-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
What ever happened to "role playing?"
- Thread starter Lokishadow
- Start date
ichabod
Legned
If you can't build a spellcaster who isn't a minatures combat support caster, the problem isn't with the rules.
If the DM is sending a group half again as powerful as you are at you, the problem isn't with the rules.
If the DM is railroading you, the problem isn't with the rules.
If someone is concerned with the rules, that's just not a problem.
If you expect me to believe that you having been playing a long time and haven't met a bad DM until 3rd edition, the problem isn't with the rules.
If the DM is sending a group half again as powerful as you are at you, the problem isn't with the rules.
If the DM is railroading you, the problem isn't with the rules.
If someone is concerned with the rules, that's just not a problem.
If you expect me to believe that you having been playing a long time and haven't met a bad DM until 3rd edition, the problem isn't with the rules.
milotha
First Post
3.X encourages roll playing and not role playing
I agree that the problems with the campaign you describe probably are caused by the GM and not the game system. 3.5 doesn't prevent role playing. It sounds like your GM is a "crush the players gleefully type." I refer to this as power tripping GM.
However, having a string of 9 GMs in a row indicates that there is a deeper problem going on. I have to admit that I too have been encountering more railroading, power tripping, or just poor GMs under 3.X than under any of the previous editions. Now, this might stem from the fact that I'm just encountering them more often now, but I'm not certain the explanation is that simple.
I think there is another root cause of this. With a more codified set of rules regarding both combat and non-combat situations, 3.X has promoted roll playing for some GMs. There were many GMs that never felt comfortable with the loose rules of the previous editions and really preferrred a more codified system for D&D. 3.X presents this system. Some of these GMs are those that come from a more war gamming side of D&D or are newbie GMs. There are some GMs out there that think the set of rules for 3.X are comprehensive, and won't allow the players to use creative tactics.
So, instead of role playing out social situations, you end up resolving them with dice rolls. Instead of allowing players to use creative tactics, you reduce the game down to a miniatures battle.
Furthermore, I've seen GMs that railroad by setting the default DCs of anything at some absurd level. Thus, the PCs can never do anything to effect the situtation. In previous editions the GMs actually had to think about the options a creative player might try and then make a ruling. Now they just think, oh the DC for that should be 40 without taking into account the players actions. I'm not even certain its a always a deliberate thing.
I agree that the problems with the campaign you describe probably are caused by the GM and not the game system. 3.5 doesn't prevent role playing. It sounds like your GM is a "crush the players gleefully type." I refer to this as power tripping GM.
However, having a string of 9 GMs in a row indicates that there is a deeper problem going on. I have to admit that I too have been encountering more railroading, power tripping, or just poor GMs under 3.X than under any of the previous editions. Now, this might stem from the fact that I'm just encountering them more often now, but I'm not certain the explanation is that simple.
I think there is another root cause of this. With a more codified set of rules regarding both combat and non-combat situations, 3.X has promoted roll playing for some GMs. There were many GMs that never felt comfortable with the loose rules of the previous editions and really preferrred a more codified system for D&D. 3.X presents this system. Some of these GMs are those that come from a more war gamming side of D&D or are newbie GMs. There are some GMs out there that think the set of rules for 3.X are comprehensive, and won't allow the players to use creative tactics.
So, instead of role playing out social situations, you end up resolving them with dice rolls. Instead of allowing players to use creative tactics, you reduce the game down to a miniatures battle.
Furthermore, I've seen GMs that railroad by setting the default DCs of anything at some absurd level. Thus, the PCs can never do anything to effect the situtation. In previous editions the GMs actually had to think about the options a creative player might try and then make a ruling. Now they just think, oh the DC for that should be 40 without taking into account the players actions. I'm not even certain its a always a deliberate thing.
Zappo
Explorer
In a small gaming community, it is quite possible that a whole bunch of people simply don't know what being a good DM means, and they have noone to learn from except each other. And being a good DM is harder than it seems, after all. I bet that the chances of an unlucky streak aren't as limited as it sounds.MerricB said:
Henry
Autoexreginated
Zappo is on to something that most of us forget, especially on these forums, as most of us have a vested interest in the hobby.
How long ago were you a new player?
How long did it take you to become a good (or at least passable) DM?
