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

[elbandit]

My biggest frustration with D&D 3.5 is how quickly the party levels. I have 8 players so I typically have to throw encounter levels higher than thier average level against them so they earn XP faster than I would like.

Sometimes I shave the XP down if the fight was too easy... like the two-headed large cockatrices that did all of 1 point of damage before being all killed. ::sigh::

 

[Telperion]

We have fast combat down, at least. Last night in Sagiro's game he ran a 6 round combat involving about 20 participants in roughly 5 hours. It never dragged, which is important.

That would be one of my problems with D&D as it is today. Well, actually the same problem extends to other RPGs as well, but generally speaking I don't like it when a single round (whether that means 3, 6, 10, 12 or some other amount of time in seconds is hardly relevant) takes anywhere from 10 - 20 minutes IRL. The worst I have gamed through were 3 second rounds in Werewolf: the Apocalypse that took about half an hour per round. Well, the combat was usually resolved by round three, but that's 1 1/2 hours of gaming with potentially half of the group just sitting around and yawning while the Rage Machines do their thing.

I tend to keep combatants below twenty, and simply use tougher opponents instead of numbers, when necessary. Using a hoard of opponents is fine with me, but there are only so many of them that can be engaged with the party at any one time. So, a large battle can actually become the stage for as many as half a dozen encounters, or more, and that's something that wears a party down quite nicely .

 

[Akrasia]

My frustrations with 3E have to do with the following:

(a) The long and tedious "prep time" (this is my main irritation). It takes forever for me to write up the stat blocks, research the relevant feats, spells, special abilities, etc. Indeed, prepping for sessions has become a complete chore -- I dread it. With earlier editions, I used to really enjoy planning adventures; now it just feels like work.

(b) The number of different variables I have to keep track of as a DM during the game itself (viz. the many different monsters' and NPCs' various skills, feats, special abilities, spell effects, etc -- things get really cluttered behind my DM screen sometimes!), which only get worse as the level of play increases (a level 12 campaign must be a logistical nightmare; I found myself burning out around level 7 during my first 3.x campaign).

(c) The frequent slowness of play (mainly during combat -- I have come to have a passionate hatred of AoOs, 5-foot steps, etc. -- but at other times as well, e.g. often when spells or special abilities are involved, or some rule that specifically deals with a rare situation that we have run into needs to be looked up).

(d) More generally, by quantifying everything, and leaving so little to DM judgement, I sometimes feel as though all the rules in 3.x D&D get in the way of the story. (And of course, for players who enjoy the tactical aspects of 3E, that may be just fine; but I guess I am closer to the "narrativist" camp here than the "gamist" one, or whatever.)

As a player, only (c) and (d) would be significant factors, but with a DM who was sharper and more knowledgeable than myself, these problems could likely be overcome.

I used to play Rolemaster back in the day, and IMO 3.x D&D is every bit as cumbersome as that system. Indeed, with its reliance on feats, it seems even more cumbersome. Now if I were still in high-school, with loads of spare time to study the rules and prepare for gaming sessions, that would be fine. But as someone who loves FRPGs (mainly for the role-playing and story-based aspects of the activity), and who has a full-time job, I have had it with DM'ing 3.x D&D in the future.

Now I certainly would be willing to play 3.x D&D again with a good DM. I can imagine that it would be great with another DM far more into the "crunchy" aspects of 3.x D&D than I am (e.g. someone who enjoys statting up NPCs, applying new templates, etc.). But I have to realize that, as a DM, I am a 'rules lite' person, and so will never run a 3.x D&D campaign again. :\

(And in fact, I am in the process of "converting" my D&D campaign to a "rules lite" system right now -- in this case, Castles and Crusades, or actually C&C but with some 3.x D&D elements thrown in.)

 

[Akrasia]

... We have fast combat down, at least. Last night in Sagiro's game he ran a 6 round combat involving about 20 participants in roughly 5 hours. It never dragged, which is important.
...

When I first read this, I was positive that you were being sarcastic!

 

[DragonLancer]

Once the game hits about 10th/12th level, I have trouble keeping track of what the party can do, usually because of feats. I think it becomes a much harder challenge for me to challenge them once we get past those levels.

I also have trouble with dragons under 3.X - they are far too easy to hit IMO, and I have yet to work out (even after 3-4 years) how to make them a suitable threat.

 

[Christopher Lambert]

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.

This is something I can agree with. I find I dread building an NPC of 7th-level or above because of the sheer amount/value of magic items they're supposed to have. Oh yeah, and of course they have to be optimized magic items to, since the players optimize theirs.

