Where D&D goes bad
- Thread starter Jürgen Hubert
- Start date
Malacoda
First Post
To me, several D&D campaigns with nothing but the core books are going to end up resulting in a "been there, done that" situation for many of the players. You might not play every combo, but who wants to play something someone else has already done for 15 levels? To me, extra feats, PrCs, base classes, spells and such help create a larger pool to draw from when it comes to the mechanical portion of character design.
That's not to say I think GMs should allow things in willy-nilly, but I think there are a lot of options out there that can fit into a wide variety of campaigns, and will help keep the game fresh.
I am lucky in that my players don't go out and buy supplements and bring them in to use them. I buy most of the stuff and decide what I want to be accessible.
And before anyone jumps on the roleplaying bandwagon, I am referring strictly to the mechanical side, not the "color" side of characters. Roleplaying and personality can add a lot of variety, but I also like a lot of options in abilities.
That's not to say I think GMs should allow things in willy-nilly, but I think there are a lot of options out there that can fit into a wide variety of campaigns, and will help keep the game fresh.
I am lucky in that my players don't go out and buy supplements and bring them in to use them. I buy most of the stuff and decide what I want to be accessible.
And before anyone jumps on the roleplaying bandwagon, I am referring strictly to the mechanical side, not the "color" side of characters. Roleplaying and personality can add a lot of variety, but I also like a lot of options in abilities.
creativity, mhm. Well I would say, that the more you are restricted, the more you have to be creative to achieve, what you want. But that is, actually, not important here.
I just wanted to say: I own lots of RPG-books (last count 150 (Oh, damn, what does this say about me, that I count them
)). And I try only to buy those I think I can use. I am a houserules-fetishist, who likes to tinker with rules to get what I want to play (probably the only reason I do dming more than playing 
). But I have found, that my players mostly game by the standard rules (or a few free supplements like netbook of feats and gryphons tome of feats (both I never liked for no particular reason I could think of, other than that the feats described there often come together as an rather odd mix for power-gamers)), because they are not that into the gaming and do not own those books I own. I often try to show them new possibilities for their charakters and sometimes they say: "great! I want to play that." but more often they just try to do role-playing.
Heck, I am cursed with groups of role-players, who do not care about characterbuilding other than what fits the role.
I just wanted to say: I own lots of RPG-books (last count 150 (Oh, damn, what does this say about me, that I count them
)). And I try only to buy those I think I can use. I am a houserules-fetishist, who likes to tinker with rules to get what I want to play (probably the only reason I do dming more than playing ). But I have found, that my players mostly game by the standard rules (or a few free supplements like netbook of feats and gryphons tome of feats (both I never liked for no particular reason I could think of, other than that the feats described there often come together as an rather odd mix for power-gamers)), because they are not that into the gaming and do not own those books I own. I often try to show them new possibilities for their charakters and sometimes they say: "great! I want to play that." but more often they just try to do role-playing. Heck, I am cursed with groups of role-players, who do not care about characterbuilding other than what fits the role.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Wow. Strong feelings, much?
Okay, from my own perspective:
1) I like playing D&D. If I wanted to play a different game, I would. If I want to play D&D, I'm playing D&D. With whatever options are appropriate.
2) Maybe I've just been lucky with my players, but I find it astonishing that people seem to assume that the presence of a book in the group either requires the book be allowed entirely, or disallowed entirely. That's not the case; this isn't a binary decision. In just about every game I run, I give the players character-creation guidelines. Sometimes they're as simple as "Play anything in the core rules or the Eberron campaign setting." Sometimes it's "Every character needs to be a humanoid with an ECL of +6 or less." Sometimes it's "All characters must be human, and they should all fit into a very traditional middle ages small village where the only arcane caster is the local village witch and her apprentices."
Now, here's the important part: In all cases, I also tell my players "If you have a class/prestige class/race/feat/whatever from a source other than the core rules (and the other books I've specified) that you want to play, check with me and we'll discuss it."
What that means is, I'm potentially allowing material from outside sources, but I reserve the right to decide if it's campaign-appropriate, and the fact that I allow X from The Complete Book of Noodles doesn't mean I'm allowing Y from that same book.
I think, in most cases, it's foolish for a DM just to say "You can play anything from any source." I don't think most pro-option people are advocating that. At the same time, what's wrong with saying "If you have something you want to try, let me look at it, and if it's appropriate, I'll allow it"? That leaves the final decision in the DM's hands, but lets the players at least lobby for something they like.
Incidentally, I also have another rule I make clear to all my players, if we're bringing in a PrC/feat/whatever from an outside source that I don't know very well. I tell them "I'll let you try it. But if we discover down the road that there's a problem with it, or it's unbalanced, we're going to have to recreate/retcon the character to get rid of it." And every player I've had is okay with that; they understand that you can't always judge balance until you see something in action.
I might even go so far as to suggest I wouldn't allow someone who couldn't accept the above rules/caveats into my games.
