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

[Henry]

...Understand, Oerth is 3E all the way - all the core rulebooks were written with Greyhawk firmly in mind.

Actually, Forceuser, I would debate that it's the other way around - Greyhawk was RE-written with 3E in mind. Many snippets from various former WotC designers (Monte Cook and Sean Reynolds, for two) over the past year or so have intimated that this was the case.

Flexor, I think 3E's various options may surprise you if you give them a chance. I know that D&D may not feel like "D&D" to you with spellcasting dwarves, gnome paladins with small noses, and Mind Flayer Rangers, but I can say that the rules work together surprisingly well.

Even if you do not wish to go into full-bore 3E, there is always "D&D 2.5" - which is what it sounds like you are doing now, more or less.

Perhaps the best bet is to create a setting all your own! Crib some good parts from Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms, and create your own world where things will be happiest for you creatively speaking. It isn't Greyhawk, it's not a published setting, it's one to call your own, and muck about as you please, without getting they feeling that you are "selling out Greyhawk" with a bunch of rules that didn't exist before the world did.

 

[widderslainte]

"3rd Edition Mindset"?

I honestly don't get what the big deal is. I'm ecstatic that the ruleset eliminates some of the arbitrary rules, but it's not like allowing dwarven wizards took some great feat of game design.

Restricting choices because of the style of the campaign is good. Restricting choices you would otherwise want because of some arbitrary rule is bad. Dwarven wizards and half-orc paladins don't belong in every campaign, any more than kender and Elminster do. I allowed demihuman clerics and dropped demi-human level limits years ago andnever looked back.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Alas I lack the time to create my own game world. Too much work and other things that take priority. I'm torn between what I want to do, which is run a 1e style game(preferably with 1e rules) or what my players want to do which is have parties of dwarven half dragon paladin/druid/Templar/Spellswords in thier full 3e glory. I've always been a "traditionalist" in gaming like music but my players aren't.

 

[Voneth]

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.

I see some conflicting messages here. Perhaps the one point not covered is not that Greyhawk was rewritten to fit 3E, but that the original Greyhawk was written so that the arbitrary limits set in 1E made sense in that game world. So ironically you are now attributing this “gameworld” fluff to a world that probably would have been much different if 3e had been the 1e. That being said, however, I support your DM decision to limit races to certain classes for fictional cultures, that’s your prerogative for your gameworld. Make your “I don’t want to create a cliché character” roleplayer come up with a very good backstory on his unique creation (and make sure it has plenty of story hooks for later) That way the character is truly different, not just an excuse to access combinations of abilities you cut off with you race/class choices. On the other hand …

The feeling that people are “rising in classes” too fast, is purely a nostalgia thing from the old game mechanics, not a “gameworld” thing. Trust this from a fellow who is not a fan of the leveling system. I used to start off old DND games at higher levels so that I could maintain a consistent power level for a while because I am not a fan of the rags/riches and novice/master function that a lot of other people like about DND. (IMO, I like to start with competent PCs because I run a game of heroes, not newbies) and then I discovered other advancement systems I liked better. The new system starts off characters as more competent, I just happen to start them off at lower levels than I used (4th compared to the 7th I used to). And I assume also that a lot of these “kewl powers” are basically feats, right?

I am sort of surprised that the “king of B&P gaming” would be so worried about the “feel of a game world.” Dude, grab characters and do some collaterals damage. I suggest you look into Hackmaster! it basicly started as a spoof of 1E for 3E and then its popularity expanded into a cult classic in its own right. I think you should check it out instead of Scarred Lands. If you like 1E, once you see the covers to Hackmaster suppliments, you will be in love once again.

On the other hand, even the man himself, GG, approves of WotC's 3E DND because it brings DND back to its gaming roots (grrr! What is this c**p about storylines! It’s only a game, MY game! Grrr!) well, that and he and his sons can continue to make money off the game system he created without having to deal corporate c**p.

 

[tsadkiel]

Hmmm. Sounds to me like you need a setting which still maintains some of that good old Gygaxian feel, but doesn't have wizardly dwarves or anything else which snaps your disbelief suspenders. I think you need yto get away from dwarves altogether.

