Do prestige classes curb creativity?

[The Shaman]

Well, there we are then.

I agree that PbP does provide a good environment for roleplaying: the players in Wing and Sword in particular do a great job - it's my favorite game, as player or GM.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Back in the day, when a fighter was a fighter was a fighter, we expressed our creativity by more subtle means.

...

One group with which I played included two fighters in the party: one character (played by a good friend of mine) was a knight (he would’ve played a paladin but he didn’t have the ability scores for it...1e, when balance was a wink-and-a-nod) and the other (mine) was former gladiator escaped from the slave-pits.

...

The fact that these characters were nearly identical in terms of mechanics made absolutely no difference in terms of playing the game: they were as distinct and as different as could be in terms of outlook, tactics, and so on, but they rolled to hit on the same chart, had the same hit dice, and the same abilities aside from those which we presumed by roleplay, such as the knight’s extensive knowledge of the nobility and the gladiator’s intimate knowledge of taverns and brothels

Liberally snipped.

I'm glad you had fun and that you could distinguish your characters from one another via roleplay when the mechanics didn't necessarily support it.

It sort of begs the question, however ...

Couldn't you have done the same thing just as well if the mechanics did support it?

Isn't this really a testament to your abilities as a roleplayer?

 

[The Shaman]

Couldn't you have done the same thing just as well if the mechanics did support it?

Sure.

In theory the two are not mutually exclusive - in practice I see this: "If it's a distinction that actually makes a difference, then it must be reflected in the rules or it doesn't mean a thing."

 

[Celebrim]

The Shaman: Excellent post. I concur on all points and with all your observations.

Back in the day, when a fighter was a fighter was a fighter, we expressed our creativity by more subtle means.

Basically, the rules for D&D have gotten too good. They've gotten so good that a player - especially a new player - is tempted to think that the game is about the rules, and not merely that the rules serve the game. It's a subtle distinction, but its an important one. I think 3rd edition players tend to select a list of rules, and then fit there character to that list. Older players knew that the rules sucked, and they tended to select a character and then fit the rules to it as much as possible, and bend or break them where it wasn't.

One group with which I played included two fighters in the party: one character (played by a good friend of mine) was a knight (he would’ve played a paladin but he didn’t have the ability scores for it...1e, when balance was a wink-and-a-nod) and the other (mine) was former gladiator escaped from the slave-pits. As luck would have it, we both concentrated on melee over ranged combat and both characters had 16 Str. However, no one ever had a hard time telling one character from the other: the knight was courtly and chivalrous, preferring single-combat (often calling out the leader of the bad guys) – the gladiator fought using every dirty trick I could think of, from ambush to bull-rush. The knight fought in plate armor and large shield, a sword or a lance in his hands – the gladiator wore studded leather and carried a small shield and short sword, relying on quickness and mobility. The knight would give quarter, did charitable works, was beloved by the NPCs – the gladiator drank and whored himself into the gutter every time we were in town and was usually considered a menace to society.

The fact that these characters were nearly identical in terms of mechanics made absolutely no difference in terms of playing the game: they were as distinct and as different as could be in terms of outlook, tactics, and so on, but they rolled to hit on the same chart, had the same hit dice, and the same abilities aside from those which we presumed by roleplay, such as the knight’s extensive knowledge of the nobility and the gladiator’s intimate knowledge of taverns and brothels – we didn’t need ranks in Knowledge (nobility) or Knowledge (streetwise) to make this distinction. It was simply the outcome of our imaginations brought to life in the course of the game, and sadly, my recent experience tells me that this is less common than it once was among D&D players.

Exactly. I think that such a situation is literally outside of the imagination of many current players. Today, your concept is a list of rules; back then it was a character.

However, the last couple of times I’ve played D&D, the experience wasn’t a positive one, and it was brought home to me again the other night when we brought a new player into our Mutants and Masterminds game, a friend of one of the regular players. I spoke with the new guy (hereafter “the FNG”) a few days earlier: yes, he’d played M&M before and could pre-gen a character before Friday, which was great for me as it meant less time sitting around and more time gaming – I painstakingly explained the setting to him, described a couple of the characters’ powers as examples and so forth, and gave him my little spiel about the importance of role-play to our group. The FNG showed up with a standard brick, a character that had no relationship at all to the setting and that specifically ignored my prohibition against Super-Strength. When I explained to him why the character wouldn’t work, he complained that he generated it “by the rules” and that therefore it was “legal” to play.

