Why do we have such different experiences?
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
Frequency of Play definitely matters. I DM'd a group from about 12th level to about 20th level, and we only played once every six weeks or so. Did it take four hours to cook up a CR: 19 NPC? Yes. Did I care? No. I had the time. Further, since we didn't play often, our sessions were fairly fast and loose. We didn't have time to get bogged down over minutia. If we'd played more often, I would have been less happy about the time it took to stat up NPC's, and I would have paid more attention to a few of the more fiddly rules.
Party Mix is one I haven't seen addressed. The group above included six PC's: a Fighter, a Ranger (TWF style), a Rogue, a Paladin, with no multiclassing or PrC's, a Cleric with four levels of Fighter, and a Sorcerer with levels of Mage of the Arcane Order.
Obviously, this was a melee-heavy, magic light crowd. Do fighters suck in 3.X? Not in this campaign. Do Wizards pwn? I dunno. CoDzilla? not with four levels of Fighter, no.
Splatbooks Goes without saying, bears repeating. 3.0 with just the core rules is obviously going to look and play very differently from 3.5 with Bo9S, Complete Arcane, MIC, etc. etc. etc.
Party Mix is one I haven't seen addressed. The group above included six PC's: a Fighter, a Ranger (TWF style), a Rogue, a Paladin, with no multiclassing or PrC's, a Cleric with four levels of Fighter, and a Sorcerer with levels of Mage of the Arcane Order.
Obviously, this was a melee-heavy, magic light crowd. Do fighters suck in 3.X? Not in this campaign. Do Wizards pwn? I dunno. CoDzilla? not with four levels of Fighter, no.
Splatbooks Goes without saying, bears repeating. 3.0 with just the core rules is obviously going to look and play very differently from 3.5 with Bo9S, Complete Arcane, MIC, etc. etc. etc.
freyar
Extradimensional Explorer
Even if I weren't a vegetarian, I don't think I'd want to eat a 4-legged chicken. That really makes you think...
thecasualoblivion
First Post
To me, the key to different experiences with 3.5E is the amount of bugs in the system combined with the differences between players and groups.
3E/3.5E was a fragile system. It didn't take much for gameplay to become bogged down or for the system to come crashing down. In addition, large parts of the game really didn't work as advertised. In my experience, you had to go out of your way as a group to prevent that from happening. It was not insurmountable, but you had to do it. If you didn't, the game WOULD break down.
Which brings us to the second half of that, and that is the group dynamic. 3.5E worked well if the DM and the players were all on the same page. The fragile nature of the system required a team effort to produce a good game. Many people achieved this. Those of us who don't like turning players away or game with players of different ability or maturity levels had a much harder time.
3E/3.5E was a fragile system. It didn't take much for gameplay to become bogged down or for the system to come crashing down. In addition, large parts of the game really didn't work as advertised. In my experience, you had to go out of your way as a group to prevent that from happening. It was not insurmountable, but you had to do it. If you didn't, the game WOULD break down.
Which brings us to the second half of that, and that is the group dynamic. 3.5E worked well if the DM and the players were all on the same page. The fragile nature of the system required a team effort to produce a good game. Many people achieved this. Those of us who don't like turning players away or game with players of different ability or maturity levels had a much harder time.
ProfessorPain
First Post
I liked 3E a lot. But I did notice the more rigid people were about the rules, the less I enjoyed the game. For me it was fun when people approached the system more casually. A really aggressive rules lawyer could easily ruin a game of 3E.
I think they could easily ruin any game which is why we would throw any out out of ours.
FireLance
Legend
And just to add one more point to this excellent analogy:
Of course, if you're a "home game only" player whose group is into the riduculous, broken stuff, you may end up thinking that ALL chickens have four legs and three wings.
catsclaw227
First Post
A friend's mother-in-law had a dog that looked like a 4-legged chicken. We never considered eating him either.
On Topic: This is a great thread, and with simplicity it helps explain the varied and multi-faceted experiences we have all had with D&D.
Dang, I love this game!
And the Frequency of Sessions revelation mentioned by Garnfellow helps explain some of the difference in perspective that I have with other gamers on EnWorld as well.
It's threads like these that take the edge off of a lot of the wild emotions in the edition war arguments.
catsclaw227
First Post
This was my experience as well.
As much as I WANT to disagree, I simply can't. And this became apparent to me when my Shackled City campaign got to about 15th or 16th level.thecasualoblivion said:
I was a defacto, 3.5 lovin fanboi that took personal offense to people that said high level was broken. I had great experiences with my steady group with high level, in 1e thru 3e. I also played with basically the same 4-6 guys for about 10-12 years.
Then.... After a move, I played a Shackled City campaign with all new players. What a difference.
I think it's a GREAT experience for people to dip into playing with different groups during their life as a gamer. Observing varied perspectives is a good thing. I really find out what works for me and what doesn't and it helps expand my own perspective on "right" and "wrong".
Rel
Liquid Awesome
Speaking of which, you coming to the NC Game Day weekend after next?
Similar Threads
