Player Complaints About Pre-Gens

[airwalkrr]

Players are spoiled brats these days. No getting around it. It drives me crazy. After playing in the Worldwide D&D Gameday, I was quite appalled at the number of players wanting to alter the pregenerated characters. Were the characters optimized? No. Did they get the job done and fulfill their primary roles in the party? Yes. So what is the big deal?

The player of the cleric kept complaining throughout the whole adventure that his character would be useful if only he could have prepared spells from the Spell Compendium instead. The wizard player was distraught that his character's only offensive spell was magic missile. The ranger player kept commenting on how poorly designed the character was and how much better of an archer he could have designed. Seriously, when did D&D become a game based on character optimization?

Players these days think their characters have to be the and they must eliminate any potential Achilles' heels or otherwise they complain they aren't having fun. I played a pretty sub-optimal rogue in an adventure that hardly had a single opponent for me to sneak attack, no traps to find or disarm, and a door with a lock that swung open when I tried to pick the lock (probably DM fiat but nevertheless). And you know, I think I had more fun than the other four players combined. Except for the fighter, I was probably the only one who didn't spend the game whining about how ineffective my character was. On top of that, my character is the only one who died and I still had a good time. We beat the monster at the end and won the day. Why did they have to complain the whole time?

What is wrong with players today? Why do they think they deserve to use the Spell Compendium, the Complete Arcane, and the Draconomicon to build the most optimized, ass-kicking character ever devised by man? It's nothing but a big friggin' pissing contest and it ticks me off. People waste time worrying about making indestructable characters when they could just be playing the game and enjoying it. The core rules have lots of options to create fun and interesting characters yet players always moan and complain about how weak and ineffective their characters are when limited to core rules. I really am getting sick of 3rd edition and all its so-called options that really just serve as fuel for the fire of whiners and complainers. I played the game back when we didn't even have feats or skill points or prestige classes or even decent multiclassing options and I still liked the game just fine back then. In fact, I am getting closer to deciding to run 1e again just so I don't have to listen to players moan when I don't allow the latest 3rd edition supplement.

I always thought D&D was supposed to be about getting together and having fun with your buddies. I didn't ever think it was about competing with others to make the biggest and baddest character or having the uber cool maneuver that makes your PC rule. I thought it was supposed to be about the players, not the characters. Am I out of touch with the players of today or are they out of touch with me?

 

[delericho]

After playing in the Worldwide D&D Gameday, I was quite appalled at the number of players wanting to alter the pregenerated characters. Were the characters optimized? No. Did they get the job done and fulfill their primary roles in the party? Yes.

You sure about that last? After all...

I played a pretty sub-optimal rogue in an adventure that hardly had a single opponent for me to sneak attack, no traps to find or disarm, and a door with a lock that swung open when I tried to pick the lock (probably DM fiat but nevertheless).

That's not really fulfilling your primary role, is it?

The thing is, the PreGens I have seen just weren't very good. The Paladin should not have had 10 Charisma, and the Rogue needed more to do. Plus, if the Wizard's only offensive spell was really Magic Missile, that would seem to be a problem too.

That said, I have a whole lot of sympathy with the rest of your position. Especially when I hear similar complaints levelled against the 20th level characters designed for the Delve, where one of the design goals was specifically to make them simple to run from the sheet, which meant that some choices made were deliberately sub-optimal.

Seriously, when did D&D become a game based on character optimization?

1985, Unearthed Arcana

What is wrong with players today? Why do they think they deserve to use the Spell Compendium, the Complete Arcane, and the Draconomicon to build the most optimized, ass-kicking character ever devised by man?

Part of it is that we now live in a culture of entitlement, where if you can't have X, Y and Z then something's out of joint and it's appropriate to moan and whine until you get your way. Part of it is that 3rd Edition is a game that rewards effort put in to mastering it's tricks. So, having put in that effort, people feel (with some justification IMO) that they should be allowed to reap the rewards.

However, that really shouldn't apply for a one-shot game designed to showcase D&D for those who have not played before. I suspect that the players you had to deal with just didn't 'get it'.

I played the game back when we didn't even have feats or skill points or prestige classes or even decent multiclassing options and I still liked the game just fine back then.

Me too. And I'll say this: the engine behind the game now is significantly better than anything we had previously. The problem is the players, not the game. So, switching to 1st Edition won't (directly) help you - you would do better to just weed out those players whose style you don't mesh with. Do that, and 3rd Edition should work just fine for you.

I always thought D&D was supposed to be about getting together and having fun with your buddies. I thought it was supposed to be about the players, not the characters.

That's what it should be. Sadly, the reality is that many people don't realise that "no, you can't" doesn't always reduce fun, and "yes, you can" doesn't always increase it. So, very often, they find themselves working against their own fun.

But don't try to 'fix' it. Might as well try to change the whole of our society.

 

[Nifft]

I always thought D&D was supposed to be about getting together and having fun with your buddies.

Therein lies the rub. Were these people your buddies? It sounds like they were random strangers.

There's a level of trust necessary to show weakness. In the eyes of these people, sub-optimal PC = a weakness. Therefore, they sought to cover it up (with whining).

Were you older or otherwise more mature than them?

Cheers, -- N

 

[EyeontheMountain]

Different Strokes for different folks.

Some people like different parts of the game. Me, I love tactical combat and movement, and I get really irate when a DM just handwaves combt, or summarizes multiple rounds of combat to make the game flow smoother. It really drives me nuts.

