Why I don't play D&D anymore

[Henry]

When I talked about Wal-mart magic items, it was a exemple of a different problem, because there is no assumption about it in the rules, it was created outside, along with the "buildz" idea.

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.

 

[Mark CMG]

The introduction of a psion in a party of 13th level was the breaking point, but It's a feeling I got from all my experience under 3.xE.

I prefer psionics to be use in modern or futuristic games as an alternative to magic.

 

[Henry]

The introduction of a psion in a party of 13th level was the breaking point, but It's a feeling I got from all my experience under 3.xE.

It's why I have the rules I do; we had to undertake some simple rules on Psions to ensure they didn't dominate too much. Some were just errata (energy missile's save DC for one), others were just subtle (like making sure they never "assumed" they were only going to have 1 encounter in a day - heck, as a Psion I ALWAYS make sure to spend my power as if I had 10% less power points than I actually did, and that way, if I were ever caught in a bad situation, I was not defenseless).

But in all, I didn't find any Psion doing any better off than a Mage who blows all his top spells in a day's time. In other words, any spell caster who flings all his stuff in one battle is going to regret it in the second.

 

[Mark CMG]

I would really like to know where anyone sees the problems and dangers in NOT running 4 encounters per day.

Because the designers use this number to balance the class abilities and in D&D, it's those same class abilities that give the players options to make their character shine during the adventures.

Doesn't mean that you need to have combat encounters, provided you are willing to adjust your method of garnering experience in non-combat encounters in such a way as to make non-combat encounters a palatable alternative to combat encounters for the players (if, indeed, their lust for experience and advancement is the impetus for ensuring 4 encounters per day).

 

[Zimri]

I don't know that this thread is the best place for this and I apologize if I derail it completely.

I think one of the main factors in the "buildz" mentality of having to have the most optimized character possible for your class/race/level/ combination is that now rather than being 4 or 5 people around a gaming table making suggestions if you ask we have places like the "character optimization board" at wizards.com.

The mentality of some gamers now is if your character isn't built into the optimal powerhouse you are "letting the group down" and they should be able to boot you. I can't stand that mentality but it does appear to be growing if posts on enworld are any indication. All it takes is one in a gaming community and then it grows perhaps slowly, perhaps swiftly depending on the charisma of the player(s) involved.

Sure helping people optimize can be a good thing but there is a difference between "Wow your character can do awesome stuff can you help me level my character or build a new one please? " and "You are the weakest link goodbye!!!!!"

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I want to make sure I understand you clearly before I post a response to this.

By decent game do you mean Fantasy RPGs in general?

Or designing a decent game/session/adventure/campaign for D&D 3.5?

.

Well, even in a game like Dunjon or Runequest characters have to rest once in a while and recuperate after they've been attacked by the Evil Minions of Nastiness. So why not provide a guideline for the adventure designer that tells him how far apart to space the lulls in the action? It's not a D&D thing. It's a "oh my god I can't take another step, but now we have to climb Mt. Doom?" thing. Even if the intention is to push the characters to their limits, you still have to have a decent idea where those limits are going to be. Playtest data, translated into a CR/EL guideline, provides you with the means to make an educated guess.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

(I still don't want to hear about elven wizard/paladins. But on to the thread...)

The OP is one of those posts where I suspect that a specific incident is really underlying the issue, and that it has been over-generalized. Is there any point in responding with ideas about how to run a mystery game if this is really about encounters/day?

The encounters/day thing, you would think, works like this - if 1 monster is too weak for the party, and 8 are too strong, then something in the middle is just right. It doesn't matter how much equipment PCs have - give a bunch of 1st level characters +5 weapons and it's still true. It's just basic math (or maybe advanced math, depending on how rigorous you want to be about continuity).

So I guess you're talking about everybody getting equal "time to shine" - so that supposedly a character who gets d4s for hitpoints (the psion) is dominating during combat while the fighter (d10s) is not. Is the psion hiding behind the fighter the whole time in combat? Is everybody 16th level? I would think that a character with d4s for hitpoints would be pretty vulnerable at earlier levels. I don't know anything about psions other than what I read in the SRD.