The problem with players bringing completely unsuitable characters to existing campaigns is probably as old as the publishing of D&D. But third edition has strongly encouraged player ownership of the rules. That's always been a problem from the first day a powergamer bought a DMG and then started rules lawyering the DM by flipping through the DMG and pulling out quotes, but the problem has been getting worse and worse lately.

In talking with the player later that night, after our abbreviated game session broke up for the evening, the FNG spoke about his D&D group, and the characters he likes to build: this base class from this book, that feat chain from that book, those PrCs from those books. I explained that when I ran a 3.0 game, I’d allowed nearly every PrC printed, but that if I ran a 3e game again in the future I would limit the number of PrCs and encourage multi-classing instead. The FNG complained again that that would be too limiting in terms of his character “concepts” – I countered with a class combo that could meet most of the requirements of his concepts, but when I pressed him for details each time he came back to some mechanical ability as key to the “concept” without which the character would be “boring.”

I've been tossing this term around loosely lately, but to me 3rd edition has brought forth a scourge of 'rule playing'. Back in the day when the rules didn't even come close to having the appearance of covering every situation, and in fact many new players didn't even have the rules because they were only in the DMG, what a player tried to do with their character was whatever they could imagine thier player doing. Players had to interact with the shared imaginary environment in an extensive and precise manner (both in terms of thier imagintion of the environment and in terms of verbalizing what they did) because there wasn't any good mechanics for handle character action outside of combat in a general way. This is what I associate with 'role playing'. Now, we also knew that we ourselves, back as junior high players had pretty much avoided actual 'role playing' in favor of orcs and pies in 10'x10' rooms and rolling initiative. This is what we refer to as 'roll playing', and at the time it was basically a distillation of the game down to bare bones of the mechanical action.

But lately I've been noticing an intermediate ground. Because the 3rd edition rules are good, and because they have the illusion of covering every possible situation, I see more and more players playing the whole game as if it was - at every level - no more than a complex game of chess or something akin to Bloodbowl or ASL. The game situations that occur are far more complex than in the old 'roll playing' games, but the mindset isn't that much different. Instead of interacting with the whole of the shared imaginary space, the players imagine that the various rules tell them what they can do in a given situation and that if a rule does not exist to cover it - it simply doesn't exist. For them, what isn't in the rules isn't in the shared imaginary space. There is no need to imagine themselves in the shared imaginary space, much less imagine themselves as the character, because the character is an inch high figurine standing on a peice of oversided graph paper whose abilities are as precisely defined as a chess peice. This approach to the game is radically different than the one I learned.

Let me give you an example. In a dungeon I designed I had a room in which I had described the floor as thickly covered with straw. In the room was a flagstone which covered a trapdoor in the floor of the room. Now, I had allowed the trapdoor to be discovered with a DC 30 search check, but I wrote in my notes that if the players moved aside the straw in order to uncover the floor they would recieve a +5 circumstance bonus. Not one of the players conducting a search of the room thought to interact with the straw in anyway even though I'd specifically placed a broom in the room as a clue, even though they were convinced something was hidden in the room. Each player simply looked bewildered as they asked for more and more search checks and recieved the same answer that they'd found nothing, without ever really attempting to interact with any of the furnishings in the room. Essentially, beyond taking 20, they couldn't think of anything more they could do to 'find something' and so gave up and quit, and I'm absolutely positive that as I relate this story there are readers out there who think I'm a bad DM because I put a puzzle in the room (a very simple one indeed I might add) that could only be solved by player knowledge and didn't label the puzzle a puzzle so that the players might know this, and I'm sure that there are those out there that think that player action should never alter the result of a search check because I'm 'nerfing the skill' or something.

And this is just one example of what appears to be a general trend. What I discovered as I played with more and more people was that alot of players out there had very good skills when they could completely understand the situation, when in effect they could see the whole board. The minute however they faced something that they didn't completely understand, when essentially they were suffering from the fog of war, they paniced. They didn't know what to try. They didn't pay attention to descriptions because as far as they were concerned descriptions were only fluff. They didn't interact with the environment. They tried to solve problems purely by rolling dice, and if throwing a dice didn't work they didn't know what to do.