Making new monsters is also annoying. In 2e you made a monster by choosing some Hit Dice, adding some random numbers (eg damage, AC) and adding on the cool special abilities. Of course, they tended to be too weak to use said abilities.

In 3e the monsters are generally cooler as base creatures but adding new abilities really messes with the CR system.

 

[The_Universe]

Early on in the campaign, the biggest problem was getting the PCs to work together - and it was partially my fault. I gave all of the PCs secret missions/motivations, some of which were conflicting. Having gotten used to dealing with people who had gamed a lot together in the past, I assumed that they would figure out ways to weave those into a coherent set of goals as their PCs evolved and changed.

Some of my PCs took to the RP/Backsory elements like fish to water, while others stumbled and grew frustrated that they weren't recieving enough of the story's spotlight. Yet, when the spotlight swung their way, they didn't want any part of it, complaining that the game was slowing down, and that they were bored because they weren't killing anything!

What it all came down to, of course, is that this new group had a widely varying style of play preference. 14 months (or so) into the campaign, that issue has pretty much worked itself out, with people compromising to reach a balance of enjoyment for most, if not all.

On top of all of the Out of Character issues, the secret missions and goals that I had created to flesh out the world nearly killed the campaign! Whole sessions would grind to a halt as the players all tried to advance their secret portfolios, all while trying to maintain the secrets both in- and out-of-character. No one could help anybody else because no one knew what the others wanted/needed.

That's started to work itself out, as well (Thank God!). Now 15th level, they've finally started to share the important stuff (some of which, when put together, reveal necessary clues about the campaign that have been ignored for months), although a few people stubbornly hold on to their secrets, for reasons I have yet to fathom - I've had to offer bonus XP to encourage people to metagame!

All in all, it's made for a fantastic story in-character, even as it has made for some tough interpersonal moments, out of character. In previous groups, the problem has always been to encourage people to take the game a little more seriously. In this one, it's been to remind them to back off a bit, and put the game in perspective.

Sometimes, I think I as the DM/GM forget that not everyone can take a deep breath, step back, and remind themselves that it's just a game and not worth losing or bruising friendships over.

And THAT'S what I find most frustrating.

Note: Since this is a thread for complaining, that's what I've done. But I do want to say that I love my players like family. They're a great group, and a tremendous bunch of friends to have. They really helped make Northern Virginia feel like home when we moved out here from the midwest, and I'd probably be insane if it weren't for all of them.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

One of the worst things that can happen for anyone is for a GM to design an interesting set of encounters with lots of RPing opportunities or a good mystery and either (a) the players just not taking to it ("but it seemed so good when I thought it up") or the players breezing right through it ("and I thought this would be a good challenge").

As far as the mechanics goes, that is something that gets better over time (short of a system just being broken from the start). Nobody can rattle off what every feat or spell can do or every nuanced rule in the PHB or DMG (that is why the books are nearby). So that is not a concern I would worry about. This is an entertainment game and in order to lead by example, the GM must be entertaining.

 

[The_Gneech]

My biggest problem is that my group has a tendency to just be wrong about stuff. Sometimes, it's an understandable mistake based on incomplete information, and sometimes it just makes me say, "WTF?"

Example: I set up a combat with a group of trolls, for the fire-blasting mage, and a horde of spread-out orcs, for the orc-favored-enemy archer-based ranger, so each would get to show off. What happened? The ranger pulled out his (non-fire, non-acid) sword and engaged the trolls in melee, leaving the fireball-tossing mage to have to waste spells blasting three orcs here, two orcs there, and three more orcs over here.

Another Example: In the current adventure, there is a temple called "The Lady." Scrawled on a wall elsewhere in town, the group found the phrase "Look to the lady for help." In a cellar, they found a small figurine of a woman holding a book. Their conclusion? Start praying to the figurine!

Stuff like that.

-The Gneech

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I think my biggest challenge is the pace of the game. The group I have DMed most is composed of 8 players. If I make a balanced encounter, which usually means a good number of opponents, it seems to take forever - two to three hours I'd say. You combine that with the fact that coordinating the schedules of 8 people means we game once every six weeks if we are lucky and due to that we always have some social time at the start of the session followed by the inevitable "what were we doing last time?" recap and it just seems like we never get anywhere in the campaign. Right now it appears that we are on average completing a single adventure in about nine months.

I have recently started another group with only three players. It will be interesting to see how much better the pacing is with them - although to be honest it seems we are having just as much difficulty scheduling games as with the 8 player group.

We keep talking about getting back to regular gaming sessions once we all retire and move into the adult living community together - although I think we might be able to do it sooner, once our kids are all teenagers and going out on Friday and Saturday nights.