WOTC's research on gaming groups

[DDK]

So far for the theory. In reality, players want toys. And in an RPG those are the choices you get to make. And who am I to deny my friends this? It's supposed to be fun for everyone.

In essence, this is what I meant when I said, "To be a good DM, you have to be an ogre..." On the one hand, as a player you look at a PrC and think, "Cool! This rocks! I can so see my character taking this, this'll be so much fun!" and on the other as a DM you're thinking, "Oh dear God, yet another PrC I have to fit into my world. My world that I've already put so much work into and this thing doesn't even remotely fit into my world concept... but if I don't allow it, X will be upset..."

The game has to be fun for everyone and I, as a person who has DM'd in 99% of the games I've been in and has had a game going for at least 7-9 months out of every year for the last 14 years, get enjoyment out of seeing the characters and setting develop in the world I have created for them; thus denying a player a PrC is a lose/lose situation. I neither enjoy doing it and if I don't, then I don't enjoy what has become of my world.

And this, yet again, is why I say there are too many PrC's and that this glut creates more problems, on balance, than it solves (solving being that a body of work has been done which thus saves a DM time and effort).

 

[hong]

In essence, this is what I meant when I said, "To be a good DM, you have to be an ogre..." On the one hand, as a player you look at a PrC and think, "Cool! This rocks! I can so see my character taking this, this'll be so much fun!" and on the other as a DM you're thinking, "Oh dear God, yet another PrC I have to fit into my world. My world that I've already put so much work into and this thing doesn't even remotely fit into my world concept... but if I don't allow it, X will be upset..."

1) Not all PrCs are alienists, oozemasters, or fangs of Lolth. A world without any room for a cavalier, deepwood sniper or loremaster would be strange indeed.

2) It's just as much the players' world as yours. If all you want is a pristine world unsullied by meddling outside forces, you should be writing novels.

 

[DDK]

2) It's just as much the players' world as yours. If all you want is a pristine world unsullied by meddling outside forces, you should be writing novels.

Right, but there are limits. As a DM you say to a group of players, "I want to run an X game with a Y feel for a result of Z." Players don't think about the direction of the story or the evolvement of the world; they think about their characters. So when a player comes to you with a dozen PrC's and says, "Hey, I'd like all of these!", the DM has to decide which do and don't fit.

And like I said, it is a game that has to be enjoyable for all participants. I think too many people focus on the enjoyment of players. This is why I think there are far more people willing to play than DM. DM'ing is a mostly thankless task done for love of the game and the setting that is the fruit of their labour.

So you end up with a situation like I outlined in a previous post. As a DM, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. Obviously there are exceptions as there are as many different styles of game as there are people who play it. However I feel that, on the whole, it makes DM'ing just that much more difficult a job; which is something I feel needs to be addressed for the benefit of the hobby. And that is, partly, what this thread was initially about, right? The betterment of the hobby through player/DM feedback?

Well, that's my five dollars...

 

[hong]

Right, but there are limits. As a DM you say to a group of players, "I want to run an X game with a Y feel for a result of Z." Players don't think about the direction of the story or the evolvement of the world; they think about their characters.

I think you'd be surprised at how many people want to play out a story, _via_ their characters.

So when a player comes to you with a dozen PrC's and says, "Hey, I'd like all of these!", the DM has to decide which do and don't fit.

I really don't think it's that hard. Yes, there may have been tons of d20 products released, but IME most people will stick to the WOTC books. So while there may be lots of PrCs out there, in practice you can probably safely ignore 90% of them. If a player comes to you and says, "I want prestige class Foo that was in So-and-So's sourcebook", you can just say "I haven't got So-and-So's sourcebook; try to find something else." IME, most players don't expect a DM to have all the books or acommodate all their wishes.

In my current campaign, set in the Britannia of the Ultima games, I've limited PrCs basically to a selection from various WOTC books. This was made known at the start of the campaign. In fact, I set up the website (see sig) before play began, so that the players would have an idea of what to expect. I haven't experienced any problems with players whinging about PrCs that aren't available.

