E it didn't.

Oh, and for the record, when I'm DMing I do use my own hybrid 3.5/2E XP system.

Most people who criticise problems with earlier editions often never actually played them. Not saying that is the case here, but I have it to be so in my experience.

Newer does not always mean better.

Anyway, this is really OT for this topic, and edition vs. edition debates rarely (never) seem to lead to anything other than ill will and point scoring, so I'll dop it now...

 

[Lord Pendragon]

What's problematic, though? You might say that as long as the player and the DM are having fun, there isn't a problem...

I am going to guess that you didn't read the "not" in the section of my post you quoted?

Just for the record, and at the chance of leaving myself open to a public flogging, I really, really don't like the whole 3/3.5E CR/XP system. Things were much, much better in 2E IMHO. Yes, I know this will get me called a heretic, but cest la vie. This was back in the days when the books trusted a DM to run the show without being spoonfed formulas to determine what the players should be facing.

To each his own. Personally, I like CRs because they serve as a cheat sheet that allows me to more accurately wing it. Removing CRs would lead to a lot more non-fun work for me, and most likely more TPKs for the players.

I don't consider CRs inviolate. A good DM will still eyeball the encounter, knowing the particular strengths and weaknesses of his party, to determine how difficult it will actually play out. But the CR system allows me to get a general sense of something's difficulty right off the bat, and I like that.

 

[Infiniti2000]

...edition vs. edition debates rarely (never) seem to lead to anything other than ill will and point scoring, ...

That's because people like you use flamebait words like "spoonfed" rather than trying to treat others with respect. The other problem is the use of unfounded generalizations like "most people...."

 

[brehobit]

That's because people like you use flamebait words like "spoonfed" rather than trying to treat others with respect.

How about "provides a set of encounter guidelines to the DM which many players then expect to be followed".

That expectation is, IMO, the core of the complaint by the OP. Won't take sides if this is a good thing or not. But it is common IME.

 

[Thurbane]

That's because people like you use flamebait words like "spoonfed" rather than trying to treat others with respect. The other problem is the use of unfounded generalizations like "most people...."

Well, without getting right into it, I do consider the CR system spoonfeeding. It is a great aid for new DMs, or even experienced ones - my only real problem with it is when the community considers in the ONLY way a DM can possibly create and balance encounters, which is the prevalent attitude BTW. "Most people" refers to "most people I have debated the topic with", so it really isn't a generalisation, but a statement of personal experience.

Sorry if I come accross as haughty or dismissive of other systems - it comes from being consistently flogged on this and other forums for suggesting that the CR system is anything less than perfect. I use what works best for my own game and own players, and offer to share that knowledge with the community at large. When you get consistently put down and told "OMFG, you don't follow the RAW to the letter??? Heretic!!!" you get a little jaded...

No offense was intended to anyone in particular, sorry if anyone took it personally.

 

[pawsplay]

The DMG says you can make all XP awards ad hoc awards if you like. You are more than welcome to ignore CR.

 

[mmu1]

I am going to guess that you didn't read the "not" in the section of my post you quoted?]

Yes, I did read the "not". What I meant was that, just because some DMs manage to find people they can successfully run those kinds of games for, it doesn't really prove that the approach itself is not inherently problematic - or at least, more prone to being problematic than a more conventional one.

 

[Nail]

Well, without getting right into it, I do consider the CR system spoonfeeding.

Heh, heh, heh.....

...no, no. Certainly not "getting right into it". None of that here, no sir.

I've played every edition and incarnation of D&D since the blue box (like many posters here, I'm sure). I've yet to hear anyone claim the current CR/XP system is "perfect".