The fact is, a lot more people are into the hobby than have been in 10 years, and many of the new ones are JUST as green as you were when you started at age 10/12/16/20 with a group of friends who also knew nothing about the game. A lot of the "power-tripping" we've seen out there is very likely the same experience as many of us starting D&D - and I'm saying it MAY not be an Age related issue, like the common belief prevails. It may be an issue of how you started the hobby, and what were your main outcome goals were when you entered into it.
Lokishadow wanted deep immersion, or at least a tidal wading pool; what he got was drydock.
There are plenty of good plot-based and immersive DM's out there; there are also plenty of tactically-oriented DM's out there too. Don't discout either, but also realize that a lot of new DM's don't know about the other side of the coin, based on HOW they came into it.
How long ago were you a new player?
How long did it take you to become a good (or at least passable) DM?
The fact is, a lot more people are into the hobby than have been in 10 years, and many of the new ones are JUST as green as you were when you started at age 10/12/16/20 with a group of friends who also knew nothing about the game. A lot of the "power-tripping" we've seen out there is very likely the same experience as many of us starting D&D - and I'm saying it MAY not be an Age related issue, like the common belief prevails. It may be an issue of how you started the hobby, and what were your main outcome goals were when you entered into it.
Lokishadow wanted deep immersion, or at least a tidal wading pool; what he got was drydock.
There are plenty of good plot-based and immersive DM's out there; there are also plenty of tactically-oriented DM's out there too. Don't discout either, but also realize that a lot of new DM's don't know about the other side of the coin, based on HOW they came into it.
WizarDru
Adventurer
Hello, Lokishadow...welcome to the boards.
I'm sorry to hear you're having a run of bad luck at finding a DM whose style meshes with your own. You might want to post on the 'Gamers seeking Gamers' forum, to see if there's a game in your area with players who share you tastes.
For clarification, you'll note that LS mentioned 7 previous games, not 7 previous DMs (or 8 or 9, as the number seems to be ramping up in the retelling). Neither situation is unlikely, particularly if conventions are involved.
I, of course, strongly disagree that the rules encourage more tactical games any more than they once did. I had more bad DMs under 1e than I've ever had under 3e and 3.5...but that isn't any more relevant as a sample than anyone else's experience. Statistically speaking, the only folks who have any meta-data on that scale is WotC, and they haven't (afaik) updated it since 1999/2000.
The problem with the game you played sounds more like a conflict in styles and than an example of poor-DMing or rules making a problem. Some DMs and players prefer that style of gaming. I might also point out that the experience you describe didn't sound like you were actually expecting much role-playing to begin with as some folks might define it....just a less tactical approach then the DM seemed to advocate. Considering that this appeared to be a one-off session with 9 players, that doesn't strike me as terribly conducive to an in-depth role-playing experience to begin with, but more of a mission based con game. Which can be awfully fun, but can also be awfully tedious to someone who isn't up for it.
I'm sorry to hear you're having a run of bad luck at finding a DM whose style meshes with your own. You might want to post on the 'Gamers seeking Gamers' forum, to see if there's a game in your area with players who share you tastes.
For clarification, you'll note that LS mentioned 7 previous games, not 7 previous DMs (or 8 or 9, as the number seems to be ramping up in the retelling). Neither situation is unlikely, particularly if conventions are involved.
I, of course, strongly disagree that the rules encourage more tactical games any more than they once did. I had more bad DMs under 1e than I've ever had under 3e and 3.5...but that isn't any more relevant as a sample than anyone else's experience. Statistically speaking, the only folks who have any meta-data on that scale is WotC, and they haven't (afaik) updated it since 1999/2000.
The problem with the game you played sounds more like a conflict in styles and than an example of poor-DMing or rules making a problem. Some DMs and players prefer that style of gaming. I might also point out that the experience you describe didn't sound like you were actually expecting much role-playing to begin with as some folks might define it....just a less tactical approach then the DM seemed to advocate. Considering that this appeared to be a one-off session with 9 players, that doesn't strike me as terribly conducive to an in-depth role-playing experience to begin with, but more of a mission based con game. Which can be awfully fun, but can also be awfully tedious to someone who isn't up for it.
What ever happened to "role playing?"...
Well not sure but a lot of role playing could have occured during what you described. For example how did you "bluff" your way into the entry guard tower? Was it just a roll or did you role play it out with the DM?
Also when you were in your base camp thinking about scaling the cliff and apparently falling several times did discussion between the party members happen in character or OOC?
