Where D&D goes bad

[Keeper of Secrets]

Li Shenron said it best by stating that keeping to the Core Rules works best and then adding two or three of the books - pow! Instant campaign variant. If you're like me and have been playing D&D on and off for years and years and years there are times when you simply want to try something different. But the differences you tinker with (in my opinion) should be something special rather than opening the floodgates and allowing everything to come in - otherwise you've watered down the 'special' stuff to make it meaningless. I think that d20 and OGL has inspired so much imagination and creativity than ever before (despite what my esteemed colleague diaglo may say) and this should be something we can use, I think. But allowing in anything and everything makes things complex and threaten to make campaigns collapse under their own weight.

 

[Psion]

The core characters and prestige classes are already-fleshed out character concepts. If you are going to add an endless list of new concepts to them, then why bother with a class system at all?

Strawman. Who said you need an endless list?

You only have limited amount of playtime and optimally, your campaign concept should revolve around a few appropriate archetypes.

And points-buy character systems like GURPS allow you to fine-tune your character to a concept much more than d20 ever will - even with all the Complete books.

I rather think you missed my point. That, in my book, is a bug not a feature. You give players carte blanche, they will neglect things that fit their character but they feel the point expendiature is less than optimal. And as a GM, you will spend more time deciding which elements belong to a particular concept. I would much rather have the basics and progression of a concept and be able to build from there with skills, feats, and additional class options.

(If I did feel I needed unlimited lattitude, I would use HERO, not GURPS, as HERO's effect based system has much more latitude than GURPS "infinite options list".)

Despite the loud proclamations of "point build" fans, freedom of choice is not always a good thing.

And I don't buy your argument about "optimization" - someone who worries too much about "optimizing" his characters will pick prestige classes that make him more effective,

So long as he takes a well built class that fits the concept required for a role in the campaign with less intervention required on my part, his character (and my time budget) is better off for it. Unlike "gaming" a point build system, which requires me to micromanage PC builds.

If you are comfortable with micromanaging PC builds, or are not bothered with the sort of "player biased" or "game the system" type results it creates, then it's not my place to say you are doing it wrong. Have fun with your game. But for me, those are effects of unstructured point build systems I cannot tolerate.

 

[Wombat]

Sure, you can use the core books alone.

The problem is that I wouldn't want to.

I don't like a lot of the core monsters, I dislike the core gods, and I find some of the core skills very odd. As such, I feel the need to tinker right off the top of my head.

In fact, I did use the three core books as the only point for a short-term campaign. The campaign was a comedy. We used every random table and accepted the absolutely random results. We had questions about why certain political and social matters went the way they did, given the position of magic in the world. We did the grand population shuffle towards cities as characters raised in level ("I'm sorry, but a thorp can't have someone this powerful -- you'll have to move to a small city."), etc.

Then again, I tend to think too much about my games...

 

[WalkingDead]

After a couple of years during AD&D 2E in which I allowed for all kinds of crazy optional rules (kits, Player's Option and DM's Option books, psionics, etc.), I became frustrated with all of the optional character classes, rules and such. I don't think they added to the game. In fact, they detracted from the game -- at least in terms of my enjoyment. Too many rules, too many loopholes ... ah, I got such terrible headaches.

After awhile, I told everyone to leave their Options books, Complete Handbooks and everything except the core books at home. Y'know what? We all still had fun. When 3E launched and I delved into a new Greyhawk campaign with the new system, we started and stuck with the core books. I don't pick up too many supplements (except for things specifically related to the Greyhawk campaign setting, some adventures and the odd other thing, such as the first PDF book of magic Monte Cook released through Malhavoc Press -- oh yeah, and some Dragon Magazines). When I do end up with supplements or optional rules in front of me, I look at them, make a decision about their usefulness and decide whether to allow them into my game (I do ask for player input, of course). With that, I keep a list of what's allowed into the game, and for the most part, when it comes to classes and prestige classes, I don't allow much beyond the core ones.

That's just personal preference, of course. I've been around enough gamers that love to get their hands on each and every new supplemental book that comes out so they can get the newest, biggest, bestest, whateverest gadget, spell, weapon or trinket for their characters. It's just not something I want to see in the games I run.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Why not play another system?

Because I... prefer... not to.



I love customizing PCs. I love tossing in feats, PrCs and gear from a dozen books and really letting loose.

Typical character (advanced to 20th level): Swashbuckler 3/Monk 6/Shou Disciple 5/Iajutsu Master 6.

That's content from four books (Complete Warrior, Player's Handbook, Unaproachable East and Oriental Adventures), and the character it was used on didn't hail from the Forgotten Realms and had no oriental flavor. He was a smart, swashbuckling minor noble with pseudo-Spanish flavor.

Could he have been a pure Fighter 20 (or probably Rogue 20)? Yes. He could have even been *drumroll* Core Only as a Fighter 10/Duelist 10.

He wouldn't have been as effective or, IMO, as cool, if he'd gotten no more attacks with his legendary rapier style than a knight gets with a greatsword.

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

Didn't see that coming. Hey, we should have a contest. Guess how many times diaglo has typed the above sentance. The closest to the true number wins some type of OD&D prize. Like guessing jelly beans in a jar!

What is Diaglo's his post count? I'd say at least 6000 of them say some close variation on that theme. he probably has that sentence as a keyboard macro. Very rewarding to read that over and over again!

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

Alright, I've gotta say I disagree here- I love options.

However, I do have some pet peeves...

