Where D&D goes bad

[WalkingDead]

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.

That's a generalization. Not every gamer goes out and buys a ton of roleplaying books. ... Okay, most probably do, but not everybody. Over the last few years, my preference has been to stay simple (i.e. mainly just core books and modules). It's cheaper and makes my work as DM that much easier. That's not to say I'm completely against buying a supplement that looks cool or even considering allowing something (feat, PrC, magic item, spell, etc.) in one my players found in some supplement, but my preference is to lean toward the side of caution rather than let in just anything.

I mean, how often have you picked up a supplement (or even an adventure, for that matter), and once you read it, you discovered there was no way it was playtested enough (or at all)? The first couple of years of d20 products were filled with surprises like that. Add in the whole kits fiasco from AD&D 2E and ... well, frankly supplemental material has left a pretty bad taste in my mouth.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

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".

Actually, that should be 'in your opinion.' Creating a shopping list of abilities, spells, items, etc. is a creative activity in and of itself; not one you aprove of, obviously, but not lacking in creativity. At the very least it's an interesting intellectual exercise.

Now, 'in your experience,' players who do that don't spend any time developing their characters. That's unfortunate (for you - the powergamers themselves may have had a very enjoyable wargame). My mileage varies considerably. I've found that the players dedicated enough to have a stack of books generally are also the most interested in developing characters and stories.

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.

I'd rather a game designer do my thinking for me when it comes to the RULES that represent my unique archetype or character concept in game. I'd rather spend my time thinking up said concepts and archetypes in the first place. In my experience, although creating a 3e PC and planning out a build for him does take quite a while, it takes significantly less time than building a custom class in cooperation with the DM.

*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.

At one combat per session, if that, I've never found this to be much of a problem. Maybe in a standard 'dungeon crawl' campaign, this becomes troublesome, but honestly, I don't think I could stomach a dungeon crawl. And how much role-playing does the typical dungeon crawl generate?

I'm used to campaigns where combat is what happens when you either a) encounter the major enemy of a story arc or b) screw up. Bad. It will be epic (regardless of level), it will result in PC deaths, and it WILL take an entire 6-hour session to resolve.

Anyway, I've never taken half as long to resolve a 6-class melee masher as a single-classed spellcaster. Heck, I've completed 10-attack turns in less time than it took to look up a (core) spell. :\ Some people's inability to either roll multiple d20s at once never ceases to amaze...

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

With the argument over creativity is promoted by/stiffled by prestige classes and extra feats, I have a question for the anti-extras crowd: would you, as a GM, allow a player to come to you and say 'I have an idea for a rogue. I want him to be from a society that is into slavery and he he escaped from said slavery, worked with a barbarian for a brief time when he became free. As such, he hung out with a wizard, too. Because of this can I reduce the number of skill points I start with, change some of the core skills around, have an extra feat, but take away two from my charisma?'

Basically, would you be willing to let players tinker with classes to make something creative?

 

[Arnwyn]

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.

Ah, I see. And that is a good point.

 

[jmucchiello]

For me, after 25+ years of D&D, the half-elven bard doesn't scream cool to me any more. Nor the half-orc barbarian, the dwarven fighter, the elven wizard, etc, etc, etc. Yeah, you can play with just the core rulebooks for many years. Well, I've done that for many years and need more now. And while I too find the cantina party a little annoying, so too do I find the 3 elves and 3 dwarves party a bit annoying.

 

[Voadam]

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.

Best rule in UA, IMO, is the spontaneous divine casters. The biggest complaint from the cleric in the game I run is having to pick spells every day. When I started playing a cleric in a pbp game I chose the spontaneous option because it would make things simpler and force me to have more limited options but stronger flavor in the divine magic.

However this seems to be counter to your point that the core rules are the simplest.

 

[Remathilis]

I agree, it gets hard to make new and interesting PCs using JUST the core after a while, no matter what edition.

I limit, but allow, some optional stuff. I've only had a few PCs ever take me up on them, but its nice to know the options are there.

 

[DragonLancer]

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.

Firstly, it was not my intention to come across rude. If I did I apologise.
Second, I don't try to convince people. I put across what in my mind is my reasons for whatever we're discussing. Usually its going against the majority but thats life.

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?

What do you consider a suitable argument for disallowing? You probably won't be able to think of one. Just as I can't think of a compelling reason to allow a lot of optional material.

If a player brings something to me, I will look it over but if its not suitable for my campaign, I think theres better X that is being allowed, or I think the player is minmaxing I will say no. Nine outta ten suggestions will be denied for different reasons.

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.

I feel that it is up to the DM, and soley the DM to choose what is suitable for his game and not up to the players.

-

 

[Liquidsabre]

Last time I checked options are just those, options. They are optional. As long as you retain focus on the kind of character you build, a swashbuckling hand crossbow and rapier wielder for example, I don't see a problem. It quickly narrows your list of options for the character build to a manageable (i.e. leafable heh) amount.

It's when you don't know what you want to do, what kind of character to make, that problems arise. You look at ALL that is avaiable to you and feel overwhelmed, awash in a see of books, feats, and PrCs, most especially if most of the "options" are unfamiliar to you. These "options" feel somehow...alien to you. A slimy unknown that needs to be squished so you can return to the safety of the known.

No worries for the experienced or the veterans, they've tried alot of different types of characters and usually have no problems finding a niche to call their character's own. With that, the options open up the possibility of playing the exact sort of character they envision. Such as a spirit worshiping spontaneous druid caster or a halfling riding dog master, and so on.

IMHO it's all a matter of progression. Folk start with core rules D&D at frist but usually progress from there into other D&D stuffs. With that said all that there is left to say is: "Give it time, and you too will come understand why/how others enjoy the many options that the non-core game provides."

Personally I think MerricB said it best:

My campaign is enriched by the material my players find in the supplements. It'd never occur to me to use it, but by their decisions, they create the world they play in.

A player wants to become a Dragon Disciple? Fantastic - let's see where that takes the game!

 

[DragonLancer]

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.

Thats pretty much my view on it as well. Its for the DM to decide what is both appropriate and suitable for the game & setting, and for the DM to ensure that there isn't a shedload of material that has to be remembered (by both player and DM) and that doesn't have to be considered in the long run.