I’d love to say that this was a unique occurrence, but it seems that every D&D group I’ve played with since 3e was released has included one or two or even three examples of the FNG’s style of play. None of them have been kids, none of them have been noobs – all of them see the mechanics as dictating the character concept. When I picked up 3.0, I was generally happy with the changes, including the addition of prestige classes – as time has gone on, as splatbooks brimming with “options” appeared, most of which seemed to exist primarily to nerf the restrictions imposed by the previous splatbooks or the core rules (“this ability does not provoke an attack of opportunity”; “this ability is not affected by energy resistance”; et cetera), I’ve seen how for many players have substituted mechanics for imagination.

What I've discovered is that the ability to role play isn't necessarily the biggest victim of this mindset. When they are in a situation that they can label 'social interaction', at least some of these players are pretty decent role players. What I have found to be the biggest victim of this mindset is oddly enough the tactical ability of the players. They just aren't as good of dungeon crawlers as I'm used to playing with because they never imagine the environment. I mean serioiusly, if you imagined the straw covered room in your head and said, "Now where could something be hiding in this room?", how could you not think to yourself, "Under the straw! Wait a minute, isn't there a broom in the room?".

Apparently I’m not the only gamer to notice this phenomenon...

No, you aren't.

The FNG and other players with a similar mindset see the mechanics underpinning their concepts as part of their self-expression, and while I may not agree with it, I do understand it...

I understand it to, precisely because the new mechanics give me as a DM so much better ability to describe and adjudicate situations. I'd never ever go back to 1st edition. But all that is just a part of the game and just a part of a player's skillset IMO.

IMX too often characters stopped being characters and started being collections of stats – the concept was the mechanics.

The character's concept should be served by the mechanics. The mechanics should not be served by the character's concept. If the later is the case, the mechanics aren't transparent enough.

 

[DonTadow]

Liberally snipped.

I'm glad you had fun and that you could distinguish your characters from one another via roleplay when the mechanics didn't necessarily support it.

It sort of begs the question, however ...

Couldn't you have done the same thing just as well if the mechanics did support it?

Isn't this really a testament to your abilities as a roleplayer?

To go a bit further with it, when the mechanics support it, it makes the game more accessable to newbies.

I am all for house rules and explanations and dms nurturing newbies into complete players. And yes this trend has caught on and it does put more responsibility of a Dm to be a teacher. But my concern is the game and its growth and evolution which is what it is doing. The number of players has grown exponentially. The gaming industry is booming. There are far more players now than during any decade of the 20th century. When the game grows like this, that means that there will be more investment in it and I contribute a big part of that to the d20 system's stignent rules. I can't believe how many players I've taught this game too in the last year. How many hot chicks whom would have turned there nose at sedond and first edition whom now role dice with me regularrly. The game is becoming main stream (or as close as its been) and that's great. I don't think we're losing anything as much as we have to adapit. I love hearing the stories about the good old days but the good old boy club is gone. This isn't our game no more it's pop cultures and rules make sure that these curious new players have proper footing and enough instruction to get hooked. After there hooked feel free to put on them any propaganda you so wish. House rules, throw out the classes, make the feats sell the winches.. whatever suits your style so long as the game is growing.

 

[Ogre Mage]

No. They are simply tools to add unique abilities to a PC. They are good as long as players realize they are a privilege, not a right. I actually think there should be a rule that a PC may only gain levels in ONE prestige class. How "prestigious" is it when a PC has three different prestige classes? :\

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I actually think there should be a rule that a PC may only gain levels in ONE prestige class. How "prestigious" is it when a PC has three different prestige classes?

That's actually not a bad idea...but I'd alter it.

I don't have problems with multiple prestige classes. No matter what class you take, there's the opportunity cost of not taking levels in another class.

To look at real life, someone can be a member of Mensa, a 300 Bowler, member of the Phi Sigma Tau honor society, a CEO, a Freemason, and a Little-League coach, after all.

So I would have a problem with Ogre Mage's suggestion, but not if it were "Limit any PC to 10 total Levels of PrCls." That way, someone could be a Harper, a Dervish, an Illithid Slayer and a Pyrokinetic, but not shining examples of any of those.

Remember- "Jack of All Trades, Master of None"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I said it before, so I'll say it again:

ANY class, be it Core, Base or PrCl, limits options by their very nature. The restrictions of a level and class sytem is one of ther reasons why point-based systems like Champions/HERO and GURPS arose in the 1980s. In D&D, if you want your PC to wear Heavy armor and swing a 2 bladed sword, you won't be casting spells.

