The Unfairness of rotating Dungeon Masters:Or Hypocrisy of Dungeon Masters [Archive]

BoutsofInsanity

2015-09-27, 02:54 PM

This is a rant, something to get off my chest.

I like to play alright? I enjoy playing more then Dungeon Mastering. Don't get me wrong, I like to DM. I really do. But I like to play more.

However, I have to DM a lot. Especially among my friends. Even in college, when I would game with a bunch of other people I would run into this problem a lot. Let me set this up for you.

When I DM, I tend not to worry about game breaking stuff. I have the philosophy that you should be able to play what you want, not restricted by classes that are MAD or restricted by things that don't make sense.

Take monks for example: I typically house rule that monks get to use Wisdom instead of Strength while they have Ki in their Ki pool. This helps that M.A.D. a lot.

I give great stats. My standard array is 18 16 16 14 12 10. Those are numbers you can build a character with! The PC's are HEROES. They are exceptional people, not limited by mediocrity. Very few people want to be Bob the insurance salesman. People want to be Conan, Xena Warrior Princess etc!

Do you want to do something special? Something that a class might limit you by? Like, changing your fireball to an iceball? Sure, just say instead of fireball prepared or known, you have frostball. No big deal. Just handle it.

You want wall jump behind an enemy and attack them from behind? Sure, Acrobatics, versus his perception. If he see's it coming he gets to get an opportunity attack. If not, you jump behind him, and have +2 because he is surprised!

Fighters only getting 2 skills a level? Yaaah, no. Try 6 skill points, rogues get 9, Sorcerers only getting 2? Really? NO, they have 5. And being restricted by class skills? You are not your job, you are not your class. It's a framework to manipulate the mechanics of the game to allow you to interact with the world in the way you want. Class skills are stupid. Ignore that. Give me a backstory on why your fighter actually knows Arcana. Tell me why your Wizard has athletics.

And because I am the DM, I don't ever worry about not challenging my players, because I can scale up whatever I need to. I can't be beaten, I can't be defeated, so not challenging them is a moot point.

But, the moment, the moment I get into one of their games, nothing above applies. They want to do something "different", they want to make me play a commoner. Or I use a standard stat array. So better go caster if I want to amount to anything, because they only need one stat to be efficient.

Forget playing a Paladin, because I can't get any stats to work with a 15 14 13 12 11 10 array. I don't feel powerful, I feel average. Especially, when I have 3 skill points to throw around.

How am I supposed to make a character who is a knight. A paladin who can Ride, Talk with diplomacy, intimidate the evil around the world, with knowledge of history, geography, and nobility, and some athletics of swimming at my manor growing up on the sea? With 3 or 4 skill points. If I throw a 14 into intelligence maybe?

Why, why when I get to play, I have to play Bob the fighter who is slightly better then average, when you get to play in my game, Conan the barbarian? Where I am restricted by class skills, or stats, bull**** feat chains, that are universally regarded as garbage.

I want to play a hero. Not a loser. I don't want to play a loser. I can go back to real life for that.

Sredni Vashtar

2015-09-27, 03:00 PM

Sounds like you want to play in one of the games you DM. That's fair. I figure most people are like that. After all, if you didn't like your DMing style, you wouldn't use it. I don't know how this goes with rotating DMs though. I've had games where the role of Dungeon Master is swapped among the group every adventure or so. Being the most experienced player, I was "head" DM, but we decided on character creation rulings as a committee, and I thought it was fun to have varying styles of adventure as the stories unfolded.

eggynack

2015-09-27, 03:04 PM

I don't really see anything especially unfair or hypocritical here. You're allowed to run your game in your way, and others can run their games in their way, and just as they don't have the ability to tear down your house rules, neither do you have the ability to tear down theirs. Seems perfectly fair to me.

GilesTheCleric

2015-09-27, 03:17 PM

Have you tried other gaming systems? It sounds like something more flexible, perhaps more freeform, might suit your playstyle/GM style better. Whitewolf gets a lot of flak for being pretty unbalanced, but you can't say it's not flexible and easy to use. Plus, they have a setting for every power level. Want to be zero-to-hero? Play Scion. Want to be a god out of the box? Play Exalted. Want to be a commoner? Play World of Darkness. I've never played GURPS, but as I recall it allows classless building.

It might also be that you need to look in other places where there's more choice for groups. Pbp is available anywhere, anytime, and there's infinity options to choose from. Roll20 requires a schedule, but the pool of groups is so large that you ought to be able to find what you're looking for.

BowStreetRunner

2015-09-27, 04:22 PM

Did you ever wonder if any of the other DMs wish you ran the games in which they play more like they run the games in which you play?

