Where D&D goes bad

[El Ravager]

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!

My guess would be 6744

======
El Rav

 

[The Other Librarian]

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.

Gotta agree with that. I think what bugs me is PrC abuse. They are introduced in the DMG as opposed to the PH for a reason. I think that for the most part they should be Dm tools that help him describe people and groups unique to his campaign. If you want a duellist type character, (an archetype described in many different fantasy worlds) there are a hundred ways to build one using the core classes. Same goes for lots of other archetypes like assasins, knightly orders etc.

There's nothing wrong with more options, lord knows I use 'em. I understand how it is to read a cool Prc and want to build a character around it. But remember these things are options, not new core material, and you gotta be true to your setting first and foremost.

 

[Teflon Billy]

...So, does anyone else here feel the same way about these optional rule books, prestige classes, and so on?

For the most part, yes I do agree with you.

I think the time when a "Successful" D&D supplement is nothing more than a weakly linked-together collection of Prestige Classes (NO MORE! ENOUGH WITH THE PRESTIGE CLASSES!), feats and power-ups is quickly--and thankfully--passing.

 

[buzz]

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

But it's okay for you and Jurgen to try and convince people to not do likewise? I thought the topic was up for discussion.

I did not say that everyone needs to allow everything. I said that I saw no compelling argument for *disallowing everything* and not being open to possibly making use of "optional" material, just for the sake of "keeping things core." The OGL has made a lot of material by a wide variety of authors available for D&D. Much of it is really, really good (and some of it just as good or better than content in the core books). If a player finds an option that they think suits their character and will make it more fun to play, what harm is there in at least being willing to consider it?

There's nothing wrong with having your group agree to some ground rules about what source material is allowed and what isn't. As long as there is consensus, you can do what you want.

Personally, I like to err on the side of keeping everyone's options open, with the caveat that we need to agree that the chosen options are appropriate and won't disrupt the campaign.

 

[GlassJaw]

More crunch does not a good character make.

In my experience, the more "stuff" (rules, feats, PrC's, etc) that gets into the game, the less creativity there is. Players are so concered with their builds and getting the shiny new prestige class that they don't even bother to take the time to develop their character. The "character" becomes a shopping list of abilities, spells, items, etc. Unfortunately, the character has no "character".

There is a beauty to be had in simplicity. Having limited resources forces you to think outside the box. More books means someone has done the thinking for you. Whatever happened to role-playing a unique archetype or character concept? Most of the newer books are about rules, not character creation IMO.

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

*yawn*

Have you played in a campaign where everyone has characters like that? I have. It's boring. High-powered classes make the game unbearable IMO. Combat is excrutiating and takes a ridiculous amount of time. Just the nature of D&D reduces role-playing as the power level increases. More abilities and more power means longer combat. Longer combat means less role-playing and less character development.

 

[Teflon Billy]

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

That's it Alan! YOU AND ME! AFTER SCHOOL!

 

[diaglo]

My guess would be 6744

not even close. on the WotC board alone it is well over 7600 times.

i type it every single time too. i'm not good with computers... so i never got macros down correctly.

 

[Alan Shutko]

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

Why do players have to buy these things?

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?

Because it may not fit in the campaign world. The flavor may be wrong. It may not be obvious to the player that this is so, but it may be apparent to the DM. It's also a burden on the DM (who has to know everything about the game world) to also know in detail (and probably buy) all the various things players want to put in. New classes/races/skills/feats can make certain encounters/adventures/campaigns less feasible or less fun. As mentioned, these additions may make it more fun for the player to play that character, but can diminish the cohesiveness of the group as a whole, making the overall experience weaker. That's why I feel it's the position of the DM (who has already been tasked with the responsibility for maximizing everyone's fun) to decide what's in and what's out.

And the problem with "just try it" is that once something has been put into the game, it's very hard to remove without upsetting people.

 

[Teflon Billy]

My guess would be 6744

You bastard! I was going to take 6744!

 

[Psion]

In my experience, the more "stuff" (rules, feats, PrC's, etc) that gets into the game, the less creativity there is.

That seems exactly backwards to me. The more options you allow in the game, the more variety and creativity you allow.

The issue with filtering what you allow in is not creativity (quite the contrary). It's focus.

Players are so concered with their builds and getting the shiny new prestige class that they don't even bother to take the time to develop their character.

I've never seen that be the case. Again, quite the contrary. The player is an unusual race of class, they need a reason to make that class fit it. That tends to create subplots, backstory, and context that might have been absent if you just played the fighter-son-of-a-human-blacksmith.