Maybe a new setting is what I need to enable me to enjoy 3e more.

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I've been running a Greyhawk game since we started 3e. I have been enjoying the game less and less as we have went along, getting to the point now where I am planning on switching the game back to an older edition after the adventure is over. Maybe the problem is that I don't think Greyhawk is modeled very well with the 3e rules set? I've got to argue with my players over why I don't want dwarven arcane magic users, half orc Paladins, sorcerers at all, and other race/class combos. Why I want to slow down advancement to make high levels really mean high levels. Maybe I need to make a fresh break from Oerth and start running a setting that was designed for 3e? I've been intrigued by the Scarred Lands, but I don't want to have to invest in 3-4 more hardcover books and various softcover suppliments to get something out of it. Is that the case? Are there any other settings that I should be investigating? I love Oerth more than any other setting, but I know my players want to play 3e for...well what I call powergaming reasons. They want more Kewl Powerz! But I don't think Oerth has the same flavor and feel under the new rules and Gazetter and I don't want to bastardized it into a Forgotten Realms pt2.

 

[EricNoah]

If your job is to make them happy, then possibly a switch in setting is in order.

If their job is to make you happy, then possibly they should just accept the fact that just because 3E has rules for 1000 things doesn't mean that the players will be allowed to choose from those 1000 things.

If it's possible for both of you to get some (but not all) of what you want, you may also have to decide what you can live without. For instance, maybe they'll be content with fewer PC options as long as the XP stream flows about the same as core 3E. Or maybe they'd be willing to take fewer XP and level up more slowly if they can have more choices re: feats,spells, etc.

Similarly you'll have to decide -- is D&D even D&D to you if it's not Greyhawk? What would you be willing to give up in order to keep it in Greyhawk? Or under what conditions would you be willing to do something other than Greyhawk?

I'm sure I've said nothing that you haven't already considered...

 

[ForceUser]

Actually, it just sounds like 3E's not your cuppa. If you don't like dwarven wizards, elven monks and gnome barbarians, then you are certainly not in the 3E mindset. Understand, Oerth is 3E all the way - all the core rulebooks were written with Greyhawk firmly in mind. It is the yardstick against which other settings are measured. It shouldn't take a new setting for you to allow creative character concepts in your campaign, but if you want to try one anyway, I'd give Scarred Lands a shot. The feel is quite different from Greyhawk. There are, of course, a host of other great d20 settings, but I haven't played them so can't recommend them. Have you considered Hackmaster?

 

[GILGAMESH]

SCARRED LANDS!!!!

You want and awesome setting. Very detailed and flexable!! Jump away from the old hodge podge!!!!!! Sword and Sorcery's Scarred Lands setting is outstanding!!!! And too the nay sayers, you won't knock it after you try it!!!! That's my opinion!!!

 

[JeffB]

I understand Flexor...I don't think GH ports well to 3E whether it's offical or not.

That being said, WOTC has really turned the Realms around. They have fixed alot of the "problems" that many people had with the setting in the last 6 or 7 years of it's life under 2E rules. I can't say that I like EVERYTHING they did...but IMO it's an improvement to the majority of the 2E era (my personal fave "generation" of the Realms is prior to 2E, but that's me).

And yes Scarred Lands is cool, I've bought a few items in the past, and even thought of running a campaign..but eventually sold it..I simply did not like having references to 5 other books for monsters, and gods, and PRclasses, and..etc. Points for FR as all supplements aren't referenced (other than the Monsters of Faerun, and even when they do reference those monsters, they give substitutes for those who might not have it).

Kalamr would be my first choice..it's a bit lower magic than either GH or FR but is rich in detail.

AGain though, your problem is that these are ALL deisgned around 3E/D20...so you will see Dwarven monks, and half-orc sorcerors and all that "3E attitude" stuff.

Don't feel bad about switching systems though..if everyone agrees go for it...

Personally I feel much the same way you do about some of the wierd race/class combos...

But after getting earthdawn, I got a new appreciation for SOME of the wierd race and class combos...Earthdawn does a very good job of making "monster" races interesting, and showed me a new perspective..ANd I like the ED (2E) rules better than 3E, so I'd just run that instead of D20...But that game made me see some of the "wierd" stuff in a better light...Dwarves, Elves, Trolls, Orks, etc....

You might also looking into running something VERY different...but that is D20...CoC, StarWars, Wheel of Time (where PC's are almost all human, and the one "monster" race is very cool)...Or a D20 Supers or Pulp game..these things often re-vitalize and re-fresh ones imagination..Then you might come back to 3E with a different perspective...

3E is a love-hate affair for me, so I understand.. I wouldn't mind playing, but I always DM and I don't really care for running the game...My group plays many different systems (including older versions of D&D), so that we all don't get "bored" with D&D...

Take a break, get a new perspective...

Or get new players

 

[Falcmir]

Umm, I thought the point of 3ed allowing all classes for everyone wasnt that was the way things were in all campaigns they were just leaving those restriction up to the DM. So if you want to run Greyhawk without Elven Monks and Dwarven Sorcerors you are free to do so and that is as much a true d&d game as anyones that includes them. If your players want a rules quote show them rule 0 or any of a hundred other places in the book where it allows the DM to make changes to the way it's presented.

 

[Buttercup]

Make whatever restrictions you like. The 3E rules provide all the options, but you can ignore some of them. Heck, in my game the only playable race is human.

Even with experience, it's all up to you. If you want the characters to advance more slowly, then give them .5 of the xp recommended.

Rule zero, my friend. Rule zero.

 

[MerricB]

Greyhawk works just fine with 3E, thank you very much.

The problem with Greyhawk is that there over 1000 versions out there, all different. You have the Greyhawk that was run by Gygax & Kuntz, you have the published Greyhawk of Gygax, you have the module releases by TSR UK, you have the later Greyhawk releases of the 2E/RPGA age (which are generally pathetic). You have the first Greyhawk renaissance (Greyhawk Wars), you have the second Greyhawk renaissance (Return of the Eight), you have the third Greyhawk renaissance (Living Greyhawk).

Then you have the personal takes of every DM who's ever run a Greyhawk game.

In my Greyhawk, I have had a Dwarven Druid. I have had a Half-Dragon Paladin/Sorcerer. Both of these were unthinkable under the 1E rules.

There was a very narrow view of what players should be allowed to do during the 1E days. It's easy to impose this on the 3E rules - but if your players don't want it imposed, then you've got to ask yourself if you're running the type of game they want to play?

Cheers!

 

[JeffB]

Greyhawk works just fine with 3E, thank you very much.
Cheers!

Your opinion of course...I'll stick to mine

I like all incarnations of GH from Gygax to Sargent to Roger Moore. No offense to Erik Mona (cause he's done a hell of a good job with the constraints of writing with LGH in mind and dealing with the new rules) but I feel Roger's writing made GH much more appealing than Erik's.

AFAIC GH simply got the treatment that FR did in the 1e to 2e switch....which is "disregard the themes and history of the setting to reflect the new rules".....which IMO regardless of setting or game system is a bogus approach.

 

[jgbrowning]

yep

AFAIC GH simply got the treatment that FR did in the 1e to 2e switch....which is "disregard the themes and history of the setting to reflect the new rules".....which IMO regardless of setting or game system is a bogus approach.

have to agree with you. i think it would have been much more appropriate to have forgotten realms be the generic setting as opposed to greyhawk.

the power levels in greyhawk are much lower and the new rules dont reflect that.

joe b.