Sqmach

2015-09-27, 04:42 PM

Something I'd consider: Why do you end up DMing the most?

I'd assume its because you are the most experienced member in your group of friends. This is probably why you are more ok with allowing people to use more powerful arrays and are in general more flexible, your experience makes it easier for you to adjust things to compensate. Your less experienced friends are going to be less inclined to do things that aren't exactly by the book because they aren't as good at adjusting to compensate on the fly.

I can see this from the other side of the situation because I'm currently living it. I'm a player in my friend's game, its a gestalt game where we're all super powerful, but I also DM for another game in which my friend plays. My game is a much lower power level because I'm new to DMing, and I avoid house rules and variants. Some people just aren't comfortable running super powerful campaigns.

Also, it may be that your friends simply want variety. If your games are one in which the heroes are super powerful, maybe the other DMs want to change things up and have the party be more normal people just thrown into the role of the heroes by circumstance instead of being superhuman to start?

Threadnaught

2015-09-27, 07:21 PM

Couple of things I'd like, roll 4d4 for stats, drop the lowest, add together and add six to the result, six times for stats. Retroactive Skill Points. Maximum HP per HD. Retraining is allowed whenever you damn want, with a single free retrain per level up. That Sol Terra's insistence on being allowed to take a Flaw every level for free Feats, that looks nice, in exchange for him putting a stop to whinging about not being able to take Natural Spell at 5th level thanks to a Flaw, he, MetaMyconid and Circa may abuse this in my high powered games, while he allows me to abuse it in his high powered games. Much of the Homebrew on this site available to use. The ability to gain fame/infamy based on your actions, with or without Reputation. Just about any playable Race. Free Level Adjustment on Gestalt Character with a free Template. LA buy off for LA/Template stacking that breaks those already generous limits. The ability to make Custom Magic Items, including the ability to rip abilities from existing Items to work out the cost of applying to a new Item, like the +3100gp cost for having the +6 maximum Dexterity bonus, -3 Armour Check Penalty reduction and -15% Arcane Spell Failure chance onto a different type of Armour to Celestial Chainmail, while stacking it onto Mithril with the possibility of Enhancing with Twilight on top of that for Full Plate Armour that is Light and has no penalties besides Speed, which can be mitigated through the Quick enhancement.

So much abusive crap that I'd like to try out from a player's perspective, rather than attempting to find the minimum counter to it all. I'd just like to be able to become a better voice actor.

As much as I'd like that, that's just the kind of stuff that exists in my games. I'm the DM, so the world works how I say it does, I had a discussion about True Necromancer and using Southern Magician to qualify for it with Circa and he said not for his games, in the same conversation, I said yes. Different DMs will make different decisions, it isn't hypocrisy, it is personal choice.

nedz

2015-09-27, 07:45 PM

I used to give out excellent stats, but we all got bored of that; because special snowflakes. I now use Elite Array, albeit with pathfinder racial mods, which is 15,14,13,12,10,8, and effectively a +2 somewhere.

This means that you have to build/play better because the stats aren't propping your character up — though MAD classes are a pain.

It's just a different play-style: go with it or quit.

SangoProduction

2015-09-27, 07:52 PM

Have you tried appealing to your GM(s) to increase the power level? There're also online games, and so many 3e games going on that you can pick and choose what you want. The game I am in right now had 38 point buy, and it's not really out of the ordinary.

Roncorps

2015-09-27, 07:57 PM

Being the DM is for many a powertrip they don't have, cannot have, in normal society. We could analyse everything as psychologist, but there as many DM personnalities that there are individual personnalities.

I feel you, but like some said, maybe talking could mitigate some problem. I've learn the hard way that the best way to go is to be honest from the start and as the get-go.

atemu1234

2015-09-27, 07:58 PM

Here's what I do: I use point buy. I have the players use a really powerful point-buy (36 point) while my creatures use point buy of either 25 (~ elite array) all the way up to 32. From there I eyeball it.

Deophaun

2015-09-27, 11:15 PM

Heh, you could institute reciprocal character gen: You must use the character gen rules from your own campaign in this one. But, that's being evil.

BoutsofInsanity

2015-09-28, 05:04 PM

That's the worst part, they all have games much longer then I have. They have an old school mentality to it. And, I know it comes off rage filled in the rant, but for the most part I enjoy gaming with everyone. And we do talk about it, and we have talked about upping our stats and character gen methods.

But this seems to be the consensus wherever I game. I end up in a game with low stats, or doing something a little weird or different. That when I want to do something different or cute in a game, I get told there isn't a rule for that game, or it requires 5 feats of nonsense to reach it.