On the other hand, I have a definite line when making characters. I want them to be good, but there are tons of optimizing tricks that you will never catch me pulling. It's jsut a line I am not willing to step across. Players who do so (easy to do as the line is not well defined) bug me.

After seeing the pregens, running any of them as made would bug me. They are not only sub-optimal, not newbie-made (not trying to be offensive) but deliberately sub-par. A pretty good player went through and made sure none could outshine the otehrs well, and I can acceptthat, but playing one untweaked would bother me. All I would want to do is change a ew feat choices, maybe an ability score allocation or two, a couple of skill ranks and I would be happy. I don't think it is too much.

I would especially hate to fail in the adventure because of a pre-gen charaacter.

But on the other hand, if there wre beginners at the table, I would swallow all that and play and have fun. EVen experienced players who were happy not tweakingthem.

But if I am with experienced players who would prefer a bit of tweaking, why should I live with the pregens?

 

[Psychic Warrior]

The player of the cleric kept complaining throughout the whole adventure that his character would be useful if only he could have prepared spells from the Spell Compendium instead. The wizard player was distraught that his character's only offensive spell was magic missile. The ranger player kept commenting on how poorly designed the character was and how much better of an archer he could have designed. Seriously, when did D&D become a game based on character optimization?

Ummmm right about the time that OD&D (1974) was published? I think that was when it happened. Yup right about then.

So yes - you've been out of touch for quite a while.

 

[Mark CMG]

In games where pregenerated characters are involved I try to make sure the players, especially the veterans, know that the challenge isn't about what they would do in what they think would be an optimal situation with their ideal character but rather what they must do given the circumstances and the resources presented, even if it seems less than adequate for the adventure. While the characters in this case might have been unintentionally subpar, I try to remind players that despite the adversity, there is still a task at hand to accomplish that will be more difficult if too much time elapses before it is tackled.

 

[schporto]

Its not so much that the pregens were suboptimal, but that they were, well, not fun.
Look the point from gameday (by my understanding) wasn't to start a new roleplaying campaign based on the elaborate backstory (not provided) of these characters. It was to play through a dungeon as a newbie and have fun, or for older players to celebrate. I think the pregens got in the way of this. Who really wants to shoot their friend? That ranger does that's who. Who wants to make sure you get only half of your cool abilites? The paladin.
Using the spell compendium, complete arcane, Tomb of Ultimate But Kicking of Legendary Doom would definately make the character more fun for a jaded player, but not for a newbie.
My complaint was they should've all had a CLW potion.
Now you are right though, have fun and stop complaining. At the end of the game the folks at my table started whining "oh he should've done this", to whit I said - shut it, Did you have fun? Yeah? Then huzzah! (well, I said it more nicely then that)
I was just excited that I got to play.
-cpd

 

[FunkBGR]

I ran the Delve on Gameday, and I had three camps of people:

1) "20th level? Hellz yeah! Let's rock! Oh man! Awesome!"

2) "I've never played 20th level before"

3) "Archmage without shape spell? Where's Gate? Why don't I have freedom of movement to negate their grapple? I could pwn this Dragon if I had picked spells. Don't play the ranger - they suck"

#1 was great, and #2 was easy to help out - ("Hey, you know you can shoot multiple times and move with Manyshot, right?") - but #3 was absolutely terrible. There were people who were trying to convince me to let them change it right there, and I had to just flat out tell them, "you're missing the point."

I still had fun though, and I still got a lot of kills.

 

[delericho]

Who really wants to shoot their friend? That ranger does that's who.

How's that then?

Even without the Precise Shot feat, there's no chance of a missed shot hitting an ally. Firing into melee only applies a -4 penalty to hit.

Now, if your comrade is standing directly between you and your target, then your ally gives the target cover (which is a +4 bonus to AC). In this case, a shot that misses by 4 or less instead hits the cover (your ally), if it is good enough to beat his AC (and there's some special case regarding Dex as well, which I would need to look up to be sure of).

Edit: having checked the SRD, I can't find the rule about hitting cover. I suspect it, too, may have been deleted in the move to 3.5e. The rest of the post is fine, though.

But the Precise Shot feat doesn't help with this situation - you need Improved Precise Shot for that.

(There's also some technicality regarding attacking into a Grapple, or at least there was in 3.0 - I have a feeling it may have been removed in 3.5. However, like the rest of the Grapple rules, I would have to look it up, as I don't have the rule memorised.)

 

[schporto]

How's that then?

Even without the Precise Shot feat, there's no chance of a missed shot hitting an ally. Firing into melee only applies a -4 penalty to hit.

Now, if your comrade is standing directly between you and your target, then your ally gives the target cover (which is a +4 bonus to AC). In this case, a shot that misses by 4 or less instead hits the cover (your ally), if it is good enough to beat his AC (and there's some special case regarding Dex as well, which I would need to look up to be sure of).

Edit: having checked the SRD, I can't find the rule about hitting cover. I suspect it, too, may have been deleted in the move to 3.5e. The rest of the post is fine, though.

But the Precise Shot feat doesn't help with this situation - you need Improved Precise Shot for that.

(There's also some technicality regarding attacking into a Grapple, or at least there was in 3.0 - I have a feeling it may have been removed in 3.5. However, like the rest of the Grapple rules, I would have to look it up, as I don't have the rule memorised.)

Huh. I thought it did. Yeah I can go home early I learned my 1 thing for the day!
The DM we had did run it that missing meant hitting cover. The paladin had I think 2 arrows hit him.
I know the part about shooting into grapple is still there though.