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

[DragonLancer]

My biggest frustration is my whiny players coupled with 3.x's system that puts more power in the player's hands than in the DM's.

I've four players - 2 are ambivalent and 2 whine whenever everything doesn't go in their favor.

They don't want to try a critical hit system that doesn't grossly over-favor them (such as Advanced Players Guide's Crit System or Torn Asunder) - although they have no problem wanting to use one they came up with that penalizes NPCs.

They complain that I sometimes throw encounters at them that could possibly cause them to die.

They consider that any time I take creative license and allow or disallow something to advance the storyline, that it somehow takes away from their characters.

They are offended when I stat out an NPC that is as detailed as a PC - and take even more umbrage at the fact that I would actually consider using all of those feats and stats that I generated and play that NPC intelligently - they act as if the NPCs are simply targets in Hogan's Alley...

They don't seem to care (or lack the capacity) to delve into the richness of the campaign world (we're using FR) and consider any attempt to bring out regional differences as an attempt to stifle them (such as taking offense at the idea that I would penalize them for wearing heavy metal armor when marching through the middle of Raurin's desert...)

They take offense at the idea of possibly doing some in-character stuff while out-of-character (such as handing one of them a piece of paper with strange writing on it along with a primer and letting them decipher it rather than just rolling a Decipher Script check).

Frankly, I'm fed up with the lot of them and am seriously considering just being done with the game altogether and start looking for a new group of players.

These guys need to seriously buck their ideas up and learn to play the game properly. I am really fed up of hearing of whiny players. *Sighs*

 

[Verequus]

2. The magic system seems to replicate modern technology way too much, from easy access to light sources (Continual Flame), transportation (especially Wind Walk), and communication (The "Sending spell as Cell Phone"). There's little rhyme or reason why magic works the way it does: it feels like jumble of anything and everything. I'd like to see a system with a better cohesivness or "feel" to it (I like the Wheel of Time selection, for example) - if not in the core rules, as an alternative for folks who like less world-defining magic.

While I don't know, if it is the kind of rules, you're looking for, I recommend Elements of Magic Revised on RPGnow. Its feel is adaptable and it is at least cohesive.

 

[DragonLancer]

The "magic as technology" feel that 3.x has does bother me. Gone are the days where campaigns were more reminiscent of medieval Europe but with monsters and wizards. Now magic is everywhere, and it ruins the feel a bit. But changing it requires severly fiddling with the magic system.

 

[Alan Shutko]

mid20: roll 3 d20s, toss the highest and lowest, and use the remaining one. Gives you a full 1-20 range, but tapered like a bell curve (only not so severely--you'll actually see 1s and 20s).

That's an interesting curve... I'm not sure I'd like it. It seems very biased for the middle to me, and I like a bigger chance of spectacular failure or success.

 

[ashockney]

Challenges

It's pretty amazing to hear how similiar these concerns are across the thread. For d20 publishers there are appear to be two big opportunties:

1) A simpler rules system, that makes preparation easier and speeds up combat
2) A primer on DM'ing that is helpful in translating 3rd Edition rules mechanics into a efficient and effective game, put into a usable trainer's guide format. See many of the management books out on the market about coaching or interpersonal comunication styles.

I've been working on the first item, and here were the primary concerns in my design scope document:

1) To improve the game from 12th to 20th level.
2) To significantly reduce the amount of time a DM must invest to create an adventure.
3) To make all the classes relevant and worth playing.
4) To make every monster in the SRD MM (3.5) playable without buffing up.
5) To reduce the time required to play a high-level combat.
6) To make the high level game more accessible players who are turned off by greater complexity.

 

[jarandus]

As far as problems for my gaming groups (although by and large they are the same circle of friends), there are too many DM's (myself included), so unfortunately this leads to the DM's each wanting to run a game whether it is Greyhawk,Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Arcana Unearthed (me), and we do set up a rotation...but between one FR run and another, we have played under at least one or two DM's and their respective campaigns.
So it is hard (but not impossible) to maintain a good "campaign continuity" feel for each of the games.

 

[The_Gneech]

As far as problems for my gaming groups (although by and large they are the same circle of friends), there are too many DM's (myself included)...

Man oh man I want a "problem" like that! *cry*

-The Gneech

 

[Afrodyte]

It's pretty amazing to hear how similiar these concerns are across the thread. For d20 publishers there are appear to be two big opportunties:

1) A simpler rules system, that makes preparation easier and speeds up combat
2) A primer on DM'ing that is helpful in translating 3rd Edition rules mechanics into a efficient and effective game, put into a usable trainer's guide format. See many of the management books out on the market about coaching or interpersonal comunication styles.

I've been working on the first item, and here were the primary concerns in my design scope document:

1) To improve the game from 12th to 20th level.
2) To significantly reduce the amount of time a DM must invest to create an adventure.
3) To make all the classes relevant and worth playing.
4) To make every monster in the SRD MM (3.5) playable without buffing up.
5) To reduce the time required to play a high-level combat.
6) To make the high level game more accessible players who are turned off by greater complexity.

I'd be really interested in seeing what you have so far, as well as to share my own ideas about making d20 more focused and more flexible.

 

[Psion]

It's pretty amazing to hear how similiar these concerns are across the thread.

Really? You list six items below, only one of which I expressed any problem with (though I will say on the "high level combat" thing, I think iterative combat makes things a bit rough, though I have ways around it.) The others seem like if you tried to "correct" them, you would make it worse (especially the make all classes more playable bit... I think they did a pretty durn good job in 3.5 making most classes playable.)

 

[ashockney]

Really? You list six items below, only one of which I expressed any problem with (though I will say on the "high level combat" thing, I think iterative combat makes things a bit rough, though I have ways around it.) The others seem like if you tried to "correct" them, you would make it worse (especially the make all classes more playable bit... I think they did a pretty durn good job in 3.5 making most classes playable.)

Good point Psion. I didn't intend to imply that my list was what a comprehensive summary of all the problems identified. Instead, I hoped to point out that many of the problems seem very similiar (including your own - prep time, speeding high level play). In addition, those problems are also problems I was trying to tackle...as illustrated by my list.

I couldn't agree more that they did a real nice job making all the classes more playable in the core rules. If you try and set foot outside of them, it becomes a problem fast, in my opinion.

I'd throw this question out to anyone who plays a traditional D&D campaign (mostly combat to earn xp), and use more books than the core rules: anyone in your campaign play a bard recently? How about a fighter - straight up? Hmmm... Curious.

The reason I chose to tackle the items on this list together is to because of the synergy I found when trying to playtest solutions to some of them. Good fixes to one, had a positive carryover effect to the others.

A couple of examples: get rid of polymorph, get rid of books of stat buffs, simplify the morale, size, competence, luck, insight, and size bonuses and buffs.

Speeding up high level play, two words: use averages.

I'm definitely with those who indicate that PC's 5 hour combat was way, way too long. I'm lucky to game for about 6 hours total a month. Spending 5 hours on one combat would result in a campaign that would take roughly 20 years to run. This would not meet my players expectations. We've run our fair share of 5 hour combats in 3rd Edition, and in some we've had players fall asleep when waiting 45 minutes between turns. Not a shot on those who love that kind of game, and find it rewarding. Our group's not one of those. Our combats seem to flow well lasting 4 - 7 rounds, and taking no more than 30 min IRL.