Okay, from my own perspective:
1) I like playing D&D. If I wanted to play a different game, I would. If I want to play D&D, I'm playing D&D. With whatever options are appropriate.
2) Maybe I've just been lucky with my players, but I find it astonishing that people seem to assume that the presence of a book in the group either requires the book be allowed entirely, or disallowed entirely. That's not the case; this isn't a binary decision. In just about every game I run, I give the players character-creation guidelines. Sometimes they're as simple as "Play anything in the core rules or the Eberron campaign setting." Sometimes it's "Every character needs to be a humanoid with an ECL of +6 or less." Sometimes it's "All characters must be human, and they should all fit into a very traditional middle ages small village where the only arcane caster is the local village witch and her apprentices."
Now, here's the important part: In all cases, I also tell my players "If you have a class/prestige class/race/feat/whatever from a source other than the core rules (and the other books I've specified) that you want to play, check with me and we'll discuss it."
What that means is, I'm potentially allowing material from outside sources, but I reserve the right to decide if it's campaign-appropriate, and the fact that I allow X from The Complete Book of Noodles doesn't mean I'm allowing Y from that same book.
I think, in most cases, it's foolish for a DM just to say "You can play anything from any source." I don't think most pro-option people are advocating that. At the same time, what's wrong with saying "If you have something you want to try, let me look at it, and if it's appropriate, I'll allow it"? That leaves the final decision in the DM's hands, but lets the players at least lobby for something they like.
Incidentally, I also have another rule I make clear to all my players, if we're bringing in a PrC/feat/whatever from an outside source that I don't know very well. I tell them "I'll let you try it. But if we discover down the road that there's a problem with it, or it's unbalanced, we're going to have to recreate/retcon the character to get rid of it." And every player I've had is okay with that; they understand that you can't always judge balance until you see something in action.
I might even go so far as to suggest I wouldn't allow someone who couldn't accept the above rules/caveats into my games.
Grayhawk
First Post
I feel the same way. Luckily it's not a problem in my group, as my players only own a PHB each and none of them have the time to read about this stuff on the net. So they don't even know about PrCl's, the splatbooks, etc.Jürgen Hubert said:
So we get by on core rules, but not strictly. If I feel something is missing, I make a house rule for it, and if I see a really good feat or spell somewhere, I won't hesitate to offer it to my players or use it against them.
And when I get the 'must-buy-RPG-stuff' itch, I scratch it with modules - I just bought 'The Village of Oester' the other day.
Chimera
First Post
I don't mind more options, but...
Seems to me that Feats and PrCs are the new "toys" of v3/3.5, just as people went nuts with kits in 2e. Thankfully we're seeing a slowdown of feat explosion and we'll soon see the same with PrCs.
One of the ways I limit PrCs IMC, other than by simply saying that they aren't allowed, is to play up how much of an accomplishment it is to achieve one and how less than easy it should be. After all, you don't just wake up one day and declare yourself to be a Templar, then go tell the other Templars that you're now one of them. Doesn't work that way. You have to work at becoming a Templar and gain entry into their "order". Now, that may not hold true with other PrCs, but they should likewise not be something where you simply wake up one day and decide to become a Geomancer or somesuch.
A PrC, IMO, should be an achievement and a path, not just a decision.
Seems to me that Feats and PrCs are the new "toys" of v3/3.5, just as people went nuts with kits in 2e. Thankfully we're seeing a slowdown of feat explosion and we'll soon see the same with PrCs.
One of the ways I limit PrCs IMC, other than by simply saying that they aren't allowed, is to play up how much of an accomplishment it is to achieve one and how less than easy it should be. After all, you don't just wake up one day and declare yourself to be a Templar, then go tell the other Templars that you're now one of them. Doesn't work that way. You have to work at becoming a Templar and gain entry into their "order". Now, that may not hold true with other PrCs, but they should likewise not be something where you simply wake up one day and decide to become a Geomancer or somesuch.
A PrC, IMO, should be an achievement and a path, not just a decision.
buzz
Adventurer
Nobody has to buy anything. However, gamers do tend to enjoy buying new product. I see no reason to unilaterally forbid them from ever using it.Alan Shutko said:
I addressed this in my last post. I agree that there must be consensus (i.e., I think the players need to agree, too).Alan Shutko said:
Well, the responsibility for maximizing fun is a two-way street. If it's obvious that an option the DM allowed in is becoming detrimental to the game, the player should put their ego aside and do what's best for the group.Alan Shutko said:
Mind you, I realize that a lot of players (on both sides of the screen) might not be mature enough to do this... but, hey, that's how you tell which people to keep gaming with and which to pull out of your rolodex.
Anyway, how will you know if you never try?
buzz
Adventurer
I was just making a point. If my posting an opposing opinion --much of it phrased as questions-- on the subject at hand equates to "convincing" (and, apparently, something I should not be doing), then his and a bunch of other people's posts are "convincing" as well.arnwyn said:
To be honest, I found it a little rude and uncalled for.
Similar Threads
