Several related questions

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

When I first started my most recent campaign, one of my decisions was this world has no orcs. Well of course one of the players wanted to play a half-orc ranger, so I asked him what he really wanted. He said he wanted his character to be really strong, gruff, but a good cook. I suggested he might want to play a half-ogre, and he ended up getting what he wanted, plus some!

I agree, and therefore my above 100% agreement is a little off. There are lots of things that I don't like, and therefore disallow, but I always work with my players if they really want some sort of replacement. Compromise is good.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let me also add that not liking part of a rules system paradigm is not the same thing as not understanding the rules. This is true no matter how long that paradigm has been in place, or what its antecedents were.

RC

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I'm of the opinion that I'll try pretty much anything... figure a DM running stuff they like is much better than a DM running my ideal game and hating every minute.

As for campaigns different from "normal", I'm a huge fan of clearly laying them out up front. Solves a load of problems that might surface?

Personally, I pitch my 'campaign vision' at the players before I start writing it. If they hate it, then I don't waste my time on it. Also gives a nice chance to slot their cool ideas into the designing phase...

Most recent campaign I'm playing in is PhB only - finding it's really good fun. Seems much 'flowier' and I don't feel I'm missing out on much. It's a very simple rule that way as well.


On the low magic, figure it's fine if the DMs thought it through properly?

The only time I've ever been really dissatisfied in one of those was when playing a fighter. And getting to sit on the sidelines - watching the (core) Cleric and Druid tear through opposition 20X better than I could.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Let me also add that not liking part of a rules system paradigm is not the same thing as not understanding the rules. This is true no matter how long that paradigm has been in place, or what its antecedents were.

:sigh:

Hence, I wrote, "The DM might not understand the game," not "The DM totally doesn't know what he's doing and is a meanyhead."

But you already knew that, didn't you?

 

[Raven Crowking]

But you already knew that, didn't you?

Of course. You, as I see it, were alerting the OP to potential problems. I was encouraging him to stay the course. They are not mutually exclusive. I didn't mean to imply that your post was an "all or nothing"; I meant to ensure that the OP understood that it was not an "all or nothing" situation.

RC

 

[Varianor Abroad]

No, no and no. You're on the right track. As long as you are fair and not arbitrary. (Making a final decision is not arbitrary when you've weighed the options and now you say "This is the way it is.")

That said, making allowances for what players want to play is a Really Cool DM Behavior. As bento mentions, finding out the core "desire" of the player may mean you reach more than a compromise by truly understanding the wants. You may still run up against a situation where you say "no". (I did that to a player who wanted to run a barbarian/wizard - but remain illiterate and not come up with some alternate means of having a spell-book equivalent. What he really meant was, "I want a wizard with 10' of extra movement.' That's what feats are for.)

To the comment that reducing treasure and magic isn't good DMing, who's to say? It goes the other way around too. I've seen games where players accumulated way more treasure than the expectations dictated (cloak of the bat at second level, etc.) due to the DMs running a variety of pre-written adventures. The players put up an horrendous stink when told that they needed to cut their items down to an equivalent amount for their level.

 

[SavageRobby]

I don't think its bad DMing at all. But I echo what has been said pretty clearly: Make sure your players know your intents and restrictions up front, and make sure that sounds interesting to them. Its not good to DM a game that no one wants to play in, just like its not good to DM a game you have no interest in.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

One thing in here that trips my "The DM might not understand the game" warning system is the dislike of multiclassing.

I mean, let's face it: multiclassing has been in ever since the concept of race-as-class was divorced. (And, some would argue, was present before that: if you wanted a Fighter-Mage, you took Elf, etc.)

There is nothing inherently wrong with multiclassing. The system is specifically built to encourage it (and later iterations of the d20 system have encouraged it even more).

The reason for this is that a Fighter / Rogue is not necessarily a soldier who gives up his commission to go steal from people for a bit (and, generally, I've always hated that hold-over from the 2E dual-classing system). Rather, he's usually something more like a Spec. Forces operative, or a swashbuckler focusing on light weapons and armor and derring-do, or a Thieves' Guild Enforcer, etc. A Barbarian / Bard is a skald, inspiring others with his disregard for his own life. A Fighter / Cleric is a temple guardsman. Etc.

In other words, these characters aren't so much "multiclassing" as taking levels in the "My character idea" class.

A DM who straight-out disallowed multiclassing (or allowed it with "in-game repercussions") would definitely get the cocked eyebrow from me, and while it wouldn't necessarily stop me from playing in his game, it would cause me to stop and wonder a bit.

The other issue I see looming on the horizon is that if you're going to be running an extremely low-magic and low-gear campaign*, you are actually boosting the power of the spellcasting classes relative to their mundane counterparts. It's something to watch out for.