My suggestion? Dragonlords of Melnibone, believe it or not. While the book is somewhat flawed, I think it'll work well for your purposes. Moorcock was a huge influence on early D&D, after all, and you can't get more 1E feel than the old Dieties and Demigods illustrations of the Melnibonean pantheon. The racial mix is different, so there are no dwarves to be sorcerers. And there's only one book to buy.

Oathbound is great, if you liked Planescape. (I did, and I like Oathbound a lot. But it's not for everyone.)

And the Scarred Lands do suffer a bit from White Wolf's bad habit of referencing five other books in the span of three pages. Still some very good stuff there, and you can see that many people are quite attached to the setting. But again, it's not for everyone.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

A lot of people recommend Hackmaster, but why play HM if you still have your 1e books? As for the Elric suggestion. I'll consider that after I get around to reading some of the books. I've got a collection of them in a hardbound edition but I haven't had the time to read them.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

As for the leveling issue, I can't understand why there aren't epic level people all over the world. You get to 20th level awful fast unless you tone down the base experience chart from the DM's guide.

 

[apoptosis]

I think adding general racial class limitations/preferences can really flesh out your camapaign.

Conversely if someone has a good story reason to have an unusual (for your world) race/class then rule zeroing your own rule 0 can also be a good thing.

My world gnerally doesnt have elven or dwarven wizards. If a player wanted to play one i would allow it, but of course there are some side effects to it (both races inevitably go insane when they practice the art of wizardry...for players it would happen slowly and give some in game roleplaying as well).

apop

 

[mbaskett]

Leveling issue

Maybe you can describe your issue with leveling in more detail. If you are using the CR and XP guidelines as presented, it should take roughly 3-4 sessions to level. That's one year of weekly games to get to 12th level. That doesn't seem so unreasonable to me. My group has been playing 3ED since its release and we have yet to actually get a group to 12th starting from 1st. A number of things have limited the rise: character death or retirement, new campaigns, etc. Now if you're playing more than once a week, then you will obviously level up faster.

On the bigger topic, if it doesn't fit your style, then it doesn't fit your style, but my take on 3ED is that it's an inclusive system rather than an exclusive system. The game designers put together a system where dwarven wizards, gnome paladins, elven monks and plain old human fighters all fit together so there's doesn't have to be a question of game balance when someone houseruled "Ok, elves have clerics too" like in 1ED.

It is much less a question of game balance if you decide that in your game world there are no dwarven wizards. With the 3ED rules, it has become a simple question of game flavor.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Hey Flexor!

It takes two sides to have a game (unfortunately perhaps )--the DM and the players.

Given the above, I think some sort of compromise is in order--the trick is finding what is most important to everyone, and then finding some happy medium that grants each that which is most important.

From what you've said, I gather that maintaining a D&D campaign with a Greyhawk "feel" is of paramount importance to you--while having a venue for their "creativity" is what your players most desire.

Perhaps you could continue to run your campaign in Greyhawk, allowing all of the options that your players crave, but at an increased experience penalty for any race, class, or combination thereof that is not "normal" for Greyhawk.

For example, for every non-standard attribute a character might suffer an automatic 20% exp penalty (or perhaps 20% for the first, and an additional 10% for each additional).

Alternately, you could simply assign a flat 20% penalty for any non-standard character--in addition to any additional penalties normally accrued for multi-classing.

So, a Dwarven Ranger would have -20% to earned experience right off the bat; and, when rising above some level (say the max level given for a Fighter in AD&D) he would be assessed another 10-20% penalty.

An Elf could multi-class freely between Fighter, Wizard, and Thief (subject to the normal multi-classing restrictions), and would only suffer additional penalties when rising above certain levels in the respective classes.

If incorporating a type of level limit for Demi-Humans as outlined above, you should probably take away the Human's bonus feat and skill points--their strength would be the wealth of classes available to them, and their ability to gain levels without penalty.

The above would allow your players to portray truly exceptional characters, while still providing a rationale as to why these combinations and classes are not typical for their race--they're simply inefficient when compared to other pursuits.

BTW, ditch the whole favored class thing as well.

There are a lot of possible variations of the above.

Good luck deciding on a few that help you to keep the flavor of your campaign--without alienating your players