Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 6157084" data-attributes="member: 3887">Here's my fool-proof (so far!) way of avoiding ridiculous PC buillds...#1 - Game in a high-trust environment, ie game with people you like &amp; trust who are all invested in keeping the campaign running smoothly and can talk out disagreements (perhaps easier said than done, but I've been lucky...). #2 - Let the players build what they want. For example, I'm currently running Pathfinder, and I allowed all 1-st party materials currently online (<a href="http://www.d20pfsrd.com/" target="_blank">here</a>). The only reason I even have this limitation is I don't own any of the physical books, so I need to be able to reference the rule Frankly, I don't see why you'd use a complex system like 3e/Pathfinder in the first place if you intend to seriously restrict build options. Those build options are the system's biggest selling point. It's like cooking the hell out of sushi-grade tuna, ie counter-productive. #3 - If and when a problem PC develops, deal with it. Talk it over w/the player, adjust the build, maybe even ask the group for help designing opponents to challenge it (without squashing the other PCs). I'm a huge fan of solving problems as the occur in a campaign. This saves me the time and effort required to read the 1000s of pages of rules found in contemporary rules-heavy systems. Plus, not every build or option is broken for every player or DM. A problem for one group is perfectly fine for another. I'd rather not waste my time with idle speculation and designing solutions to problems which might never crop up. It's much better to have the right social systems in place so you can solve the real problems when you really encounter them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mallus, post: 6157084, member: 3887"] Here's my fool-proof (so far!) way of avoiding ridiculous PC buillds... #1 - Game in a high-trust environment, ie game with people you like & trust who are all invested in keeping the campaign running smoothly and can talk out disagreements (perhaps easier said than done, but I've been lucky...). #2 - Let the players build what they want. For example, I'm currently running Pathfinder, and I allowed all 1-st party materials currently online ([url="http://www.d20pfsrd.com/"]here[/url]). The only reason I even have this limitation is I don't own any of the physical books, so I need to be able to reference the rule Frankly, I don't see why you'd use a complex system like 3e/Pathfinder in the first place if you intend to seriously restrict build options. Those build options are the system's biggest selling point. It's like cooking the hell out of sushi-grade tuna, ie counter-productive. #3 - If and when a problem PC develops, deal with it. Talk it over w/the player, adjust the build, maybe even ask the group for help designing opponents to challenge it (without squashing the other PCs). I'm a huge fan of solving problems as the occur in a campaign. This saves me the time and effort required to read the 1000s of pages of rules found in contemporary rules-heavy systems. Plus, not every build or option is broken for every player or DM. A problem for one group is perfectly fine for another. I'd rather not waste my time with idle speculation and designing solutions to problems which might never crop up. It's much better to have the right social systems in place so you can solve the real problems when you really encounter them. [/QUOTE]

Verification