Flavorless 3e- Advantage- players

[Belen]

Again, I think you basically are at a loss when it comes to describing these effects or putting them into context if you think that they have no narrative quality.

This is a heroic game. The players are meant to get better, or atleast have more options. Its not 'easy' because the challenges they face also increase. The flavor arises from the contrast of how the game played at low levels and how it does at high...that sense of advancement, not from beating the players down with some penalty at any given action and basically keeping them in a morass throughout the game. That gets old real quick and doesn't make for an interesting game rules wise either. You have a very simplistic notion of how rules intereact to create flavor. I'll interpret this as a lack of dm skill.

Wow...condescending 101....

Not once did I ever advocate having players slog it through the mud all the time. However, it is fun to use such things as a character or story building concept.

The challenges do not really increase either. More HD and more damage, maybe, heck, better tactics too, but high level abilities in 3e tend to be about numbers alone. Describe it to your heart's content, but there is still no meaning.

However, selective use of "penalties" can make a game really meaningful. No, you do not do it ALL the time, but you can do it some of the time for cool adventure hooks.

You must have been burned in the past by "penalties." Understandable.

Alluding to a lack of GM skill in a game you've never played is highly presumtuous, or maybe it is easier to act like a jerk when you do not have to face someone.

 

[Piratecat]

You have a very simplistic notion of how rules intereact to create flavor. I'll interpret this as a lack of dm skill.

Adding a smiley doesn't mitigate insults. I'm pretty sure that you can state your opinion without being incredibly rude. I'd appreciate it if you'd make an effort to do so.

 

[Umbran]

Not at all. I am saying that everything should not be designed to be easy.

Don't overstate the case. Not everything is designed to be easy. If it were, all monsters would do 1d2 damage. Nobody who has fought a properly played dragon or band of crafty kobolds, or a properly run meat-grinder like RtToEE thinks everything is designed to be easy.

I cannot speak to the general case, but I can speak a little bit to the specific case of the negative energy rule you had...

These days, folks like "balance". In this case, the term means that if you pay a price, you get an advantage for it - players don't mind if a thing is difficult, so long as it is worth the trouble. In 3.X, a goodly attempt was made to make all spells roughly equal in potency, in some rough sense. You've now layered on top of that a disadvantage to necromancy, with no additional payoff. So, of course folks will gripe.

In addition, players hate mind control, or that which removes free will. And rightfully so. PCs have to abide by rules of the game. Control of the universe and the threats sits entirely with the GM. The one thing the player has undisputed control over is the mind, psychology, and choices of their character. They can handle temporary infingement (like Fear effects). Sometimes things like Charms are even acceptable for a while. But permanent personality changes like Helms of Opposite Alignment, or your negative energy rule, are generally bad mojo. Very few people are happy about being told that the personality they've worked long and hard on developing will be washed away, and replaced with one of the DM's choosing.

 

[francisca]

Because players are not DMs. They don't understand the whole creative process of the D&D. Players who don't have DMing experience are used to being spoon fed. Some players tend to think that the DM's job is to give a hard time to the PCs. So they see the new rules as some kind of punishment, and won't put up with it.

Wow, I hope that isn't s summary of your experience as a DM. If I had players like that, I'd probably quit DMing them and find someone else to play with. Then again, maybe I'm just lucky.


My expectations, as a DM:
I don't expect my players to be as gung-ho as I am about the game, and that's fine.

I do expect them to use their imagination, and go along with house rules that make sense in the context of the game we collectivley play.

I also expect them to help me flesh out any organizations they belong to (thieve's guilds, monestaries, druid orders, etc..). This works well for two reasons: They usuaully get what they want out of such organizations, and they get to take part in the creative process and feel a sense of ownership in the game.

I almost always run rule changes/additions by them and fine tune them before implementing them.

I do not railroad or purposely screw my players over with new, obscure, or re-interpreted rules.

Having said all of that, of course there are disagreements. As long as we agree to disagree and PCs/NPCs/monsters are treated in the same regard we have always agreed to disagree and not let it interfere with gaming.

