Exactly what game are they playing?

[Crothian]

You ever read through the different d20 boards of different companies and different fan sites and not recognize the game people are playing? I mean they are obviously usuing the core rules with supplements or whatever, but their application is just way different then you and your group use. People ask questions that seem obvvious to you and your group, but their group is having great trouble with. They mention certain feats and prestige classes that you use regularily and they claim its too strong or too weak.

The reason I bring it up is I have this problem. I used to be a big poster in the Rules forum but slowly over time it just seemed that it went way to tactical and number crunching and my game is so not. So, I rarely even look in there anymore. Same with House Rules, it sometimes seem people are so obsessed with balance that it just seems to suck the life out of the game.

 

[haiiro]

Same with House Rules, it sometimes seem people are so obsessed with balance that it just seems to suck the life out of the game.

I can see the perception: I'm pretty obesessed with balance when it comes to designing things the PCs have access to, particularly races. At the same time, I think it's possible to shoot for balance and still keep the spirit of an idea -- and I see plenty of things in the HR forum that fit that category all the time.

 

[Chaldfont]

You ever read through the different d20 boards of different companies and different fan sites and not recognize the game people are playing? I mean they are obviously usuing the core rules with supplements or whatever, but their application is just way different then you and your group use. People ask questions that seem obvvious to you and your group, but their group is having great trouble with. They mention certain feats and prestige classes that you use regularily and they claim its too strong or too weak.

The reason I bring it up is I have this problem. I used to be a big poster in the Rules forum but slowly over time it just seemed that it went way to tactical and number crunching and my game is so not. So, I rarely even look in there anymore. Same with House Rules, it sometimes seem people are so obsessed with balance that it just seems to suck the life out of the game.

I completely agree with you. My DMing philosophies are very different from what I consider the extreme rules lawyering that goes on on the net. For one, I think that when a player asks if he can use new rules he's read somewhere (especially if its from a book he's paid for), his DM should say yes. If the new rules (race, feat, PrC, whatever) cause problems in the game, then the DM should create some kind of in-game balance that makes use of the problem rule very risky/expensive but not impossible.

I really have a problem with the, what seems to me, common practice of DMs removing feats, spells, races, classes, items, etc. from their game without even playtesting them first. It shows a lack of imagination and takes away from the Players' enjoyment of the game.

Why all the worry about balance anyway? If one of the PCs is hogging the spotlight, or really mowing through the bad guys; give the other PCs new toys to make up for it. And don't forgive to give the bad guys new toys either! But never fix a game problem by taking something away from a player. Do it by forcing him to make a difficult decision. Sure, the PC can cast the overpowered, unbalanced spell. But it will draw the attention of extremely powerful evil outsiders. Or maybe the fighter's new problem feat is a technique used exclusively by evil fanatic assassins and if he reveals it in public he is sure to be captured and hanged by the authorities? Is the problem a magic item? Roll a d20 and on a 1 the item loses it's magic. Or explodes. Or deals 1d6 Wisdom drain. Hell, just use your imagination!

hehe, sorry. this is one of my soapbox issues.

 

[haiiro]

For one, I think that when a player asks if he can use new rules he's read somewhere (especially if its from a book he's paid for), his DM should say yes. If the new rules (race, feat, PrC, whatever) cause problems in the game, then the DM should create some kind of in-game balance that makes use of the problem rule very risky/expensive but not impossible.

I think that's a slippery slope for many DMs, and IMO it's not that different from using RP requirements to balance concrete benefits -- which makes me think of kits from 2e. I'd much rather put some time in studying whatever outside rule the player wants to bring in, and making my best call before letting it into play.

There's a lot of crap out there, and trying to keep most of the crap (broken feats, front-loaded PrCs, whatever) out of my game is something I'll happily take the time to do in advance.

