Why I don't play D&D anymore

[Chaldfont]

In general, I think the reasonable response in this situation is to keep the shortsword as a backup weapon and use it at least on guys with DR X/Magic and pick up a magic axe at the first chance you get. Being petulant and refusing to do so, if you are the party's melee damager, is likely to result in everyone's death through in-character stupidity. It would be like a wizard who styled herself a pyromancer and refused to cast anything but fire spells on the Red Dragon. There's a subtle line, of course--when it's just the +1 to hit and damage over the axe on a normal opponent and the character likes axes, that's a different story.

Bah! This is what makes for interesting roleplaying. Would you get on the fighter-player's case if he fought for a few rounds with his axe and only switched when your PC (your PC, not you the player) pointed out his bullheadedness?

Or in the case of the pyromancer: still casting fire spells at the red dragon until he realizes they aren't doing anything because, even though the player knows better, the character doesn't?

This is the same reason I can't get into MMORPGs: the cost/benefit, optimization mentality.

Indiana Jones still carries his whip, even though his revolver does more damage.

 

[IcyCool]

I don't get the 4 encounters per day thing.

Nor would you, given your admission of the game setup. Try running a game with 1-2 encounters per day, consistently. Witness how the spellcasters and power users rise in importance.

The easy solution, of course, is to make sure you have several encounters per day, or keep your players guessing. The problem arises when you don't want to do that.

 

[Crothian]

The easy solution, of course, is to make sure you have several encounters per day, or keep your players guessing. The problem arises when you don't want to do that.

There are always other solutions to the problem though. One could weaken spell users, or strengthen the non spell users. One could make monsters a little tougher against spells and the like. One could also just accept that combats will be a little easy (nothing wrong with that) and shift the focus of hard challenges away from that. I've found that people that want to play D&D can find ways to make it work.

 

[arscott]

Okay, I'm not entirely sure how ANYONE gets the idea that there are INTENDED to be 4 encounters per day like some kind of clockwork. Though I never USE the DMG rules on encounter frequency (which should be noteworthy to the OP in and of itself) I knew they were there. A quick perusal of all of 2 minutes found three indications of encounter frequency. One reference each for dungeon, wilderness, and city encounters:

Dungeon encounters (p.77) roughly 10% chance per hour (with modifiers: essentially DM discretion).
Wilderness encounters (p.95) 5%-12% chance per hour (depending on locale/population density).
City Encounters (p.101) one encounter per day.

Now you statistics fans would have to tell me how many encounters those percentages work out to per day - but I can with great confidence aver that it does not = 4.

For the expected result, just multiply the rate by the time. Thus, if you have 10% per hour for twenty four hours, you can expect an average of 2.4 encounters.

 

[gizmo33]

Indiana Jones still carries his whip, even though his revolver does more damage.

The whip actually comes in handy and does stuff the revolver doesn't do. If an axe chops wood better than a sword, then it might make sense to carry one. Indy was min-maxing when he shot that guy with the sword in the first movie. Indy carried a revolver - there was no law against carrying a musket, but he probably read the rules and figured that was stupid.

So all warriors are min-maxers, that's common sense. No sane warrior has ever knowingly chosen sub-optimal equipment, when they could afford to do otherwise. That's why people don't wear platemail anymore, even though it looks cool.

That's not to say that I think that players should give each other a hard time about their character builds. This whole attitude that says "your guy is a drain on the party - start optimizing" - that's rude almost beyond words.

 

[BlackMoria]

Nor would you, given your admission of the game setup. Try running a game with 1-2 encounters per day, consistently. Witness how the spellcasters and power users rise in importance

I will agree with the statement. But the DM is a large part of the checks and balances.

The DM can set the tempo such that the most munched out character is challenged, even if very little encounters occur.

For example - let's use the psion. Strong with few encounters per day.

This is some things I have done.

Intelligent monsters / NPCs go for the most dangerous PC. If the psion is using his abilities to become highly effective, the intelligent monsters are going to pick on the psion over the less dangerous PCs. Given how I usually play intelligent monsters, this is NOT a envious position to be in. If the psion gets hammered hard a few times, the player learns to conserve resources and try to be less of a target (such as using some of those power points in defence and less in offensive options). And if he dumps all his PP in defence then he is much less effective offensively. A form of control or balance on the encounter can be done.

Further...just because the psion had only 1-2 encounters yesterday, and 1-2 encounters the day before doesn't mean he will get 1-2 encounters today. Let him blow his wad then throw a few more encounters the party's way. He will be less effective and others get to shine. Also, it will teach the psion player that conserving resources for the unexpected may be a good idea.

Also, some characters and classes are one-trick ponies - good in a narrow scope and less useful in others. Mix it up for the encounters, limited that they might be and play into the weakness of the character or class in question. This allows others to shine and limits the dominance of problematic classes or characters.

In short, even with few encounters per day, spellcasters, psions or munched out characters can be limited so they don't hog the limelight.

 

[gizmo33]

The easy solution, of course, is to make sure you have several encounters per day, or keep your players guessing. The problem arises when you don't want to do that.

