Why I don't play D&D anymore

[marune]

*sigh* 4 encounters per day means one thing:
The EL ratings are based on the assumption that a party of 4 at level X with items totaling a GP value approprate to level X can fight 4 EL X encounters before spending all of their 'resoucres' (spells, hit points etc.) A 5th encounter would most likely be a TPK as they should be nearly out of usefull spells, low on HP et cetera.

The designer's assumptions (4 characters, 4 enc. per day, and probably many others) doesn't influence only the CR system, they are also used to "balance" class abilities, spells, etc. so that each PC doesn't always outmatch the others during a fight (that's why the druid changed so much, that the rogue got evasion, etc.) and that's all the topic is about!

Changing these assumptions and keeping a good share of the "spot light" on each PC can be really difficult (some combinations are worst than the others, a psion is an example, but there are many others).

 

[Raven Crowking]

The real question is at what point are you really just better off finding a different system that is closer to what you want in the first place, rather than spending a lot of effort re-inventing the wheel.

At the point where the other system is easier to build into what you want, of course. Also, you need to take into account the difficulty of finding that system when determining whether to look or to rebuild. I, for one, enjoy rebuilding. The d20 system is great, and by admixing D&D with third party systems (including ideas from Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved, The Complete Guide to the Fey, etc.) as well as my own work and some options from Unearthed Arcana, I can create a system that does exactly what I want it to do.

And I agree that for skeptic it seems to be his player (and DM) assumptions that are causing the problems not the core 3.5 system. Which is why I reccomend trying different systems that might better suit your style of play and assumptions from the get go.

Except, as I noted, when I began with 3.0 I only used two house rules, and the problems that Skeptic is encountering simply didn't occur. These problems are not part of the ruleset; they are part of a "culture" that has grown around the ruleset. Thinking in terms of "Buildz" is not a rules problem; it is a people problem that developed due to some people's expectations of what a "Fun" game should be like.

If Skeptic's problems are largely with psions and the way magic items are treated, then there are easy tweaks to deal with those problems.

For Skeptic's campaign, psionics might be fuelled by hit points instead of power points. Suddenly, these characters cannot automatically outshine others, and psionic energy storing devices could potentially serve double-duty as healing stones.

For the magic item problem, the simplest answer is that, in addition to the Item Creation Feat, to create a magic item you require the Secret of its creation. You gain X Secrets when you take an Item Creation Feat, and gain X Secrets per level thereafter. X depends upon the Item Creation Feat, with X being higher for (say) potions than wondrous items. Of course, you can also barter Secrets with other creators, or find them as a form of "treasure".

Problems solved.


RC

 

[marune]

If Skeptic's problems are largely with psions and the way magic items are treated, then there are easy tweaks to deal with those problems.

I gave the "builz" and "wal-mart" magic items philosophy as example of a different problem (outside culture vs problem with designer's assumptions!).

I used the Psion as an example because those who showed that this class is not broken have used the "4 enc. / day" assumption as the main argument.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I gave the "builz" and "wal-mart" magic items philosophy as example of a different problem (outside culture vs problem with designer's assumptions!).

I used the Psion as an example because those who showed that this class is not broken have used the "4 enc. / day" assumption as the main argument.

Well, if you have specific problems, then I am more than happy to offer suggestions for specific, no- or low-pain fixes. Or, if I don't know one, I'll say "Sorry, man. I don't have a fix for that problem." I can't help fix a problem that isn't identified.

I do feel for your overall problem; the "feel" from the 3.X rulebooks sucks, IMHO. But having problems with the "feel" they gave the books isn't the same as having problems with the ruleset itself. I have found that, by tweaking the ruleset, I was also able to instill a different sense of "feel" into the game.

Once you do some tweaking, you have effectively put up a notice that says "This game is now mine; this is how it is going to be." And that, IMHO, is a great thing.

