What's the biggest challenge / frustration in your game?

[Pants]

Not all of these a problems with the rules, but anyways:

1) Death Spells - They become so prevalent at high-levels. Half of the creatures have some sort of 'save or drop dead loser' ability that really sucks the life out of gaming sessions. Some people complain that death doesn't mean anything in D&D. Try having you character die and lose that level. Sure, an appropriately high-level party might be able to cough up the 25 grand to get that True Rez, but most often, a regular Ressurection will get used. And that lost level hurts.
2) No time - It seems that each of my players has something more important to do on the weekends. I can understand not showing up once in a while, but when you don't show up for 3 weeks running, something is wrong.
3) Campaign Stagnation - I don't know what the problem is, but all of my campaigns never reach a climax. They just fizzle out. I try to throw in curveballs every once in a while (some massive rping in this game, some tactical hack-n-slash in the next), but the campaigns still fizzle out before an appropriate climax is reached.

 

[Harmon]

One thing is the fact that 3.0e wasn't really broken and 3.5e came out to fix the problems then changed much of the system that wasn't broken at all and left broken stuff unfixed. I felt robbed.

Now we're still working on House Ruling (aka 3.25e) what we want from 3.5e and 3.0e. One of the Players keeps picking up the 3.5e rules and quoting from it- stuff we have not changed, things I refuse to change and things I like he wants to change.

So other then the rules changes and such (some good and some bad) that is a factor.

I keep expecting Hasbro to try to get things going again with 4.0e- yet more changes or worse yet, change to something between the two.

Bit of a rant I know- and please don't jump on me about 3.0e and 3.5e I won't respond.

 

[Psion]

Making NPCs. I like nice, detailed NPCs with lots of options. In short, with almost as many options as I would devote to a PC. But frankly, using that many options and not cutting corners is a task. Sometimes a task I don't have time for.

 

[sfedi]

My main problem is the difference in power between spellcasters and non-spellcasters.

Seems like endemic to D&D.

 

[Christopher Lambert]

Keeping focused (games are often late at night, and I have to keep track of disparate things like party split-ups, hidden weapons, sneaking, the next plot twist, etc), dealing with player surprises (usually the non-combat variety), coming up with skill DCs on the fly (very important for skilled characters), dealing with distances (I swear I need someone else to do all my maps...) and people who don't know the rules after two years of gaming!

 

[Eremite]

The biggest problem I have ever faced with DMing is that I seem to keep finding players with poor interpersonal skills whose inability to get along with other players tends to derail campaigns after a period of time.

Making NPCs. I like nice, detailed NPCs with lots of options. In short, with almost as many options as I would devote to a PC. But frankly, using that many options and not cutting corners is a task. Sometimes a task I don't have time for.

I would dearly love a chargen programme that was flexible, um, or even worked. I would love to see the people who wrote Core Rules for 2E come back and write the definite character generator for 3.5E that allowed easy customisation (I"m not a propeller head but if you can get 2E right I'm sure 3.5E would be a breeze). Anyway, I'm dreaming, I know....

 

[Gothmog]

Making NPCs. I like nice, detailed NPCs with lots of options. In short, with almost as many options as I would devote to a PC. But frankly, using that many options and not cutting corners is a task. Sometimes a task I don't have time for.

Absolutely- the stat prep for a D&D game now is horrendous. I used to be able to stat out characters for my 2e game without the books. I used to have an hour break between classes in college, and I would go sit at a picnic table on campus and make up the week's adventure, without any of my books. Now I need at the least the PHB, and often the DMG, as well as supplementary books for feats, skills, spells per day and equipment. And while I can stat out NPCs with just the core rules, I let the PCs use other books, so I feel like I am shortchanging the NPCs by not using some optional material with them as well. I used to be able to stat out 10 NPCs for AD&D 2e in about 45 min, now that same job takes me 3 hours.

Combats also take about three times as long to run in 3e/3.5 as they did in earlier editions due to AoO, feats, skills, and special abilities. While these extra options are nice, they sometimes get in the way of dynamic and fast-paced combat, and instead it can become a number-curnching session to determine the optimal modifiers and movement path through combat.

