Flavorless 3e- Advantage- players

[Bendris Noulg]

More importantly, you can sweeten the medicine, as it were, by telling them that all of these changes are probational. If they find that they get in the way of the game being fun, or if you find that they turn out to be unworkable in-game, that you will willingly rescind them, and find ways to compensate any negatively-affected players. It may be the precedent they fear more than the actual rules change.

Gotta agree with you on this. My players (as well as any new-comers) are made well aware that we are in playtest mode and that, not having hundreds of playtesters playing in a similar fashion, playtest mode will likely last a while (can't test every rule in every situation, after all). Granted, we've had more than a few "almost new members" leave after seeing the rules, but I'd rather they leave first rather than join, make a mess of things with constant bickering and whining, and then leave (and yes, over the years we've had some do this intentionally for what ever petty reason motivated them).

There is a required atmosphere of trust required. If the player's don't trust the GM to change the game, then why do they trust him to run it? Administrating numbers is only part of the GM's task, not 95% of it. Sure, the players want to have fun, but it's the GM that spends hours and hours building the stage for that fun. If the GM isn't able to enjoy the setting and the world building, then why should the GM spend that time creating a world he doesn't like? Sure, there are plenty of GMs that GM because no one else in the group will, but for many GMs, world building is a creative outlet, an endeavor that is just as artistic as it is mechanical.

Players that don't realize that, that don't bother to understand the reason for the change in favor of whining about the change itself, aren't worth having.

 

[jasamcarl]

On the topic of houserules, I would just like to pipe up and say that when they are rarely done well. If they don't tie well into the actual game and if there is no reasonable encounter that a pc can expect to work, that is simply shoddy design.

Being 'loose' with the game is one thing, but you will find that the further away you go from the core flavor/rules assumptions (which everyone at the table bought into by virtue of there deciding to play), the greater the role a variation in taste is likely to play.

So, before blaming the system for brainwashing your players, perhaps you can simply accept the fact that they don't like your rules or your idea of 'flavor'. You might lack that essential chemistry. No one's fault, though I'm always very skeptical when a DM comes onto a messageboard to gripe and blame everyone but themselves.

 

[jasamcarl]

Gotta agree with you on this. My players (as well as any new-comers) are made well aware that we are in playtest mode and that, not having hundreds of playtesters playing in a similar fashion, playtest mode will likely last a while (can't test every rule in every situation, after all). Granted, we've had more than a few "almost new members" leave after seeing the rules, but I'd rather they leave first rather than join, make a mess of things with constant bickering and whining, and then leave (and yes, over the years we've had some do this intentionally for what ever petty reason motivated them).

There is a required atmosphere of trust required. If the player's don't trust the GM to change the game, then why do they trust him to run it? Administrating numbers is only part of the GM's task, not 95% of it. Sure, the players want to have fun, but it's the GM that spends hours and hours building the stage for that fun. If the GM isn't able to enjoy the setting and the world building, then why should the GM spend that time creating a world he doesn't like? Sure, there are plenty of GMs that GM because no one else in the group will, but for many GMs, world building is a creative outlet, an endeavor that is just as artistic as it is mechanical.

Players that don't realize that, that don't bother to understand the reason for the change in favor of whining about the change itself, aren't worth having.

Oh, please. For one, the idea that a dm has to spend a lot of time on the world is bunk; many dms simply like to toy with a lot of monsters, create dungeons, and take pleasure in interpreting preset, site-based modules. The idea that players expect it is double bunk; there is no reason to assume when they decided to play that they signed up for anything other than a dungeon crawl. There was no contract signed, so making dumb assumptions about who owes whom what comes off as incredibly self-indulgent. If the two sides don't click, that is fine, but to ascribe greater virtue to one side or the other based upon their differing idea of what they want out of the game is pathetic.

 

[Rel]

Frankly, I am tired of it.

See, that right there is the essence of it. You're tired of it. "It"

It doesn't matter what "it" is. If you're tired of it, you shouldn't be running a game who's primary objective is to have fun. So you just tell your group, "I'm not really having fun with this right now. I'm not interested in forcing you to play in a campaign setting that you won't enjoy. But I'm also not interested in running a campaign setting that I don't enjoy. Thus we are at an impasse. The net result of this impasse is that we should quit playing until I miss the game enough to want to run SOMETHING, even if it isn't my first preference or until you miss the game enough that you want to play SOMETHING, even if it isn't your first preference."

If you or they don't like the idea of not playing for a while then that's a good thing. It means that you're still at the negotiating table. So then you bat things back and forth for a while and see if you can hash out a compromise that everybody likes.

I'd like to also suggest that you take a look at why your players are playing. Read Robin Laws' "Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering". It sounds like at least some of your players are Powergamers. They enjoy the game most when they are getting to have thier characters do the cool thing they're min-maxed to do and getting even more "powerups" that let them do their cool thing even better. This is not my preferred style of play and I'd be disinclined to play in a group that focused on it (at least on a long term basis). But it is a valid style of play nonetheless.

From this, I draw the conclusion that you might be playing with the wrong people. Or at least SOME of the wrong people.