With 2e, I got weary of thinking of the monsters in the terms TSR devised for them. Myself, I prefer to cleave a little closer to a monster presentation that is less game-y and more folkloric (or horrific, for some monsters). While the baseline MM seems even more game-y to me than the old TSR books, I find that there are so many options out there that monsters are easy to remold into my vision. Moreover, the division of monsters by type is an excellent tool to allow for this sort of thing. As an example, Aberrations IMC can cause Madness.

As a final note, if this version of the game doesn't float your boat, and you don't feel like modifying it yourself, then there really are a lot of other games out there. Some work better for different needs.....as an example, I would run Doctor Who using True20 instead of D20 Modern or D&D. Different strokes for different folks (and different campaign settings)!

Again, good luck!


RC

 

[Hussar]

In truth, I think a LOT of problems DMs note nowadays stem from player assumptions, not the rules of the game. It's not the building, it's the climate the building is in. Two weeks ago, while prepping things just before the game, my players and I crossed the subject of "DM authority", "rules alterations," "rule zero", etc. and we all agreed - a DM is going to tweak things, he's going to fudge sometimes to keep things rolling, and he's going to have his eye out on making sure the group has a fun time with the session at hand. When a layer of player-DM trust isn't there, it starts getting people into a rules-based frame of mind that starts people valuing rules more than the fun, and sight gets lost of what you're doing at that table. This flies both ways - I do player surveys, formal and informal; I make sure no one's character steals the show all the time; I try to encourage interacting at the table; in turn, my players trust me and any changes I have to make because I don't find them fair.

So, before play, make sure you and your players are after the same thing, and understand play styles before disappointment sets in.

Excellent post Henry

Problem is, outside "dungeon controled environment", there isn't many place to face 4 encounters a day, that's what my OP is all about.

Buh? Whatchootalking about? In a wilderness setting, encounters simply come and find the party. In a city setting, you've got a bazillion NPC's to toss at the party that don't actually have to have anything to do with the adventure. Sounds like you are having problems with designing adventures, and I don't mean that as snark, despite my earlier comments.

If someone tells me they always stub their toe on the front steps and I suggest they lift their foot higher, only to be told that they will always lift their foot only so high, I am at a loss how to help them further. If you want a different result, you need to change your approach.

QFT and FTW

Another problem I have with "builds": I think a lot of time they come from people not really playing the character much. In a real, organic campaign, important themes and goals change all the time. Everybody might need to take on a new language, or sneaking might become something everybody needs to be able to do. You never see non-optimal stuff like this in a pregenerated, optimized build.

Honestly I think the biggest issue is that the vast majority of campaigns out there end after one year. Most camps don't go long enough to get into a "real organic" sort of place since they only play so many times before restarting with new characters. It's not so much the game, but, life getting in the way of gaming.

I agree. It's the issue of "balance" that kills D*D. Every player out there has been spoiled to think that all encounters are "balanced" and defeatable (at least that's what I've seen in LG). When the game is 'balanced,' players stop thinking...then the DM get's bored.

I'm really, really curious where this comes from. There's nothing in the rules that actualy supports the idea that balance has ANYTHING to do with EL. EL is possible because we have game balance, but, APL=EL is NOT balance. And the DMG specifically contradicts this. Why do people think this?

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

Yeah, but how many people does he use the whip on vs how many he shoots?

 

[Hussar]

The designer's assumptions (4 characters, 4 enc. per day, and probably many others) doesn't influence only the CR system, they are also used to "balance" class abilities, spells, etc. so that each PC doesn't always outmatch the others during a fight (that's why the druid changed so much, that the rogue got evasion, etc.) and that's all the topic is about!

If you scan back upthread, you'll see that you have this backwards. The 4 encounters/day came AFTER the game was designed, not before. The designers looked at what came out of play and realized that this is, on average, what will most likely happen. The classes and monsters were designed first. Blaming issues on the 4/day paradigm is putting the cart before the horse.