Not wanting to do it in a particular instance, and never doing it, are two different things. Not really knowing the particulars, I think something's a little odd when the Psion in the group knows for certain that there's a one-a-day policy in the game. That's unrealistic, and it seems to go against the spirit of the way the DnD game should be run.

So:
1. There's never more than one evil monster in the area, who hears sounds of battle and arrives later to investigate - or trails the PCs to their camp-site and attacks
2. The BBEG never retreats from a combat and comes back later in the day after all of the buffs have worn off.
3. Monsters never split up into groups
4. Monsters never have skirmishers or scouts - in fact that's exactly what a skirmisher is supposed to do so this isn't exactly the pinnacle of military science
5. Nobody in the wilderness is ever encountered near their fortress, where there are additional encounters

In fact, the list of things that never can happen so as to guarrantee one encounter/day is endless. I can't imagine what DM doesn't want his players to keep guessing - and unless you're showing them your adventure notes I don't know how that's even possible.

 

[Klaus]

The column on the WotC site on adventure development is a gem. Among other things, it says that the 4 same-CR/day thing shouldn't be followed to the letter. It should actually have one encounter of a higher CR, one or two of same CR and a whole bunch of lower-CR encounters.

This isn't the first I have heard people complaining about lack of role-playing in D&D, or stuff like that. I answer with 4 little words: Red Hand of Dooooooom. Really, go look that adventure up. It's, bar none, the very best adventure I've seen in my 19+ years of DnD.

Oh and acting out traits not helping level up: roleplaying XP. If a player acts according to his character's personality, give him 100 XP per character level. Me? I give levels, not XP anymore. When the time is right, I just say "level up" and am done with it.

 

[Wes350]

Umm, dontcha think there might be a reason for this other than "all 3e players are rollplaying munchkins"?

I didn't say all 3e players are munchkins - don't quote something not in my post. I just think that 3.5 as designed requires you to be mindful of build efficency due to the nature of the in game assuptions. This is one of those things that I don't like, that many more see as a feature of the system.

Could it possibly, and I use possibly in its slimmest sense, be because in earlier editions, there was pretty much nothing you could do with a character mechanically after creation? Could it possibly be that in 3e player can actually further have their characters grow and change beyond what they were at first level? Could it possibly be because after twenty years of D&D, we've finally taken off the handcuffs that character generation handed us?

Naw, not possible I guess. .

I just think you traded in your old handcuffs for a more complex, fancier, and complicated set.

In almost every game I listed for skeptic, those games have online forums. And in those forums they have a forum to discuss/share your PC's. To a one when they are sharing/discussing new PC's they are talking about their new character concept and background for their PC. With NOT one post about the most efficent build.

This is a difference in the other games outlook that I like.

I'd actually take it a step further. Regardless of the system you are talking about, wealth by level (assuming the game has some system for levels) and encounters per recharge period (whatever that period is based on the system) and relative power levels of characters to challenges is ALWAYS fundamental to any gaming system.

Balance is important to greater or lesser degrees. But different systems balance things in different ways. If you look at the list of games I listed for skeptic only two of the have anything close to levels. And I have played many of those games - and you know what? I can just look at the PC's character sheets and look at the stats for the bad guys and I know within a few seconds how the PC's will do against them in combat. And no, since in those other systems XP is not gained by killing the bad guys, those "encounters" get balanced any way I want for GMing purposes.

When games ignore this, we wind up with people taking 5 points in wealth in Vampire and being able to do pretty much anything they want because they have millions to throw at a problem. Need someone killed? Not a worry, hire a hitman. Need a safe house, no problem, buy one. Breaking Vampire takes about 13.1 seconds..

Only the way you are playing the game is broken. There are plenty of problems that money can't solve. This is why in my groups we sit down and have group chargen. We also discuss what type of characters we want to play, and the game expierience we are looking for. If it fits the campaign we are playing there is nothing wrong or broken about a PC with 5 points in wealth. And if instead we want to play a more street level campaign, we just say NO to anyone wanting a PC with 5 points in wealth. It's easy.

Vampire doesn't take 13.1 seconds to break. I just think your assumptions about chargen and play in non-level based games are just off from how people really do things.

Assuming that players will deliberately handicap themselves out of some sense of "narrativism" is one of the poorest examples of game design there is.

And no game that I listed has this assumption.



.

 

[Wes350]

Okey-doke. I'm talking specifically about D&D 3rd Edition, the game as a whole. It takes these design imperatives to create something which is logically consistent and straightforward to learn, but with enough subtleties and additional complexity that it takes time and expertise to master. It also takes these things to create something that is balanced (yes, I used the 'b' word!) across as many of the permutations of level, race, class, skills, feats, spells, and equipment as it can possibly be.

Previous editions (which I played and loved, btw) were balanced by the seat of their pants, if they were indeed balanced at all. As a fan of *games*, I can really appreciate the design challenges involved in creating something as complex as 3rd Edition. It wasn't perfect, by any stretch, but it did all the right things in all the right places and has been a deserved success as a result.

So in many ways, much like you Wes, I'm probably citing strengths of the system that you would consider weaknesses. But in all the years I've been playing 3.0 and now 3.5, the systems on which the game is built have almost all had a positive impact on the quality of the game.

I can accept that. Your point of view is entierly legit.


.