But in my game, guess who wants to be a special snowflake and have powerful stuff, and do cool things that are different? The same people. Guess who really like the option of building a character who is strong, powerful and competent? These guys. Guess who have really close fights or encounters every session? Despite having powerful characters? Those guys. Cause balancing isn't really hard for me.

And I get people are different. I am totally cool coming up with houserules that make sense or ruling against what the rules say because logic dictates otherwise, or rule of awesome circumnavigates anything the book might say in my opinion. I have a guy who has to have everything written down, and wants a rule for everything, because for him, it reduces confusion and provides a framework for everything.

I get that. But sometimes rules can be stupid (Drowning, class skills in my opinion, Fighters, Paladins, Sorcerers having 2 skill points, etc. ) To me, the inherent draw of DnD over video games is the ability to do things that don't follow the rules. In a game I can't stand on top of a table, typically all I can do is destroy it from a top down perspective. Or if it's third person, I have limited options on what I can do. I can't drop an orb of annihilation into a lake and remove a towns water source, I can't just slay the monologue villain, or respond with my own speech on why they suck. Being able to have the freedom of pen and paper is what separates DnD from it's competition.

If DnD loses that freedom, why am I playing in your game? I can game on WoW, Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate, Witcher 3, Bloodbourne, Eve, Etc with tons of other people, from the comfort of my living room with live chat or lan that ****.

Obviously, dumb decisions should get punished and it's a collaborative experience. I should cooperate with the Dm of course. But is it so wrong to want to have the freedom to be something special, to have skill points, or good stats, (within reason) to accomplish a character concept that otherwise couldn't happen within the confines of the rules?

Anyway, thanks for letting me vent, it just was something building for a long time and I needed to get off my chest.

Tvtyrant

2015-09-28, 08:03 PM

As a DM I used to run into this issue myself. If I was the DM almost every class was available, there were copious races and a conversion of the mutant system from D20 future ao you could play whatever you wanted. When I played it was always PHB only, roll stats, witch hunting "low magic" and no money or items. I finally realized that as a FM I was allowing the players to do things they were not able to contend with as a DM, and I was labeled a power gamer as a result (I always play weak classes when I play to try to offset this). I cannot really help you as my group has informed me that they will only play if I DM...

Roncorps

2015-09-28, 08:17 PM

I cannot really help you as my group has informed me that they will only play if I DM...

Because they like you or they are a lazy bunch or because they think you are a powergamer ?

Tommy_Dude

2015-09-28, 08:34 PM

I have the same, but reverse problem. I love DMing, I love Old School Zero-to-Hero games. I dislike having high point buys and magic items thrown at me. I like to outsmart the rules through creative thinking and things that aren't covered in the rules that GMs have to adjudicate. I like feeling mortality when I play my character. I dislike too many houserules. Yet, when my other players DM they do just this. Instead of complaining, I just don't play. No gaming is better than bad gaming. I'm completely polite about it, and they understand I have no ill feelings to them. I also understand they want their power fantasies and optimizing. I've played martial characters for 10 years and HAVE NEVER used Power Attack once. I have never used a build that has Vital Strike or any of that entire feat chain in Pathfinder. Rather than stack all my feats into bigger numbers for one stick, I tend to go down a few maneuver lines and choose a number of weapons to have focus in equally. I normally play human fighters. The few times I have played with my friends as a player, I have asked to at least roll for my stats, 3d6 down the line. Sometimes I get high stats, but it is very few and far between. I'm usually between a 12 and 17 point build on average.

So while you and I (OP) have different views on what makes a good game, I know exactly how you feel. Now that said, I usually allow my players a point buy of some kind, normally 20. With three traits and a drawback, any race they want with certain in-world considerations. And I'll change feat requirements if they want to do something amazing. But that is not how I like to play. It is how I DM because I like making my players happy, and its what they came to a consensus on together. I also tag on Hero Points, Advantage (from 5E), diety intervention if I want to avoid a certain character's death, I do everything I can so that players can keep having fun and playing. But, when I play, I would entirely prefer that death be a final, resounding end to a character's career, that adventuring is dangerous and only Crazy People Heroes even attempt it. I like the days of the Tomb of Horrors and the Temple of Elemental Evil. But alas, I can never find that type of game at home, where I muchly prefer to play. Nothing like actually standing behind someone when a whispering voice is heard in their mind. Or actually crafting a cultist's holy symbol from clay and foam, and painting it and presenting it to the players in real life when they defeat the head shaman.

I think I went on a tangent there a bit.

Vhaidara

2015-09-28, 08:38 PM

Consider this: At least you get to play. I'm the only member of my friend group who is comfortable GMing. I have the ultimate freedom of allowance policy: Bring it to me, explain why you want it, we'll figure out a thing for you. Like, I've done homebrew races, helped with homebrew classes, the whole thing.

