Flavorless 3e- Advantage- players

[Rel]

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.

Well, I suppose that polite and considerate Power Gamers are better than the straight off the rack kind.

 

[jasamcarl]

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.

Good. Now we are getting somewhere. But perhaps it would be a bit more honest of you to not disparage your players or the game period and simply ask for a critque of your rules on their own merits. Because, quite frankly, you have not given a very realistic or comprehensive take on your players' tastes. You were obviously shopping for a biased response that let you off the hook.

Was it so hard to admit you were being a teensy bit irrational?

 

[Belen]

Good. Now we are getting somewhere. But perhaps it would be a bit more honest of you to not disparage your players or the game period and simply ask for a critque of your rules on their own merits. Because, quite frankly, you have not given a very realistic or comprehensive take on your players' tastes. You were obviously shopping for a biased response that let you off the hook.

Was it so hard to admit you were being a teensy bit irrational?

Actually, I have held off on specifics about the players so as not to personally malign them.

I do not believe I was irrational, if anything, I started out with a muddled argument.

I still believe a lot of my argument about the system itself. I may love 3e, but I do see flaws in it.

 

[jasamcarl]

Actually, I have held off on specifics about the players so as not to personally malign them.

I do not believe I was irrational, if anything, I started out with a muddled argument.

I still believe a lot of my argument about the system itself. I may love 3e, but I do see flaws in it.

So instead you threw out some broad swipes without anything like facts to back them up? I'm sorry, but if the only 'specifics' you can provide conscerning your players' tastes amounts to 'maligning' them, you don't really stand to be a fit dm for that group. Nor can anyone really give you any reasonable, informed advise about how to sell your house rules when all you provide is a half-assed, biased sketch of the actual people you play with.

 

[Belen]

So instead you threw out some broad swipes without anything like facts to back them up? I'm sorry, but if the only 'specifics' you can provide conscerning your players' tastes amounts to 'maligning' them, you don't really stand to be a fit dm for that group. Nor can anyone really give you any reasonable, informed advise about how to sell your house rules when all you provide is a half-assed, biased sketch of the actual people you play with.

Well, you were human for a few posts. I think Storm had the right idea.

I love how you twist my desire to not trash my friends as a bad thing. Go figure.

 

[jasamcarl]

Well, you were human for a few posts. I think Storm had the right idea.

I love how you twist my desire to not trash my friends as a bad thing. Go figure.

Nope, I'm just mocking your attempt to both diss your friends while also claiming that you are protecting them. Can't have it both ways....

 

[Belen]

Well, I suppose that polite and considerate Power Gamers are better than the straight off the rack kind.

Well, they have made very effective characters for her campaign. My character feels weak in comparison. Christy really has to beef up opponents to challenge the party, which is my fault as she used the stat distribution I used in my last campaign.

However, she is managing the story very well and making it a lot of fun to play. It is good to have the chance to play again and I am enjoying the different characters and such. We played the last campaign so long that I think everyone needed a change of venue.

That campaign has taught me to run shorter campaigns with mini-campaigns between the larger ones. I have ay least one player who does not really enjoy running the same character for more than 6-8 months at a time, and I find that I do not like being locked into one story for long.

Next time around, I will probably take some more breaks with other people running mini-campaigns, and maybe throw sequel campaigns into the mix if we want to return to the old characters.

Definitely need story turnover.

 

[Saeviomagy]

This is what I added:

Taint: The Taint is an infection... If they die from con loss, then they must make a Will save DC 10 + ½ HD+ Cha. Modifier. Failure means that rise an unintelligent undead.

It really will not affect them much. I guess it is my fault for letting them have too much in the past games. One guy argue that this was restrictive against necromancers, yet none of them are planning on playing one! (sigh)

I am not out to get them, but I also do not want some things to be easy.

(PS: this is for a game that will start in a few months)

The problem with this rule:

1. If any of the PC's fall to the taint, they will become NPC's, effectively dying, right?

2. If any of the NPC's fall to the taint, it will have precisely zero effect.

The permanent loss of a point of constitution is a major penalty, and the save is likely to be failed because it grows harder the more powerful the caster is, and is a fortitude save, which screws wizards. Furthermore it grows harder to make the more times you fail it.

It also seems likely that the PC's will never meet someone who is disadvantaged by this draining effect, making the effect, once again, anti-player and pro-NPC.

The spells which will be nailed by this include some of the mainstays of an effective offensive wizard, such as enervation, energy drain, the new fatigue and exhaustion spells, and possibly other spells at your discretion, including the entire necromancy school.

Which means that a lot of the wizard's most effective tools against the undead are lost.

And it does punish one group far beyond all others - PC necromancer wizards.

Aha! But I did throw in a flavor rule that could benefit them:

I am an equal opportunity type of guy.

It COULD benefit them, however there are no firm mechanics.

IOW - they WILL suffer the ill effects of the penalty rule if they play a necromancer (or even just a wizard), but they quite possibly won't reap the bonuses of the beneficial rule. Only a person with a serious gambling problem would see this as a balanced equation.

Besides, the rules already provide them a host of advantages with little disadvantages. Heck, the old ressrection used to put a cleric on his tail end for a week. Now he just looses money and some XP.

Yeah, because it was just SOOO fun to have the cleric player sit on his ass for 10 game sessions.

Of course the alternative was that everyone just waited for him to get back out of bed. Which has the same effect as the current rule.

Flavor that causes a little pain is not a bad thing. It makes for memorable characters and plots.

Maybe you don't realise this, but a difficult fort save to avoid permanent and irreversible damage to a character is not "a little pain", nor is it merely flavour. It's a harsh punitive rule.