What it seems like though is that you are complaining about the overwhelming odds. First I'm surprised it wasn't a TPK! That was my first thoughts as you started to describe the numbers.
Now I would have to ask the question is were you sent to investigate the orc fort, retrieve someone/something from it, or to destroy it?
Throwing an no-win encounter is not always a bad thing, but leading upto it there should be signs. Just like the weather going bad without notice. You should have seen signs, especially the rangers. The party should know before that they are up against tough odds and the DM should give warnings to such.
For example, the ambush attack might have been a sign that these are above average orcs and well organized.
If you were sent to retrieve someone or something that again is a different story. Usually these are tougher encounters and the party is not expected to go in "full-force". Stealth was meant to be the "primary" way to solve the encounter, not that it should be the only way, but usally DM's have a primary way and one or more secondary ways. If you were scouting and/or retrieving someone/something then why did you kill the orcs? If you had gotten in, then I would have pressed it further.
As for the alarm, you said you were in the front guard room, was there a guard on the roof tower? All you need is one guard to hear and sure enough the logical thing would be to call all the guards/orcs.
Also, since this was your first sitting with the group, this may be the irregular. For example in my current group we have a mix of role playing and roll playing. Some nights are a single massive encounter, while other nights we won't have a single one, and will only make 4-5 rolls the entire 4 hour period. As others mentioned its how you like to play and how the DM likes to play. Maybe this was an "encounter" night?
Talk to the DM/group ask a bit more information before jumping ship.
Well not sure but a lot of role playing could have occured during what you described. For example how did you "bluff" your way into the entry guard tower? Was it just a roll or did you role play it out with the DM?
Also when you were in your base camp thinking about scaling the cliff and apparently falling several times did discussion between the party members happen in character or OOC?
What it seems like though is that you are complaining about the overwhelming odds. First I'm surprised it wasn't a TPK! That was my first thoughts as you started to describe the numbers.
Now I would have to ask the question is were you sent to investigate the orc fort, retrieve someone/something from it, or to destroy it?
Throwing an no-win encounter is not always a bad thing, but leading upto it there should be signs. Just like the weather going bad without notice. You should have seen signs, especially the rangers. The party should know before that they are up against tough odds and the DM should give warnings to such.
For example, the ambush attack might have been a sign that these are above average orcs and well organized.
If you were sent to retrieve someone or something that again is a different story. Usually these are tougher encounters and the party is not expected to go in "full-force". Stealth was meant to be the "primary" way to solve the encounter, not that it should be the only way, but usally DM's have a primary way and one or more secondary ways. If you were scouting and/or retrieving someone/something then why did you kill the orcs? If you had gotten in, then I would have pressed it further.
As for the alarm, you said you were in the front guard room, was there a guard on the roof tower? All you need is one guard to hear and sure enough the logical thing would be to call all the guards/orcs.
Also, since this was your first sitting with the group, this may be the irregular. For example in my current group we have a mix of role playing and roll playing. Some nights are a single massive encounter, while other nights we won't have a single one, and will only make 4-5 rolls the entire 4 hour period. As others mentioned its how you like to play and how the DM likes to play. Maybe this was an "encounter" night?
Talk to the DM/group ask a bit more information before jumping ship.
The_Gneech
Explorer
I had problems like this a lot -- back in the days of AD&D.
It ain't the edition; it's the DM.
And nine players? Great googily-moogily! Five is pushing it!
-The Gneech
It ain't the edition; it's the DM.
And nine players? Great googily-moogily! Five is pushing it!
-The Gneech
Bendris Noulg
First Post
Ah, another Maggie and the Ferocious Beast fan, eh?The_Gneech said:
diaglo
Adventurer
MerricB said:
i can only agree with MerricB.
in my experience with old style referees vs. new style DMs.
(ha you didn't think i'd not comment on the edition) there was more give and take. in that the players and the referee were learning the system/game in the old days. so they made/built the rules or style that would fit. same can still be said today.the new style DM and the old style player... the case presented in this thread's scenario... causes some friction.... the old style player feels like (s)he has already put in the time and the game should run a certain way. the new style DM doesn't have or is choosing to ignore the previous background. and is therefore building the style of today.... (video game junkies or tragic the slathering rejects that they are)
much can be said for referees and DMs who choose to learn the style of play their players like. as much can be said for players who do the same thing.
however, life is too short to play crappy RPGs. so know when to say when.
i've been thru 8 campaigns in the last 4 years.