That's not to say that the current selection is fixed in stone. If someone really wanted PrC Foo, and they made it known to me at character creation, and as long as PrC Foo wasn't obviously broken or out-of-sync with the campaign flavour, I would allow them to have it. The world isn't so concrete that I wouldn't beable to fiddle things so as to give the class its own niche.

It's just a question of anticipating player expectations, and dealing with them as best as possible.

 

[jdavis]

I don't see where the problem is with the prestige classes, it sounds like there is a problem with powergamers trying to min/max out their characters. Powergaming is not all that hard and anybody who has played for awhile and read up on enough stuff can make a kick butt character whether they take a prestige class or not, the same goes for creative multiclassing. It seems the trick is getting the player to come up with a reason that he could get that Prestige class besides "man that would be cool". Alot of the Prestige classes I have read come with a certain amount of responsibility too, to take the Dwarven Defender as a example, you are supposed to be the champion of a dwarven cause or diety or such. Roleplaying wise that should put a heavy load on the character, particularly if the character is running around with a party of non-Dwarves, it seems like he would have duties to perform to the Dwarven Community at large or to a particular community of Dwarves, so when does he get the free time to wander off looking for treasure? The Arcane Archer is similar, I mean if your supposed to be leading Elven warparties around then when do you get the chance to piddle around in dungeons with humans and dwarves looking for treasure and such? It seems the balance for a lot of the prestige classes is in the roleplaying.

 

[Roland Delacroix]

Players don't think about the direction of the story or the evolvement of the world; they think about their characters.

I highly disagree.

 

[Mark]

Re: Pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty Mary Sue...

A Mary Sue is always favored by fate and pretty much excells at anything that comes up in the course of the story.

Thanks Buzz! This goes a long way to explaining that tattoo on my buttocks and why those people in black cloaks with red eyes are always chasing me. I'd have asked my parents but, alas, I am an orphan. They were killed when my village was burnt to the ground many years before I was born...

 

[David Argall]

high level feats & Dwarven Defenders

"The highest prerequisite for a feat is BAB 9+, (2) BAB 8+, and (2) Spellcaster level 12th+."

As noted, MotW, and quite possibly others, changed that. The feat, Dragon's Toughness, requires a base fort save bonus of +11=18th level.

As a fan of the Arcane Archer, I am certainly going to encourage you to play Dwarven Defenders, very handy little things to keep off annoying monsters while the elf shoots them. But a really strong class? It's a one-trick pony that has almost no chance to survive without help.

 

[incognito]

David:

As a fan of the Arcane Archer, I am certainly going to encourage you to play Dwarven Defenders, very handy little things to keep off annoying monsters while the elf shoots them. But a really strong class? It's a one-trick pony that has almost no chance to survive without help.

One trick Pony? Great saves, Great AC, Damage Reduction, Fighter BAB. d12 HD type. Oh, and Spot as a class skill. YOu need only be a Lawful Dwarf, Not a Fighter. So far I have had no less than three submisisons using a cleric/fighter Rouge/Cleric/Fighter mix that were pretty horrifying.

See the problem with PrCs is not that they exist, it's that players can, with the knowledge the class is out there, design a character to optimise the advantages of the PrC. And that's not what PrC's are about, in my game, and in my opinion.

For Arcance Archer, the Feat Pre-reqs are a Joke - they are all things you would take anyway! And getting the Strong reflex save - what's the resoning there?

By the way, you had better hope that I dont even get a single attack of against your AA, cause that bow is going to be cut into several, quivering chunks.

 

[bret]

Re: high level feats & Dwarven Defenders

The feat, Dragon's Toughness, requires a base fort save bonus of +11=18th level.

Nah, can do it in many fewer levels if you are willing to multiclass.

Fighter 2 / Cleric 2 / Ranger 1 / Barbarian 2

Got it by 7th level. The Dex save on this character is two behind where it should be, but a feat can make up for that.

On a more serious note, it wouldn't be too tough to get this using a multiclass into a PrC provided both classes had good Fortitude saves.

One of the screwy features of multiclassing is the way the saving throws are computed. You are much better off on your strong saving throws if you multiclass with another class that has the same strong saving throws.