 

[Belen]

On the topic of houserules, I would just like to pipe up and say that when they are rarely done well. If they don't tie well into the actual game and if there is no reasonable encounter that a pc can expect to work, that is simply shoddy design.

Being 'loose' with the game is one thing, but you will find that the further away you go from the core flavor/rules assumptions (which everyone at the table bought into by virtue of there deciding to play), the greater the role a variation in taste is likely to play.

So, before blaming the system for brainwashing your players, perhaps you can simply accept the fact that they don't like your rules or your idea of 'flavor'. You might lack that essential chemistry. No one's fault, though I'm always very skeptical when a DM comes onto a messageboard to gripe and blame everyone but themselves.

Call it ranting to let off steam then.

I am quite aware of my own limitations, so I do not feel the need to put myself down on the messageboards. I would much rather ask my players to tell me if they feel that I have done something wrong, which I do on a regular basis.

However, it is easier to get feedback on how to deal with players on messageboards in order to get other GM's solution, than put them on the defensive by listing things you do not like about their playstyle without having any suggestions for solutions.

 

[Belen]

See, that right there is the essence of it. You're tired of it. "It"

It doesn't matter what "it" is. If you're tired of it, you shouldn't be running a game who's primary objective is to have fun. So you just tell your group, "I'm not really having fun with this right now. I'm not interested in forcing you to play in a campaign setting that you won't enjoy. But I'm also not interested in running a campaign setting that I don't enjoy. Thus we are at an impasse. The net result of this impasse is that we should quit playing until I miss the game enough to want to run SOMETHING, even if it isn't my first preference or until you miss the game enough that you want to play SOMETHING, even if it isn't your first preference."

If you or they don't like the idea of not playing for a while then that's a good thing. It means that you're still at the negotiating table. So then you bat things back and forth for a while and see if you can hash out a compromise that everybody likes.

I'd like to also suggest that you take a look at why your players are playing. Read Robin Laws' "Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering". It sounds like at least some of your players are Powergamers. They enjoy the game most when they are getting to have thier characters do the cool thing they're min-maxed to do and getting even more "powerups" that let them do their cool thing even better. This is not my preferred style of play and I'd be disinclined to play in a group that focused on it (at least on a long term basis). But it is a valid style of play nonetheless.

From this, I draw the conclusion that you might be playing with the wrong people. Or at least SOME of the wrong people.

I am taking a break from gaming at the moment. Christy is running Freeport and I am having a ton of fun playing a rogue/ swashbuckler.

They are aware that I suffered burnout in the last campaign. And I have created a house rule document that mirrors the type of play that I enjoy while adding elements that they enjoy.

In any event, I will never run a 2 year long campaign again.

 

[Elf Witch]

Funny thing...I already do that. I think they like to complain because I have not stuck to my guns in the past and it allows them to take advantage of my being too nice.

Frankly, I am tired of it. I had a great time running a game at the last NC Game Day. Not one complaint and everyone seemed to have fun.

I miss that attitude. It is far more fun to just play rather than hear "he couldn't hit me! I know it because I built my class around not getting hit."

Every time something negative happens, they should not hit the books in order to a.) find am obscure rule to void what happened b.) interpret a rule that voids it.

I have seen and played with players like this and it makes me grind my teeth. I find it very challenging to go up against NPCs who are not pushovers and make you work for the victory. (okay sometimes it is fun to wade through a bunch of low level mooks ) Some of the best games I remeber in terms of combat are the ones where I had used up all my spells including cantrips was low on hit points and really thought we were going to die and then in the end we pulled victory out of the jaws of defeat. Those are the battles you talk about.

For some reason in 3e the rule 0 that stated that the DM was the final arbitrator seems to have gone out the window. And following the rules as written is the only sane way to play. It is impossible for one set of rules to fit every group.

House rules fix this for example in our game we roll initiative on a D10 because we felt it made the feat improved initiative more useful. In my roomate's game that she runs she made favored classes the first class you started with. We use a criticial fumble rule too because we like the flavor of it.

I know if I ever DM I am going to take a page out of the Kalamar setting and reguire clerics to have the same alignment as their god.

I think house rules should be discussed among the group and that if there is a lot of resistance to it agre to give it a try and see how it works before making it a permanent rule.

 

[Rel]

For some reason in 3e the rule 0 that stated that the DM was the final arbitrator seems to have gone out the window.

It isn't "out the window". It's written on page 4 of the PHB (3.0) right up near the top (page 6 for the 3.5 PHB). But some players are going to lean on the DM harder and some less hard.

Going back to my point about the Robin Laws book (I talk about this book all the time because I've been gaming for almost 25 years and when I read this book less than a year ago, it was a HUGE eye opener. I can't recommend it enough.) he breaks the players down into the following categories:

The Power Gamer
The Butt-Kicker
The Tactician
The Specialist
The Method Actor
The Story Teller
The Casual Gamer

It isn't always easy (or a good idea) to try and pigeonhole somebody into one of these categories. I think most players are a mix of them but one tends to win out as the dominant "personality type" for a given player. I think each one regards the rules and house-rules variants to them differently. For what it's worth, here's my take:

The Power Gamer - Of COURSE he doesn't like a rule that cuts into his power. Moreover, he may not like any rule that cuts into anybody's power because he perceives this as a general lowering of the power level in the campaign and that is a "Bad Thing" as far as he's concerned.