* - Depending on how you handle the "permanent and non-permanent goodies," of course.

Anyway, just some friendly advice.

Again, some clarity is called for. I have nothing against multiclassing per se, it's just the idea of simply taking a level of cleric, rogue or ranger simply to min/max your character's killing capacity.

If it's part of a character's organic development and evolution, and there are in-game reasons for doing it, then by all means. But I don't want any of the "a little of this, a dash of that" approach to character building, with no rhyme or reason.

Yes it would.

Assuming this is 3e, the whole system is designed with certain assumptions about what gear the PCs have. If they have less it will throw the CR calculations off and hurt some classes more than others. Physical combat types, such as fighters, need stat and AC boosters, magic weapons and armour to stay competitive. Without magic weapons and other special materials, monsters with DR/x will be incredibly powerful, moreso than their CR suggests.

If you want to play a low magic game, I would recommend not using D&D.

See, this is what upset me so much in the first place and led me to post my "Does 3E dictate a certain style of play?" thread several months back. Many people, such as MerricB, told me that it didn't, but Doug apparently disagrees.

I intensely dislike this aspect of the 3E system-the idea that a certain amount of magical goodies are needed for play balance.

That said, the oils of impact and sharpness (those are the 1E equivalents, I don't know their 3E counterparts) that temporarily enchant otherwise mundane weapons so they can damage perytons and gargoyles would make up for this to a certain extent.

And when the PCs get a flametongue or ghost touch sword, that makes it all the more special.

It cheapens magic, I think, to believe that an enchanted sword or shield could be disposable as soon as a better one comes along. I highly doubt Thorin or Gandalf would have discarded Glamdring or Orcrist, for example.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I have nothing against multiclassing per se, it's just the idea of simply taking a level of cleric, rogue or ranger simply to min/max your character's killing capacity.

If it's part of a character's organic development and evolution, and there are in-game reasons for doing it, then by all means.

'S'cool. I've just run into quite a few rather vocal individuals who assume the first to be directly contravening the second. It's possible to multiclass to follow your organic development and evolution and improve your "killing capacity" at the same time. (In fact, one would hope that most multiclassing does this, because single-classing usually has that effect and most people don't seem to mind that! )

See, this is what upset me so much in the first place and led me to post my "Does 3E dictate a certain style of play?" thread several months back. Many people, such as MerricB, told me that it didn't, but Doug apparently disagrees.

Rather, I think Doug is pointing out some of the drawbacks of your proposed lower-magic system.

The rules of D&D as they stand assume you'll be giving out a certain amount of treasure, and that most of that treasure will be converted into "player upgrades."

Accordingly, a monster who has a specific type of Damage Reduction is an appropriate encounter for a certain level party because, at that point, the fighter will have the magic sword he needs to fight it effectively.

If you take away that magic sword (or, perhaps worse, make it only available to the cleric!), then the monster is more challenging. It's book-listed CR is no longer true.

Similarly, large, brute combat monsters tend to have relatively low CRs because, once the party reaches a high-enough level, they're assumed to have mobility-increasing magic and spells (like various methods of flying). The big dinosaur isn't as dangerous to the group, then, because at least several characters can stay out of his reach. If you take those abilities away, the T-Rex is much more dangrous.

So, I'd read Doug as more of a cautionary note (Don't believe what the books tell you is likely to happen when you've changed some of the core assumptions!) rather than a claim that D&D requires certain things.

It cheapens magic, I think, to believe that an enchanted sword or shield could be disposable as soon as a better one comes along. I highly doubt Thorin or Gandalf would have discarded Glamdring or Orcrist, for example.

Yeah, if I had an artifact sword, too, I'd be hard pressed to throw it away.

Of course, +1 swords aren't really artifact level, either.

 

[RFisher]

As long as you are fair and not arbitrary. (Making a final decision is not arbitrary when you've weighed the options and now you say "This is the way it is.")

What if the DM says, "The dwarfs of my world cannot be wizards or sorcerers because the race lacks the ability to work arcane magic"? That's essentially arbitrary despite whatever backstory the DM made up to justify it. Would you be OK with that?

I have nothing against multiclassing per se, it's just the idea of simply taking a level of cleric, rogue or ranger simply to min/max your character's killing capacity.

In my experience, multiclassing--at least sticking with the core 3e rules--is seldom very successful min/maxing.

I think it's a fair observation that multiclassing ought to be seen more as a way to model a character who doesn't fit into any single class rather than necessarily actual cross-training. On the other hand, I wouldn't begrudge a DM restrictions on multiclassing whether he understood this (i.e. agreed with me (^_^)) or not.