Wizards, Armour and the Collective Consciousness

[Raven Crowking]

The game hasn't even started yet, but basically if I don't play, it's possible that it may not run at all

That would seem to be a reason for the DM to run something else, if it turns out to be true, but is still not a reason for whiney behaviour. Once you've made your pitch, and the DM has responded, then do what you think is best (play or not play) in a friendly way. If that means someone else has to run the game, so be it.

That's pretty much all the social obligation you have.

 

[NerfedWizard]

And we're now just about at the stage where I've made my pitch... I think OGB is considering his options, so I'm ready for that curved ball...

 

[Engilbrand]

You're basically saying that it's up to the DM to make sure that you have a character that's fun. It also sounds like a character that's fun can only be a Wizard in full plate with no negative. Get over yourself.
What if my only way to have fun is to be an immortal demigod traveling with normal humans. If a player threw that one at me, I would laugh and tell him to grow up. If it was the type of game that I and the other players wanted to play, then we'd work it out.
He has already told you that you can play a Wizard in armor. You just have to use splatbooks to do it. Get over yourself and make your character by the rules.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And we're now just about at the stage where I've made my pitch... I think OGB is considering his options, so I'm ready for that curved ball...

LOL.

If you made your pitch, wouldn't the curved ball be what OGB is considering?

Frankly, I think you should neither run a game you do not enjoy, nor play in a game you do not enjoy. If I was OGB, and I hadn't been convinced by the pre-internet thread argument, I would say "these are the parameters" and live with having to find a new player(s) if it came down to it.

I wouldn't want to have this sort of InterWeb-thing occur every time I made a decision a player didn't like. Changing his mind now would only seem to encourage such behaviour. IMHO, of course.

And, frankly, if wizards-in-armour mean so much to you that you can't play in a game without 'em, I would consider this whole thing a non-issue, were I you, and see who is willing to run something else. Or, better yet, run what I enjoy myself. Why don't you offer to DM something (a one-shot even) while OGB deliberates?


RC

 

[OldGreybeard]

My problem is simple, in our group we have basically four people, a DM and three players, one is NerfedWizard, i specialize in 3e/3.5e games, the other two players play anything put before them, if NfWz opts out of my D&D i lose 33% of my playing base, as players are rare in our area i try to create games for all to enjoy, the last campaign went from 1st level to 10th, unfortunately NfWz has gone off D&D cos he cannot see past his own wishes, looks like my 1000`s of pounds of D&D books will be gathering dust on the bookshelf for awhile.

Wish i could Polymorph NfWz into a considerate gamer, willing to just play a game without Metagaming all the time, ahhh the stuff of DM`ing dreams eh??

 

[Raven Crowking]

OGB,

Have you tried EN World's "Gamers Seeking Gamers" function? You might be surprised.

Also, have you considered recruiting from among people who aren't already playing D&D?

Finally, have you considered that this might be the reason that some of the others are sporadic? Sometimes it is better to cut one player to allow the others a better experience.

I wish you all the best.


RC

 

[NerfedWizard]

You're basically saying that it's up to the DM to make sure that you have a character that's fun. It also sounds like a character that's fun can only be a Wizard in full plate with no negative. Get over yourself.
What if my only way to have fun is to be an immortal demigod traveling with normal humans. If a player threw that one at me, I would laugh and tell him to grow up. If it was the type of game that I and the other players wanted to play, then we'd work it out.
He has already told you that you can play a Wizard in armor. You just have to use splatbooks to do it. Get over yourself and make your character by the rules.

Look, I've made it perfectly clear I don't HAVE to be playing a wizard in full plate, and I've also made it perfectly clear that if I were a wizard in full plate, I would EXPECT a negative. In principle, I don't mind reading up on armoured wizards if OGB wants to lend me the supplement. BUT:-

My problem is not with the published rules on wizards - it's with the published rules on clerics. I think they're WAY overpowered in 3.5, to the extent that at the levels of play we stay at, there's NO POINT playing a wizard, because they have NO significant area of advantage over clerics, whereas clerics have plenty over them. Sure, wizards have some spells that clerics don't, but the best spells are common to both, IMHO.

Another issue is that I think sorcerers seriously need fixing. In 3.5 they are overpowered compared to wizards half the time (depending on whether they are even levels or odd levels). They should have 3/4 the spells castable per day of wizards (but otherwise use wizard tables), but twice as many spells known as sorcerers currently have. The wizard bonus feats suck.

So, I'm happy(ish) with the 3.5 rules on wizards, as long as you utterly nerf clerics and druids, and fix sorcerers. But that isn't the point of this thread.

And finally, the rules of 3.5 are neither immutable, nor sacred. The rules and the game should serve the group as a whole, including all players and the referee.

 

[NerfedWizard]

LOL.

If you made your pitch, wouldn't the curved ball be what OGB is considering?

Frankly, I think you should neither run a game you do not enjoy, nor play in a game you do not enjoy. If I was OGB, and I hadn't been convinced by the pre-internet thread argument, I would say "these are the parameters" and live with having to find a new player(s) if it came down to it.

I wouldn't want to have this sort of InterWeb-thing occur every time I made a decision a player didn't like. Changing his mind now would only seem to encourage such behaviour. IMHO, of course.

And, frankly, if wizards-in-armour mean so much to you that you can't play in a game without 'em, I would consider this whole thing a non-issue, were I you, and see who is willing to run something else. Or, better yet, run what I enjoy myself. Why don't you offer to DM something (a one-shot even) while OGB deliberates?


RC

We're not short of refs willing to ref games, that's not the problem. I've reffed 7 sessions recently (of my own game), and I reffed an AD&D 1st edition campaign a few years ago. Anyway OGB and I have been having this debate for about 2 years, so it took a long time to hit the Internet...

 

[NerfedWizard]

My problem is simple, in our group we have basically four people, a DM and three players, one is NerfedWizard, i specialize in 3e/3.5e games, the other two players play anything put before them, if NfWz opts out of my D&D i lose 33% of my playing base, as players are rare in our area i try to create games for all to enjoy, the last campaign went from 1st level to 10th, unfortunately NfWz has gone off D&D cos he cannot see past his own wishes, looks like my 1000`s of pounds of D&D books will be gathering dust on the bookshelf for awhile.

Wish i could Polymorph NfWz into a considerate gamer, willing to just play a game without Metagaming all the time, ahhh the stuff of DM`ing dreams eh??

This is not a fair or balanced view. For starters, the only metagaming I ever did was when I finally gave up on 3.5 wizards/sorcerers I played a negative plane-aligned cleric. OK, I did play a magic-user with a higher AC than the fighters, but it wasn't a problem - when I actually got caught in melee, I still got instantly pole-axed cos I had rubbish BAB and HP, which rather proves my point!

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Grey Mouser from Fritz Lieber's Fahrd and Grey Mouser series wore leather armor I believe.

Maybe in the game books, but I can't recall an instance in Leiber's stories where he wore any armor. Didn't seem his style; he was more interested in being quick and maneuverable. Perhaps in later years, on Rime Isle, but I can't recall any specific mention of it. Plus, I don't recall him ever using magic except as a wizard's apprentice as a kid, long before he became a master swordsman. If there is some mention in the stories of him using magic as the Grey Mouser, he almost certainly wouldn't have been armored anyway.