 

[Wombat]

I have always loved rpgs in general due to their flexibility, the notion that you have a basic set of rules that gets revised, cut up, added to, subtracted from and the like to create the game your particular group of gamers actually likes, as opposed to the vision the game designers came up with for their group. So in one game we had no druids or clerics; in another we added in three or four character classes; in another only humans were allowed; in another we undercut magic by saying that you could have, maximum, 1/2 your actual level in spell-casting levels.

Each of these games turned out good. We enjoyed ourselves at the table and everyone was more or less satisified with the state of the campaign.

I'm not really worried about whether or not my group is playing offical D20 -- we are the ones at the table and as long as we are having fun, it's all good. Equally, I would never tell any other gaming group what specific set (or lack thereof) of variations to the rules they should have at their table.

Gaming is about creativity, imagination, and, most importantly, having fun.

As long as the game is fun, what else matters?

 

[BSF]

Why all the worry about balance anyway? If one of the PCs is hogging the spotlight, or really mowing through the bad guys; give the other PCs new toys to make up for it. And don't forgive to give the bad guys new toys either! But never fix a game problem by taking something away from a player. Do it by forcing him to make a difficult decision. Sure, the PC can cast the overpowered, unbalanced spell. But it will draw the attention of extremely powerful evil outsiders. Or maybe the fighter's new problem feat is a technique used exclusively by evil fanatic assassins and if he reveals it in public he is sure to be captured and hanged by the authorities? Is the problem a magic item? Roll a d20 and on a 1 the item loses it's magic. Or explodes. Or deals 1d6 Wisdom drain. Hell, just use your imagination!

While I agree with much of the spirit of your post, I disagree with most of your listed methods to "balance things".

What you are advocating often leads to a feeling of DM vs Player. The DM allows you to take a feat but then sets up conditions where you can never use that feat? This type of limitation must be discussed before the player makes the choice for the ability. (GM/Player communication is one of my soapboxes.) If you don't communicate this ahead of time you run the risk of the player feeling like you are simply out to screw him over.

This is not to say that such tactics aren't useful. I;m just trying to point out that presentation to the players is a huge factor in how this will be perceived.

 

[Greg K]

For one, I think that when a player asks if he can use new rules he's read somewhere (especially if its from a book he's paid for), his DM should say yes. If the new rules (race, feat, PrC, whatever) cause problems in the game, then the DM should create some kind of in-game balance that makes use of the problem rule very risky/expensive but not impossible.

Sorry, I have to completely disagree. The banning or allowance of material from supplements (and even core material) is often needed to create and maintain the feel of a given campaign world. For example, if a GM says that a world has no psionics, then it is not the GM's obligation to let in material from the Psionics Handbook or Expanded Psionics Handbook just because a player purchased the book. Similarly if the DM says that the world has no monks or Anthropormorphic races then a player should not expect the GM to allow material from the Handbook of Cute Whoopass Kung Fu Furries.

 

[pogre]

Chald would hate my game - core rules only. It saves my players a lot of $

I think there are a lot of folks here that get more way into the rules than we do. Our game is pretty vanilla compared to some of the stuff I see, but we (especially me) like standard fantasy on the slightly grim side. Restricting the rules takes care of almost all of the balance issues completely.

 

[Krieg]

.../snip/...player should not expect the GM to allow material from the Handbook of Cute Whoopass Kung Fu Furries.

Just how much is the Handbook of Cute Whoopass Kung Fu Furries and more importantly, where can I find a copy?!

 

[Chaldfont]

I think I'm lucky with the players I have. I've never felt the need to restrict anything. In fact, one of my players in my last campaign requested to switch out a sorcerer spell because he thought it wasn't any fun (Zone of Speed).

It works out almost as frequently that the player gets hosed by a certain rules choice. I've definitely had players pick feats and spells from supplements that weren't that useful--so I let them switch them out. How many PrCs exist that a player could choose only to have the DM completely remove that specialty from the game (like removing undead from a campaign with a Hunter of the Dead)?

I still say give the player the benefit of the doubt. If he chooses to powergame and ruin your campaign, kick him to the curb.