1) Use options that fit the setting. If I'm running a campaign that has a Tolkienesque or Arthurian flavor (like my current campaign based off the R&R: Excalibur book), I don't want to see psionics, katanas, asian-style martial arts, mind flayers, gnolls, good-aligned goblinoids, tattoo mages, fleshcrafters, steampunk-style "tinkers", firearms, samurai, extraplanar travel, shugenjas, etc... all of that spoils the flavor of the setting. On the other hand, here are a few things I would allow:
Some of FFG's legendary classes- the Black Knight, Jack O' the Green, Oracle, or Wizard King.
Many prestige classes from other sourcebooks- Bladesingers, Crusaders, Cavaliers, Knight-Hospitaler, Seeker of the Misty Isle, Thief-Acrobat, Clan Champion, Brother of the Cloak, Song Mage, Mirror Master- all of these fit the flavor of the setting.
A few races: Half-Fey, perhaps. Maybe Tieflings. The Faen from Arcana Unearthed.
A few base classes: Commanders, Nobles, Witches, Monte's alternate Bard, Akashiks (as Fae loremasters), Magisters, Runethanes, Delvers, and Greenbonds all fit the setting well.
Most any feat is all right, as long as it's not broken (spellfire, a few third-party combat feats) or based on a setting-inappropriate concept (psionics, asian martial arts).

That's only a sampling of what I'd permit- but it's flavor issue more than anything else. The other day a player said that he wanted to go for the "Weapon Master" prestige class- I ruled no. It's based on Ki, a concept that doesn't exist in my setting. End of discussion. In my collection, there are at least 100 prestige classes that I'd permit- one of them should fit your character concept, if you feel you need one.

2) "Cantina-scene parties"
For my latest campaign, I told everyone that the races in R&R: Excalibur were the only ones permitted. However, if someone now asked me if they could play a non-standard race, I'd probably permit it.

Why this policy?

Have you ever tried making adventures for a Kitairn (a cat-like humanoid from AEG's Mercenaries), a Kobold, a Half-Orc, a Human Lich, and a Half-Celestial, all of greatly differing alignments? I have. I found it next to impossible. The campaign barely lasted a session.

On the other hand, if you have a solid party of common races (the current party consists of three humans and four elves), and someone decides they want to bring in a non-standard character, it's much easier. You already have a party of characters established in the mainstream of your campaign setting, and some semblence of a plot that the new character can be worked into. At this point, it adds some flavor to the party.

3) My take on game balance.
I've known GM's who frequently complained that leadership was an unbalanced feat, or that granting cohorts made adventures too easy. There's a simple solution to this- more enemies, and harder enemies. Your players made characters a bit more powerful than the norm? Give them similiarly scaled opponents. In 3e, unlike 2nd edition, it's easy to ratchet up the power of your encounters by slapping hit dice and class levels on your monsters. Use this to your advantage, DM's! All too often every monster I encounter in an adventure is at base HD, when it might have an advancement limit far beyond that base. And, all too often my players have assumed that the party of hobgoblins they encountered were first level warriors, only to discover, much to their chagrin, that they were 5th level fighter/barbarians... ouch.

 

[DragonLancer]

I'm not a big fan of player options. Its just more rules and details that the DM needs to keep control of.

I think games should be kept to a minimum of optional extas.... few PrC's, standard PC races, only the base core classes...etc. A few new feats or spells appropriate to your setting and your done.

The only extras as DM I use, are new monster books.

 

[buzz]

I don't mind adding a rule or two from other books - like you said, there are a lot of great ideas out there. But when every single PC uses some of these "optional rules" sooner or later, then there is something wrong IMO.

People buy d20 product. Amazingly, they want to get a chance to use some of it occasionally. What's wrong with that?

Classes, races, feats, and skills are the building blocks of D&D chargen. They are the "points" you spend to build a PC. If a supplement has an option that allows the player to make the kind of character they want to play, why shouldn't they be allowed to use it? (Barring it being somehow obviously unbalanced or disruptive to the campiagn, of course.) And if a variant rule looks like soemthing that will make the game more fun, why not try it?

I dunno. Think about GURPS. Would it have been fun, pre-Compendium I, to force all your players to use nothing but the Basic Set? What if there was an option in a supplement that fit their concept? Are you going to sacrifice their enjoyment of the game in order to make yourself feel good about sticking to just the core rules? What's the point?

There's a lot of d20 product out there. As Psion pointed out, among all the chaff, there are some great kernels of wheaty d20 goodness. I see no reason to refuse to make use of them.

 

[DragonLancer]

People buy d20 product. Amazingly, they want to get a chance to use some of it occasionally. What's wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing, just go play it in someone else's game.

Classes, races, feats, and skills are the building blocks of D&D chargen. They are the "points" you spend to build a PC. If a supplement has an option that allows the player to make the kind of character they want to play, why shouldn't they be allowed to use it? (Barring it being somehow obviously unbalanced or disruptive to the campiagn, of course.) And if a variant rule looks like soemthing that will make the game more fun, why not try it?

I dunno. Think about GURPS. Would it have been fun, pre-Compendium I, to force all your players to use nothing but the Basic Set? What if there was an option in a supplement that fit their concept? Are you going to sacrifice their enjoyment of the game in order to make yourself feel good about sticking to just the core rules? What's the point?

There's a lot of d20 product out there. As Psion pointed out, among all the chaff, there are some great kernels of wheaty d20 goodness. I see no reason to refuse to make use of them.

There is a lot of good and bad out there. However, the DM should not be forced to play something that he doesn't want to. Simple as that.

I don't allow my players to use anything that I as DM don't already own. And even then I don't allow it all. I consider a control and balance issue. I don't want to have hordes of new feats, spells and definately not prestige classes invade my games just because they are in a new book that I just bought.

If you are happy allowing everything in your game, good on you but you shouldn't try to convince others to do likewise.