By subtracting flavor for the rules, have we benefited, or have mini-wargamers and computer players benefited?

The GM gains more power with less rules. This leans towards a game in which the GM whim dominates, and his story is precisely what is played out.

The players gain more power with more rules. This leans towards a game in which the players whim dominates. Because a situation in which the NPC's actions are wholly dictated by the rules, the story is still going to be largely what the GM wanted, however details of that story are more likely to be influenced by the players actions.

I for one prefer a game of the second variety - in the first scenario I feel like I may as well leave the GM to write his book on his own - he doesn't really need me.

Ideally I like a game in the middle ground.

Finally, a large part of the theme to Elisan revolves around choice. I am not going to say that you cannot mess around with raising undead and such, but I am saying that negative energy is a dangerous power.

No - the penalties that you have instituted are basically "don't use this or I'll smack you down". You've basically said "your character will die if he uses negative energy".

Maybe if you toned down or altered your rules so that there was some modicum of strategy and risk to them, then they'd be better accepted, but as-is, they kill the character using negative energy in the long term, and cripple him in the short term, almost no matter what measures he takes or abilities he has.

One suggestion I might make would be to make the save a per-casting basis, make the amount of con loss 1d6 instead of just 1, and make it normal ability damage, or something otherwise cleansable.

IOW - the wizard will think "gee - maybe I can risk using that spell, and then spend some time recovering". And then he suffers some penalties for a bit, as opposed to "Well, if I use that spell, I basically screw this character permanently. I'd much rather have him die".

If some really wants to go that route, character-wise, then I will create some feats and such designed to enhance negative energy use and help stave off the effects.

But it is still dangerous.

Feats which you don't seem to have specced out yet, leaving any potential player of a necromancer with the option to
a) plunge into the unknown, full of some guaranteed horrendous effects and some unknown, but likely to be minor, positive effects.
b) not bother because it's just not worth the risk on a character that you want to spend some time playing.

 

[S'mon]

I do not believe I was irrational, if anything, I started out with a muddled argument.

I think that's the worst thing that could be said about you, that your initial thinking was a bit muddled.

Whereas jasamcarl is a jerk.

 

[Belen]

The problem with this rule:

1. If any of the PC's fall to the taint, they will become NPC's, effectively dying, right?

2. If any of the NPC's fall to the taint, it will have precisely zero effect.

The permanent loss of a point of constitution is a major penalty, and the save is likely to be failed because it grows harder the more powerful the caster is, and is a fortitude save, which screws wizards. Furthermore it grows harder to make the more times you fail it.

It also seems likely that the PC's will never meet someone who is disadvantaged by this draining effect, making the effect, once again, anti-player and pro-NPC.

The spells which will be nailed by this include some of the mainstays of an effective offensive wizard, such as enervation, energy drain, the new fatigue and exhaustion spells, and possibly other spells at your discretion, including the entire necromancy school.

Which means that a lot of the wizard's most effective tools against the undead are lost.

And it does punish one group far beyond all others - PC necromancer wizards.


It COULD benefit them, however there are no firm mechanics.

IOW - they WILL suffer the ill effects of the penalty rule if they play a necromancer (or even just a wizard), but they quite possibly won't reap the bonuses of the beneficial rule. Only a person with a serious gambling problem would see this as a balanced equation.

Yeah, because it was just SOOO fun to have the cleric player sit on his ass for 10 game sessions.

Of course the alternative was that everyone just waited for him to get back out of bed. Which has the same effect as the current rule.

Maybe you don't realise this, but a difficult fort save to avoid permanent and irreversible damage to a character is not "a little pain", nor is it merely flavour. It's a harsh punitive rule.


The GM gains more power with less rules. This leans towards a game in which the GM whim dominates, and his story is precisely what is played out.

The players gain more power with more rules. This leans towards a game in which the players whim dominates. Because a situation in which the NPC's actions are wholly dictated by the rules, the story is still going to be largely what the GM wanted, however details of that story are more likely to be influenced by the players actions.

I for one prefer a game of the second variety - in the first scenario I feel like I may as well leave the GM to write his book on his own - he doesn't really need me.

Ideally I like a game in the middle ground.


No - the penalties that you have instituted are basically "don't use this or I'll smack you down". You've basically said "your character will die if he uses negative energy".

Maybe if you toned down or altered your rules so that there was some modicum of strategy and risk to them, then they'd be better accepted, but as-is, they kill the character using negative energy in the long term, and cripple him in the short term, almost no matter what measures he takes or abilities he has.

One suggestion I might make would be to make the save a per-casting basis, make the amount of con loss 1d6 instead of just 1, and make it normal ability damage, or something otherwise cleansable.

IOW - the wizard will think "gee - maybe I can risk using that spell, and then spend some time recovering". And then he suffers some penalties for a bit, as opposed to "Well, if I use that spell, I basically screw this character permanently. I'd much rather have him die".

Feats which you don't seem to have specced out yet, leaving any potential player of a necromancer with the option to
a) plunge into the unknown, full of some guaranteed horrendous effects and some unknown, but likely to be minor, positive effects.
b) not bother because it's just not worth the risk on a character that you want to spend some time playing.

Well, I am writing new magic rules into the game, so a lot of spells are being switched to new schools and do not use negative energy.

And...no one is playing a necromancer.

And I have to disagree with you somewhat. The games I remember from 2e, a system with less rules, were more freeform and more player-oriented than 3e. I may love 3e, but so many actions are detailed that it hobbled both player and GM.

I have done a few things to solve this problem, but it does remain a problem.