 

[jmucchiello]

Excuse me while I rant...

My frustration is the 3.x concept of balanced wealth - that players of a given level should have 'X' value of equipment / money.

Secondly, and more importantly, it is the effect on players. Players in older D&D tended to distribute wealth/ magic on need or best utilization. Now wealth/ magic seems be distributed based on its net worth. If player 'A's equipment is worth twice that player 'B's, then player B is put out because player 'A' seems to have a perceived advantage magic-wise. Never mind that allowing player A to have magic items worth twice that of 'B's may make sense for a optimal party configuration or for best survivability.

So, 3.x has produced a climate that I have observed where players keep track of their net worth like a bloody accountant and then start whining when the numbers get skewed and not in their favor. Players complaining about the net worth of other players magic items because it is more than theirs, players complaining to the DM because table X says they should have Y value in equipment at this level but they have Z- which is lower than Y (odd that they never complain when Z is greater than Y).

The whole 'balanced' wealth thing has caused some players to consider the game in terms of 'who has the most toys' or the most expensive toys.

This, I think, is why people complain a lot about TPKs. D&D is a cooperative game. If you are trekking through dangerous places with 3-5 other fellows, if you don't trust every single one of them alone with your wife after she's accidently quaffed an elixer of extreme horniness (sorry grandma), you should not be out trekking with these fellows. This is D&D at its most Tolkein. The party is supposed to be linked in a common cause, willing to lay down their life for their collective goal.

People always complain about parties that should not be travelling together. Character X would never spend a minute with Character Y if they were PCs. Well, that's why they are quibbling about loot.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I've always viewed the party as a commando or black ops team. Everyone is there to fill a role in the unit. The unit is supreme over your own goals when the unit is in the field. There can be interparty conflict, but when you are staring a treasure horde and you know trouble is still possibly standing around the next corner, share value is less important than survival value. No player in our group playing a fighter would grab a staff and say "I'll take that cause I'm 50,000 gp behind the party in loot." No, he would gladly hand the staff to a wizard or sorcerer (with the higher caster level if possible) and say "I know it will even out in the end" because he knows at some point his butt is going to be glad that character had that staff.

If survival is not your number one concern while the loot is being divvied up, you deserve a TPK at your next encounter. Bully for you that the now dead party had perfect distribution of wealth.

It is not that hard to create a character who is also loyal to his merry band of fellows. You just need to have all the players agree to that. It takes maturity sometimes. Anyone with the attitude of "He who dies with the most toys, wins" is more likely to fulfill the dies part of the saying, than the most toys part.

One for all! All for one!

 

[jmucchiello]

Anyway, the party doesn't seem to care why villains do what they do, or who they're working for, which makes it very hard to have any sort of involvement by the villain, barring the villain just walking up, slapping the PCs, and saying, "You idiotic fools! I. AM. THE. VILLAIN."

And if he did, they'd just trip him, take 18 attacks of opportunity on him when he tries to do anything, and then beat him to a pulp.

The players just want a video game. It seems like a waste.

So hit them with video game boss fights. Being Colossal is a good defense against being tripped. Use more burrowing monsters. "You trip him." "Chorus of readied attacks ensues." "The creature sinks a claw into the ground beneath him and tunnels away." Use incorporeal creatures, they can't be tripped.

Even one normal opponent skilled with the chain but not carrying one could be fun. He gets hit and isn't tripped so he initiates a return trip. If the player lets go, he's just armed the opponent with his own chain.

Player apathy like you describe sounds like you are playing with people who don't want what you want out of the game. Perhaps you need to move on.

 

[Thalantor]

My biggest frustration about DM-ing my group is their consistent ablity to forget what happened last session even though that was two weeks ago. And then when I ask if it wasn't exiting enough, they go "Oh no, it was really cool and I enjoyed it... I just don't exactly know what happened anymore. But I do know we still need to get our XP and that I found a +2 sword.. "

*bangs head*