Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steel_Wind" data-source="post: 3751901" data-attributes="member: 20741">Hmm... I'd have to say that I don't think so to the first part of your suggestion. While there ARE some issues in relation to the preferred power level (two of my players like high powered, the other four have no real preference) I think the main difficulty here was a confluence of events, as stated:1 - burnout from running the same Adventure Path module series for two years;2- the Adventure Paths are very much written for the RAW. That is not a bad thing, but it does mean that the power level and magic items in the campaign accept and assume all of the campaign assumptions in the RAW. Accordingly, it's exceedingly high powered and video gamey as it progresses.3 - The RAW, for all of the reasons mentioned in my OP.I don't want to knock Paizo on the quality of their work. I don't mean to suggest they've done anything wrong. They've written for the game system on an "as is" basis quite well.The problem is simpler than that: I can now conclude that D&D 3.5 RAW, as is, is not something I am able to tolerate on a longterm basis.  If I change the campaign assumptions and alter the RAW, it's better.  But pure RAW? No and hell no.The concept of the past campaign was to experiment with the game as a pure RAW, anything goes campaign.  As the campaign progressed, combined with the style I started to adopt as the AoW unfolded (which is not the players' fault - that's MY fault) , I found myself increasingly running not an RPG - but a tabletop wargame which had become all about the Rules, as opposed to being about the characters or about the story.And that's just not a game I want to run; I don't think it's a game anybody wants to run or play in, particularly.</blockquote>

Verification