Some people have pointed out that players who want a particular PrCl will plan and plot their levels out, sometimes torturously, to meet the PrCl's prereqs, and cite this as an example of straightjacketing the players.

How is this any different than the player who wants a ranger who is good at both archery AND 2 weapon fighting? Or the guy who picks Greataxe as his weapon, knowing full well he'll need Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Power Attack, Cleave and Great Cleave to use it at full effectiveness...and thus realizing he almost HAS to play a Fighter when what he really wants to play is a Cleric from a warrior culture where the Axe is the tribal weapon of choice? A Holy Knight who is comfortable with his "draconic" heritage, so mixes his smiting powers with arcane spells? That player will have tough decisions when it comes time to take those Sorcerer levels...

I haven't tried it myself, but I know of a great number of gamers who have tried Green Ronin's point-based D20 system Mutants & Masterminds to run fantasy games. They find the flexibility liberating.

 

[The Shaman]

I haven't tried it myself, but I know of a great number of gamers who have tried Green Ronin's point-based D20 system Mutants & Masterminds to run fantasy games. They find the flexibility liberating.

As I mentioned, I use M&M for my pulp heroes and my Victorian explorers games, both at PL6 - it would be possible to use M&M for a fantasy game IMHO. The only thing holding me back is the time it would take to stat the monsters - on the other hand, it is ideal for making individual monsters without resorting to templates.

Personally I think the coolest thing is magic - personalizing spells through power stunts is sweet.

 

[billd91]

Let me give you an example. In a dungeon I designed I had a room in which I had described the floor as thickly covered with straw. In the room was a flagstone which covered a trapdoor in the floor of the room. Now, I had allowed the trapdoor to be discovered with a DC 30 search check, but I wrote in my notes that if the players moved aside the straw in order to uncover the floor they would recieve a +5 circumstance bonus. Not one of the players conducting a search of the room thought to interact with the straw in anyway even though I'd specifically placed a broom in the room as a clue, even though they were convinced something was hidden in the room. Each player simply looked bewildered as they asked for more and more search checks and recieved the same answer that they'd found nothing, without ever really attempting to interact with any of the furnishings in the room. Essentially, beyond taking 20, they couldn't think of anything more they could do to 'find something' and so gave up and quit, and I'm absolutely positive that as I relate this story there are readers out there who think I'm a bad DM because I put a puzzle in the room (a very simple one indeed I might add) that could only be solved by player knowledge and didn't label the puzzle a puzzle so that the players might know this, and I'm sure that there are those out there that think that player action should never alter the result of a search check because I'm 'nerfing the skill' or something.

I really fail to see how this is any different from rolling that 1 in 6 in earlier editions of D&D (or 2 in 6 if you're an elf). The mechanic has changed a little in format but the basic idea is the same. Why is the effect of 3E any different?
Plus, I'd probably assume that taking 20 would entail kicking through the straw since it is as thorough a search as the PCs are capable of. I think you had constructed the search in such a way that you were expecting the particular magic words "We move aside the straw" and the players didn't do that explicitly. The question I have is: Did they assume that by making a search roll (and taking 20), the PCs were doing just that?
The problem may be, partly, miscommunication with your players. They don't know what level of specificity you expect from them. Maybe you should consider giving them some examples if you haven't done so already or consider asking more leading questions to train them in the way you expect them to play.
For example, if I have PCs searching a room and rolling for it, I ask where in the room they are looking. After all, they might roll better looking in one spot where there's nothing to find and botch the roll elsewhere when there is something of interest. If they decide to take 20, I again ask them where. If they say the whole room, they get charged for the 2 minutes per 5' x 5' square for the whole room. And they had better hope they aren't under a time pressure.

With all the complaints about how players are now focusing so much on mechanics or looking at the game in a mechanistic or board game way, I wonder how many of you are actually doing something about it? Are you retraining the players to think differently about how to approach issues like searching under straw or interacting with specific objects in the room?
Personally, I encourage my players to think creatively about how they want to develop their characters, within the reasonable limits imposed by the availability of certain PrCs within the campaign. I make sure they know that they don't have to take a prestige class, they don't have to finish it if they take one, they don't have to get to the prestige class via only one route, and just because they take levels of fighter and bard, they don't have to refrain from stealing if they want to be a thief.