The Butt-Kicker - He just likes for his character to fight and the more fights the better. He probably doesn't care too much about rules that don't impact fighting but if they signal a leaning more towards time spent talking and away from combat, he's probably against them.

The Tactician (I'm one of these) - Probably doesn't care if there are house rules, he just wants them spelled out clearly so he can figure out how to turn them to his advantage. Unlike the Power Gamer, doesn't care if the rules reduce the power level of the game but does care that they are enforced equally to the good guys and the bad guys.

The Specialist - This kind of player likes a certain archetype (like always plays a pure Wizard or a sneaky Ninja or the taciturn warrior). I'd guess that he will only really care about house rules if they are specific to his chosen archetype or are really good at killing or disabling his chosen archetype.

The Method Actor - I'd guess that these folks don't give a darn about house rules because they don't really care about the rules much at all in the first place. They are there to act and will roll the dice as seldom as possible. They'll probably just scrutinize your planned campaign world to make sure they see character concepts that they can breathe dramatic life into.

The Storyteller - Again probably don't care about the rules that much because they just want to be told (and help create) an exciting, cool story. If the house rules make the story more interesting they're probably in favor of them.

The Casual Gamer - These folks are just "along for the ride". They probably care less about the house rules and more about the fact that they get to get together with their friends every week for some fun.


Having written that, I think that even more than before I'm convinced that you've got a lot of Power Gamers in your group, BU. Do you see them exhibiting the same behavior in Christy's game?

I'll lastly weigh in and say that I think that 3E is a more clearly codified system than any previous edition of D&D (which is one reason it appeals to me as a Tactician) but I don't think it is going to change the underlying personality of any of the people playing it. So I really think this is more of a "Player Problem" than a "System Problem".

 

[Belen]

It isn't "out the window". It's written on page 4 of the PHB (3.0) right up near the top (page 6 for the 3.5 PHB). But some players are going to lean on the DM harder and some less hard.

Going back to my point about the Robin Laws book (I talk about this book all the time because I've been gaming for almost 25 years and when I read this book less than a year ago, it was a HUGE eye opener. I can't recommend it enough.) he breaks the players down into the following categories:

The Power Gamer
The Butt-Kicker
The Tactician
The Specialist
The Method Actor
The Story Teller
The Casual Gamer

It isn't always easy (or a good idea) to try and pigeonhole somebody into one of these categories. I think most players are a mix of them but one tends to win out as the dominant "personality type" for a given player. I think each one regards the rules and house-rules variants to them differently. For what it's worth, here's my take:

The Power Gamer - Of COURSE he doesn't like a rule that cuts into his power. Moreover, he may not like any rule that cuts into anybody's power because he perceives this as a general lowering of the power level in the campaign and that is a "Bad Thing" as far as he's concerned.

The Butt-Kicker - He just likes for his character to fight and the more fights the better. He probably doesn't care too much about rules that don't impact fighting but if they signal a leaning more towards time spent talking and away from combat, he's probably against them.

The Tactician (I'm one of these) - Probably doesn't care if there are house rules, he just wants them spelled out clearly so he can figure out how to turn them to his advantage. Unlike the Power Gamer, doesn't care if the rules reduce the power level of the game but does care that they are enforced equally to the good guys and the bad guys.

The Specialist - This kind of player likes a certain archetype (like always plays a pure Wizard or a sneaky Ninja or the taciturn warrior). I'd guess that he will only really care about house rules if they are specific to his chosen archetype or are really good at killing or disabling his chosen archetype.

The Method Actor - I'd guess that these folks don't give a darn about house rules because they don't really care about the rules much at all in the first place. They are there to act and will roll the dice as seldom as possible. They'll probably just scrutinize your planned campaign world to make sure they see character concepts that they can breathe dramatic life into.

The Storyteller - Again probably don't care about the rules that much because they just want to be told (and help create) an exciting, cool story. If the house rules make the story more interesting they're probably in favor of them.

The Casual Gamer - These folks are just "along for the ride". They probably care less about the house rules and more about the fact that they get to get together with their friends every week for some fun.


Having written that, I think that even more than before I'm convinced that you've got a lot of Power Gamers in your group, BU. Do you see them exhibiting the same behavior in Christy's game?

I'll lastly weigh in and say that I think that 3E is a more clearly codified system than any previous edition of D&D (which is one reason it appeals to me as a Tactician) but I don't think it is going to change the underlying personality of any of the people playing it. So I really think this is more of a "Player Problem" than a "System Problem".

They do act the same, but to a lesser extent. It is her first time GMing and I think they are trying to be nice to her.

 

[Numion]

Every time something negative happens, they should not hit the books in order to a.) find am obscure rule to void what happened b.) interpret a rule that voids it.

That sounds a bit problematic. My players sometimes (well, I admit, me too both as a player and DM) do it as well. It's good-natured most of the time. Hell, I've even awarded XP bonus to players who quote a rule mid-game that goes against another player