It's like the idea that's been tossed around that the average encounter is 5 rounds. Not a bad rule of thumb IMO and certainly fits in with my experiences. Now, that realization has led to some changes in monster design, after all, what's the point of having 15 combat special abilities, if you are likely only going to use 5? The Marilyth is pointed to IRC for this sort of redesign.

But, why is this a problem? If the designers have spotted a general trend based on experience, why not incorporate it into the game?

 

[Felix]

One or two encounters a day, consistently, in a D&D game throws things in favor of spellcasters and psionics. Doing this is not badwrongfun, the DM does need to take steps to fix any issues that crop up. Sometimes, a DM may find that this just isn't worth the effort. That's their decision to make.

While it is their decision to make, the decision made is to switch gaming systems (which costs time and money) because the DM does not increase the challenge of the one or two encounters, or increase the frequency of encounters.

Want to frustrate the casters?

• Use monsters with SR.

• Use Invisible foes, or take full advantage of cover and lines of effect.

• Use many weaker foes that spread out so area-effect spells don't get them all, and single-target spells don't help much.

• Use enemy casters utilizing PC tactics.

• Don't let them rest.

• Nightmare.

• Use Hit and Run tactics

• Use, or threaten the use of, many combat encounters per day.

It's the DM's decision to make, but his stated problem has solutions within the system that don't require changing rule-sets that won't incur the costs of rulebooks and learning the new system.

---

The Shaman,

It is possible to use the rules improperly. (If you roll a d20 and think you want to get the lowest number possible to hit)

It is likely that a rules-set used improperly will cause frustration. (If you want to roll low to hit, an increasing BAB makes that harder to do instead of easier: "How is that a well designed system?!")

Correcting the misunderstanding before advising to use other systems they haven't gotten frustrated with yet is neither saying the person is wrong, nor saying that they are not capable of using the system.

No, skeptic's problem is not trying to roll "1"s, but neither have we told him that he is wrong; we have suggested possible solutions to his rather common problem of spellcasters overpowering mundanes when he runs few combat encounters per day.

Yes, one of those solutions is to use a different system. It is not the only solution, though it seems to be the solution you endorse.

 

[Hussar]

No, skeptic's problem is not trying to roll "1"s, but neither have we told him that he is wrong; we have suggested possible solutions to his rather common problem of spellcasters overpowering mundanes when he runs few combat encounters per day.

Well, to be honest, I did. But then, I get annoyed when people start trotting out stuff that just isn't there.

 

[Felix]

Well, to be honest, I did.

Insomuch as 4/day encounters is not a rule in 3.5.

He has not been told, "You are wrong to want something other than 4/day".

 

[Psion]

I started with D&D under 2E (+- '93) and I was and I'm still most of the time the DM of my different groups. I switched to 3E and 3.5E as soon as they were released.

At first, I really loved these new editions; I was even aggressive against those "old skool" gamers who didn't want to hear about an elven wizard/paladin.

So, what killed it for me? It turns around the idea of Balance... Of course I want all the classes build with the idea that they should all give the players a way to shine in the party. However what I got is a Balance calculated on the performance in combat of each class in a game where there are 4 encounters / day**.

That doesn't support the kind of campaign* I want to do with the D&D game. Don't think I hate dungeon crawls. I do like them, from times to times, not in every adventure! I also want to run some "mystery solving", some "wilderness trek", some "political diplomacy" or some "overland skirmishes" and I think D&D should support all of them because they are the typical things we imagine adventurers doing.

I'm curious to hear what you'll say about it...

* BTW, I run all my D&D campaigns in FR.
** If you need a proof, add a Psion in a 1 enc. / day campaign.

I don't see that as a reason to not play D&D. I see that as a reason to tweak the allowed player options to meet expectations. And/or to let players know what to expect so they will produce characters suitable for such a game.

Frex, I, too, like mystery and investigation games. I allow more skill points to characters to help them cope with the environment with more non-combat challenges.

Of couse if another games meets these requirements for you better with little tweaking and your players like it, then there is no reason you shouldn't be playing that game.