Somehow, I guess, taking four encounters that would be spread out throughout the day, and smooshing them into one big encounter is an advantage for the psion? I would put my money on the guy with the d10 hitpoints because the d4 guy is going to need healing. Plus there are situations, especially in the wilderness, where traps, scouts, skirmishers, etc. would lead off an encounter - it's such a wide-open subject that I can't see how you can argue for any one "reality" in DnD. And 4 encounters is hardly a "crawl".

Regarding the "they don't care about +1 swords with names and histories" thing. Well, nobody does. That's why Excalibur isn't a +1 sword. Merlin didn't say "hey Arthur, throw away your current sword. I know of a sword that, while clearly inferior to your current sword and any of those owned by your knights, has jewels and a long history and is fit for the thespian-king of England!" That's common sense - the best magic items are the most powerful ones. I don't know what kind of game, that implements the concept of power in any realistic sense, would have things any different. Fiction and legend supports the munchkin in this. Every warrior in history and legend was a munchkin - that's why they wear armor - and they'd wear it even if it weren't shining.

And also, with respects to the magic store, you can't expect players to take a +4 cloak with jewels seriously if you're selling +6 cloaks with no names out of the back of a van. Related to the last point, the named items should be among the best of available items. Unrestricted availability of magic items (ie. the magic store) of any power is going to undermine the "specialness" of all magic items. I don't see anywhere in the rules where having a "magic Walmart" is mandated. My advice is to use the DM veto power, IMO it's not hard.

Exactly. Who cares what the name of a +1 sword is? It's marginally better than a regular sword. Now, a +5 flaming wounding holy sword...that's worth remembering the name of so you can tell you enemies exactly what legend they are about to become a part of by being struck down.

 

[marune]

Doesn't mean that you need to have combat encounters, provided you are willing to adjust your method of garnering experience in non-combat encounters in such a way as to make non-combat encounters a palatable alternative to combat encounters for the players (if, indeed, their lust for experience and advancement is the impetus for ensuring 4 encounters per day).

Combat or not, it's the abilities (including stats, skills, magic items, etc.) that give options to characters. And these abilities are "distributed" according to an average enc. day (and some 2E sacred cows -> Paladins).

 

[gizmo33]

The introduction of a psion in a party of 13th level was the breaking point, but It's a feeling I got from all my experience under 3.xE.

Breaking point as far as what? Did you try running a "politics" oriented game with the 13th level psion, or were the problems just about balanced encounters? What are some examples of encounters that you tried, and what were your expectations? IME a single encounter/day has to be about a CR = party level +4 to make a dent.

There's still no guarrantee that 3E is the right game, but it would be interesting to see if there are some tweaks that you could use with encounters that would make it more palatable. My own experience has shown me that minor tweaks can sometimes have a big effect on how an encounter goes, and they don't always have to change the fundemental nature of the encounter.

 

[gizmo33]

Combat or not, it's the abilities (including stats, skills, magic items, etc.) that give options to characters. And these abilities are "distributed" according to an average enc. day (and some 2E sacred cows -> Paladins).

I wouldn't try playing a "resource management" type game on one encounter per day - that would be really hard to do IMO with the standard DnD resources (hitpoints, spells). If you only are going to have one encounter per day, you have to assume the PCs use their maximum-power abilities, and balance the encounters accordingly.

IME Classes with powerful short-burst effects like fireball-wizards, usually need protection from people with lots of hitpoints. Hit the PCs with 80 pts of damage (trap, area spell, whatever) and the wizards, psions, et. al. are going to be pretty miserable (or dead). IME they're going to have to heal and the fighter is going to have to hold off the hordes, giving the fighter a chance to shine. If the d4-hitpoint characters don't retreat often and rely on the d10 characters for protection, my guess is that you're going too easy on them. When you don't expect players to take defense into consideration (and fail to reward/punish accordingly), then the all-offense characters are certainly going to shine disproportionately.