 

[francisca]

i agree. players have more options now as dictated by what rules are found in what books. but what you should remember....the DMG is a DM book.

Well said. And that's why I got really annoyed when I read in the 3.5 PHB which page number in the DMG lists the cost of the magic items.

 

[Belen]

Don't overstate the case. Not everything is designed to be easy. If it were, all monsters would do 1d2 damage. Nobody who has fought a properly played dragon or band of crafty kobolds, or a properly run meat-grinder like RtToEE thinks everything is designed to be easy.

I cannot speak to the general case, but I can speak a little bit to the specific case of the negative energy rule you had...

These days, folks like "balance". In this case, the term means that if you pay a price, you get an advantage for it - players don't mind if a thing is difficult, so long as it is worth the trouble. In 3.X, a goodly attempt was made to make all spells roughly equal in potency, in some rough sense. You've now layered on top of that a disadvantage to necromancy, with no additional payoff. So, of course folks will gripe.

In addition, players hate mind control, or that which removes free will. And rightfully so. PCs have to abide by rules of the game. Control of the universe and the threats sits entirely with the GM. The one thing the player has undisputed control over is the mind, psychology, and choices of their character. They can handle temporary infingement (like Fear effects). Sometimes things like Charms are even acceptable for a while. But permanent personality changes like Helms of Opposite Alignment, or your negative energy rule, are generally bad mojo. Very few people are happy about being told that the personality they've worked long and hard on developing will be washed away, and replaced with one of the DM's choosing.

I agree with you. Here is a part of my response to one of my players concerns.

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. 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.

 

[S'mon]

I think I have to go with you on that one. In the new world I'm doing average Warriors start at about 5th level.

As a Gygaxian purist I used to hate this notion - PCs should be special! Even 1st level ones!
But really, 3e is so built around videogame paradigms that it suffers when those paradigms _aren't_ adhered to. In pretty much any MUD, persistent online world, or such, the NPC city guards are damn tough - they need to be or players will casually slaughter them. I increasingly think that gritty low-fantasy is actually much _better_ served by having powerful NPCs - like the Hell Hounds in the Thieves' World series - who are individually competent. I like old James Bond movies where Bond battles a single tough-nut Soviet trooper, or Conan stories where he battles a couple of city guardsmen. I'm a bit jaded on hero-slaughters-10,000-anime-mooks - and 3e's combat system really doesn't support such battles anyway, it's geared very much around small groups of comparably powerful combatants. I'm starting to think 3e-world works better if city guards are named individuals with the stats of say 5th level warriors than if they're encountered as platoons of 30 level-0ers with 4hp each.

 

[Belen]

Balance

Ugh, balance. I was a huge fan of that a few months ago. I still believe that balancing out character classes is a cool way to go.

However, I noticed that the designers love balance, but then never really adhere to it. Just look at the number of PrCs that give benefits with no real detriments. Same goes for certain feats.

You have to wade through a lot of mess these days.

 

[Crothian]

Well, what's balanced in my game, might not be in yours and vice versa.

 

[WizarDru]

If I had a reason to contest the Taint option, it would mostly be because it's so nebulous. As written, it's not clear how it works. Does it affect all necromancy spells? That would make Death Ward a real problem, and that's a very necessary spell at higher levels. Spells like Slay Living (one of the few cleric direct offensive spells) and Finger of Death (a wizard/sorc staple).

You've basically put an opportunity cost on a lot of the cleric's offensive spells, which he has few of, and introduced a whole bunch of odd effects with things like Gentle Repose, Astral Projection and other spells that now taint you. While at the same time, summoning things like a shadow doesn't appear to give you any taint at all, which is a little odd, too.

Perhaps some clarification might make it easier. both of the changes, while interesting, certainly seem to penalize the spellcasters and reward the melee characters. This may be why they're giving you some resistance.

The changes themselves seem fine.

I didn't notice if you mentioned...are these mid-campaign or at the start?