Is there really a push to use everything you have?

[Glyfair]

Recently I've noticed more and more posts complaining about D&D 3.X. One of the main themes is that there are too many options (which I think is one of the strengths of it). They want to go to something with fewer choices because its easier to handle.

Yet, these same people say they loved 3.0 when it came out. They liked the options, but there are too many right now.

Isn't this a misplaced problem? Maybe the real problem is that players (including the DM in that term) feel they have to use everything they own. If you feel overwhelmed, why not just use the core books. You could even use a few choice other books if it felt right.

Here is my first suggestion for those who feel there are too many choice. Go to a "Core Only" campaign. Allow the PHB & DMG (the DM can use whatever monster books he chooses) only as a base.

Then, like most earlier D&D editions, allow customization. Allow custom classes, spells, magic items, etc. They can even be custom things from existing books. However, the catch is they have to meet the same criteria as house rules used to, they must go through the DM first. If the DM has a minor problem with it, they player & DM sit down and discuss it, tweaking as necessary. Is that so different from the games that people are going to for "simplicity"?

Why all the hate for D&D for having so many choices when you don't have to use all the choices?

 

[Crothian]

Why all the hate for D&D for having so many choices when you don't have to use all the choices?

I don't get it either. It sounds like impatience or the fear that if the book is not used now, it never will. For me, each book is potential waiting for the right time. I don't force an option knowing it might not fit now but in 6 months or even 6 years; who knows?

 

[Varianor Abroad]

I can't speak for players. I think it's an occasional nuisance to have this notion rattling around in your brain and you can't remember what book out of the hundred on your shelf and another fifty pdfs on your computer that it's from. That said, no I don't feel obligated to use everything I have, or even a signficant percent.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Recently I've noticed more and more posts complaining about D&D 3.X. One of the main themes is that there are too many options (which I think is one of the strengths of it). They want to go to something with fewer choices because its easier to handle.

Yet, these same people say they loved 3.0 when it came out. They liked the options, but there are too many right now.

Isn't this a misplaced problem? Maybe the real problem is that players (including the DM in that term) feel they have to use everything they own. If you feel overwhelmed, why not just use the core books. You could even use a few choice other books if it felt right.

Here is my first suggestion for those who feel there are too many choice. Go to a "Core Only" campaign. Allow the PHB & DMG (the DM can use whatever monster books he chooses) only as a base.

Then, like most earlier D&D editions, allow customization. Allow custom classes, spells, magic items, etc. They can even be custom things from existing books. However, the catch is they have to meet the same criteria as house rules used to, they must go through the DM first. If the DM has a minor problem with it, they player & DM sit down and discuss it, tweaking as necessary. Is that so different from the games that people are going to for "simplicity"?

Why all the hate for D&D for having so many choices when you don't have to use all the choices?

What? You're suggesting DMs use common sense? But that could get you flamed here for "diminishing options"! If this messageboard is any indications, DMs must roll over and allow anything in their campaign. (Where's the roll eyes icon? I'd love to use it here.)

Seriously, what you've said makes sense. I think the DM has to maintain the right to ban things that don't fit the campaign or have serious flavor issues. If the DM were to, for instance, ban monks, I don't think the player should draw up something that has 80% of its abilities and 80% of its flavor and expect it to be allowed in the game.

My new gaming group plays in Iron Kingdoms. The DM says he'll allow core stuff and Iron Kingdoms stuff. So far it hasn't caused any complaints. I guess my group must be unusual and "Communist" or something.

 

[scourger]

I restricted the players to the PHB in my 3.0 game. I learned to stick to the core in 2e. There was still a complaint over a piece of equipment from the DMG that was not allowed. I still prefer d20 to the prior incarnations of the game, but it just gets too complicated as the levels increase. By about 6th level, the spells & items for the foes are just too much for me to run easily. Just tracking all those hit points (particularly if there is more than 1 foe) gets to be a lot of work. It's a lot of work to run a game, even from preprinted adventures. I think a large part of it is because it's the game we all cut our RPGing teeth on, and there are a lot of expectations built up over the years and decades. I'd like to get back to it, but I haven't figured out a good way, yet.

When pondering how to do it recently, I thought I might make a decent conversion of WFRP by allowing the 3 alternate classes from UA with the foes just being the explorers from Omega World since OW gives a great DM resource for quickly statting up NPCs through 10th level (fewer choices being the key). Chaos mutations could also come from OW with a 1d4d10 roll for any chaos magic effects. But, the players prefer to just play WFRP with the RAW, so it's still just in my mind.

