What are you a minority about?

[wedgeski]

As a DM, I think I'm in a minority in believing that player fun is paramount.

Don't get me wrong, there are certain things I need from DM'ing, the absence of which will quickly ensure I become bored and lose interest. But the simple fact is that, over the last *ahem* years, I have found the single best way to ensure my own enjoyment is to try my hardest to give the players what they want. It starts a feedback cycle that inevitably improves the game.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Another thing is I can't stand most real time games and don't understand why they're so popular. I prefer turn based games so I can have some time to think and plan a strategy.

 

[Jack7]

Actually, I'm there with you. I'm strongly considering using the inherent bonus rules in my next campaign, so I can award magic items based on what's really cool (in terms of traits or powers), and what's appropriate to the feel of the setting.

Honestly, I'd be happy if core magic items gave no numerical bonuses at all (or, at most, +1 or 2), with all their "coolness" coming from what else they offered/could do.

I've done this for a long while now. Most magical items don't have bonuses, when they do they only function under certain circumstances.

Instead the magical item enhances some natural or innate capability or skill or ability the character already possesses, or it may give him a new capability or skill or power. And over time the item evolves or tailors itself to the character. Most items also have unusual powers of their own, and secret powers as well. And they will react totally differently to different characters, and give different powers or abilities to different characters depending on the nature of that character.

But they're not mechanical plus (+) machines.

I've found this approach adds a real and obvious dimension to the idea of "magicalness" or "miraculousness" to the item that mere +1, +2, or +5 items never have.

It makes the item seem far more "magical" and unique to the character who possesses it.
I prefer unique magical items and monsters to "mass production and interchangeable items" anyways.
To me mass production items and creatures that all do the same thing are the opposite of what is magical and miraculous, not a real expression of those things.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think the 4E designers dropped the ball by not removing +X items from the game.

Ah, you know what people would say -"It's not D&D if it doesn't have +1 swords."

 

[Desdichado]

Well, that's a difficult question to answer, since there really isn't any way to determine what the "majority" position is on suble, esoteric questions of RPGiana. I may percieve, for example, that the majority play 4e. I may even be right. But how do I know that? I don't.

That said, here's some things where I suspect I'm in the minority.

1) Don't really like magic in any version of D&D. I never play spellcasters, and my "ideal" settings all houserule magic to be different, and more dangerous and difficult.

2) Greatly prefer sword & sorcery and/or dark fantasy to high fantasy.

3) Have to homebrew. I literally can't run a game in a prepackaged campaign setting. I can, however, raid prepackaged campaign settings liberally.

4) Hate alignment. Hate heroes. Prefer a grittier game with PCs who are all scoundrels at best; complete and total villains at worst.

5) I like rules for character definition, but in actual play, strict adherence to the rules is one of my first casualties.

6) Prefer Byzantine political plotting and urban settings to any other playstyle.

7) Never want to have a character of mine ever step foot in a dungeon ever again.

8) Prefer human(oid) antagonists to monsters. Monsters work better if they're fewer and farther between.

9) Dislike elves. Would be happy to never encounter a campaign setting with an elf in it ever again. Dwarves are nearly as bad. Gnomes and halflings are even worse.

 

[Desdichado]

I prefer players cooperate with each other rather than be at odds with each other.

I don't prefer it; I consider it essential social interaction with friends for dummies.

I don't, however, necessarily prefer it that characters cooperate with one another.

 

[Oryan77]

Speaking about being a minority, I don't know why I didn't think of this one...

Being the only white guy at the table.

 

[Stoat]

Ah, you know what people would say -"It's not D&D if it doesn't have +1 swords."

Yeah, or nine-point alignment, or magic missiles that always hit, or gnomes in the PHB, or the Blood War, or fighters as the simple class you make your little brother play, or lamias as lion-centaur women, or any of the other sacred cows that went away. I'm surprised that WotC spent the time and effort to work the math around +X items when either killing them entirely or ruthlessly neutering them would've saved the trouble.

On topic. I like Spelljammer. Go, Miniature Giant Space Hamsters!

 

[The Human Target]

Actually, I'm there with you. I'm strongly considering using the inherent bonus rules in my next campaign, so I can award magic items based on what's really cool (in terms of traits or powers), and what's appropriate to the feel of the setting.

Honestly, I'd be happy if core magic items gave no numerical bonuses at all (or, at most, +1 or 2), with all their "coolness" coming from what else they offered/could do.

I was going to use the Inherent Bonus rule for my current game, but wussed out at the last second. I wasn't sure I would be capable of making combats work without the standard gear.

I agree. I dislike the pluses as they stand. They don't add anything to the experience for me.

I think the 4E designers dropped the ball by not removing +X items from the game. They were rebuilding "the math" from the ground up. They had already made the decision to give almost all items some feature other than a simple +X bonus. They could have adjusted the math so that nobody needed a +X to hit or defend, and then relied on the unique features of magic items to make them interesting.

I agree. I am also sad they bailed on removing the standard 3-18 ability scores for just the bonuses.

 

[JeffB]

What aspect or style of D&D are you surprisingly in the minority?

Cos I'm an old school type of Player/Dm who cut his teeth on the LBBs, love MCM B/X D&D, and I love 4E, and use 4E to run a very classic Moldvay/Cook/Marsh type of swords & sorcery game/setting.

You can't get a break on ANY messageboard with that kind of taste in D&D