 

[bento]

Then, like most earlier D&D editions, allow customization. Allow custom classes, spells, magic items, etc. They can even be custom things from existing books. However, the catch is they have to meet the same criteria as house rules used to, they must go through the DM first. If the DM has a minor problem with it, they player & DM sit down and discuss it, tweaking as necessary. Is that so different from the games that people are going to for "simplicity"?

I've limited by setting (Oriental Adventures) or by rule set (Core only) because I find newer players get blinded by all the options that are out there. They think they can create a character by picking out a cool looking picture in the Complete series, and end up stumbling over their boots the first time in combat.

I also have to read everything they read to know how to adjudicate properly. Everytime someone walked in with a new book ("Magic of Incarnum" anyone?) I was groaning because they want to use it NOW and I've only read what I've seen here or on the WoTC site.

I've switched to True20 for the simplification reason, and I think it helps players get out of the box of thinking "class" equaled "character." By limiting the focus on a set number of classes (three) and feats, they are forced to look at what their character can and can't do, rather than blindly pick a class and cross their fingers they'll like their class abilities as the game progresses.

In the OA game I just restarted, one of my players always wanted to be a Kitsune. Between the two of us, we were able to craft the Kitsune race with the True20 rules. He's happy because he's got a character with all the qualities he wants to play, and I know how to challenge him.

Now both he and I know what he can do and where he's wanting to take his character. We're both invested and our gaming experience improves because of it.

 

[Archade]

The hardest part isn't limiting choices, it's limiting choices after you've offered an open playing field.

When there were only 5 books out, I said everything WOTC is good. Now, with multiple-odd books, it's hard to say "now I'm going to limit things) in the same campaign ...

That being said, if I were to start over, I'd put together a list of limited choices ...

 

[Odhanan]

I don't get it either. It sounds like impatience or the fear that if the book is not used now, it never will. For me, each book is potential waiting for the right time. I don't force an option knowing it might not fit now but in 6 months or even 6 years; who knows?

Ditto. I think it may stem from the ego of the Dm, personally. The DM "ought to know the rules better than the PCs after all". It seems really hard to say "I don't know that rule, and don't care for it" and harder to say "doesn't matter if it's WotC or you're mad I don't know it, it's that or you don't play". What's so hard about it? What's so hard for players to recognize it and just play without the freaking option they wanted? If the fun of the game is at stake? There could be so much more...

 

[DestroyYouAlot]

I think I'm lucky in this respect; everyone in my group started in a previous edition (from OD&D to 2e), and they're used to having a more limited palette to choose from. In my campaigns (and I firmly believe this should go without saying, in any campaign), the options are those that I offer, end of sentence. I'm not averse to including something if it's presented to me ahead of time and it meets my approval, but at this point it consists of: Core 3e books (duh), the original 3e character option books, most 3e Forgotten Realms products (i.e., those that I happen to own), the Legends and Lairs Dungeoncraft book (excellent, but not much for players here), and Torn Asunder from Bastion Press (an excellent expanded critical hilts/fumbles/called shot system; again, not much for players).

That said, even the material listed above, outside of the PHB, is subject to individual approval - prestige classes in particular. Again, my players are pretty well-trained and don't just expect to be able to take a prestige class without prior approval from me. And when it comes to monsters and NPCs, it's rare for me to take anything outside of the Core set, maybe with the FR campaign setting thrown in. Two reasons for that: a) when I'm working on my campaign I'm usually at work, and there's a limit to what I can fit in my backpack, and b) it's just unnecessary. Unless it's a major encounter (a "boss") or a recurring NPC, it's a lot of work for sword fodder that I'm gonna use once, unless it's a "foot soldier"-type that I can use multiple copies of.

That's how I roll, anyways.

 

[Graybeard]

I limited my players to Humans only to start due to the homebrew campaign world I'm running. Other things like classes are restricted to PHB unless they get my ok. I'll okay most things but I told all my players I wanted to review anything first. As for feeling obligated to use everything I own, no I don't. I'll use bits and pieces from a book here and there or a PDF here and there. Some things in some PDFs and books I might use later in the campaign but not now. My players will be allowed to choose different races, etc. ifor future charatcers but not until the group encounters the race in the game.

One of my players wanted to play a Paladin but it didn't fit into my world so I made a Divine Champion prestige class that my player was happy with and will be taking next level.