And when do I get to play? Every Sunday, at Pathfinder Society. So First party PF only, with a lot of the fun things (like races) banned. I got so desperate to play an Oread, I made a human Geokineticist and called him an Oread.

martixy

2015-09-28, 08:51 PM

I have found my soulmate!
...well I really don't swing that way, but as far as gaming goes - hell yea.

Everywhere I look it's PHB this, Core that, premade this, asinine houserule that...

I've only played in 1 other game where the DM was as permissive as me and that's because he didn't understand the rules that well and never said no to anything. As you might imagine the game wasn't very good. But I do give him credit for understanding the idea - being heroes, not chumps.

This is why I am currently building a campaign that will allow me to do heroic fantasy. Granted, this limits me to at best a very carefully played DMPC, but hey, at least I finally get to play something I'll actually enjoy.

The power fantasy is a big part of the experience for me.

But not everyone goes to D&D for that reason. At least not exclusively or primarily.
Some do it for the social interaction, some do it for the challenge, some do it for the role-play rather than the numbers game, some just like to mess with other people.

This thread already features a good sample of many different mindsets. And the pool is as large as the people who play.

It's also why setting expectations before the game even begins is so important.

Tvtyrant

2015-09-28, 09:17 PM

Because they like you or they are a lazy bunch or because they think you are a powergamer ?

One of them tried to DM and did terribly, with the entire party running around trying to find some glimmer of a plot. No one in town had any issues that needed resolving, the area around it was completely peaceful, the creep old house had an old lady who offered us a copper to fix and clean it (we did). After about 5 hours the group broke up and went home.

A different DM allowed another player (a new one they invited) to kill mine for "cowardice" (I was playing a Rogue). Two of them got into an argument about who should use their diplomacy rolls and I quietly left.

After that we basically booted everyone who wasn't one of the core four players, and the other three have told me individually that they don't want the others DMing because they don't agree with their sense of game style. So there I am, the lone DM.

daremetoidareyo

2015-09-29, 11:03 AM

I have a guy who has to have everything written down, and wants a rule for everything, because for him, it reduces confusion and provides a framework for everything.

I get that. But sometimes rules can be stupid (Drowning, class skills in my opinion, Fighters, Paladins, Sorcerers having 2 skill points, etc. ) To me, the inherent draw of DnD over video games is the ability to do things that don't follow the rules. In a game I can't stand on top of a table, typically all I can do is destroy it from a top down perspective. Or if it's third person, I have limited options on what I can do. I can't drop an orb of annihilation into a lake and remove a towns water source, I can't just slay the monologue villain, or respond with my own speech on why they suck. Being able to have the freedom of pen and paper is what separates DnD from it's competition.

Huzzah!

Actually, getting used to the giantitp boards filled me with a sense of wonderment how people make a big deal about dumb rules. Relying on RAW to prop up something that doesn't make any sense (like a videogame bug) while demanding RAW solutions to simple and common balance problems and getting frustrated by "Ask your DM." Gear expectations are pinned to this RAW. If I hear again about monks and their fist non-proficiency, as if it weren't so imminently fixable.......I'll become slightly irritated (that means I've seen this brought up a bjillion times).

Silverclawswift had one of their campaign logs include a story where a bless spell or something was used on the rain itself to create holy water as the PCs fleed from overwhelming numbers. That was not RAW, but was totally in line with the creative storytelling aspect of the game.

sakuuya

2015-09-29, 11:31 AM

After that we basically booted everyone who wasn't one of the core four players, and the other three have told me individually that they don't want the others DMing because they don't agree with their sense of game style. So there I am, the lone DM.

I'm genuinely curious how you have three players who (a) have sufficiently different goals/playstyles that they won't let the other two DM, and (b) are nonetheless all happy with your DMing style.

On-Topic: OP, have you straight-up asked your friends if any of them would be willing to run a "you-style" game? Even if it's not their default DM mode, one of them may be willing to try it out if you ask specifically.

SimonMoon6

2015-09-29, 11:36 AM

But, the moment, the moment I get into one of their games, nothing above applies. They want to do something "different",

I know this pain.

I remember coming up with the most clever and interesting games with exactly the power level I wanted. These weren't D&D games, these were games in more flexible systems, with multi-genre multiversal high-powered self-insert possibilities... because that's the sort of game I want to play in. That's what I would consider fun. And then when someone suggested starting a new game, he was like, "Well, of course, for the new game, we don't want to do anything like THAT. We've already done that."

Sigh.

I'll never understand the desire to play in a really low-powered game. I can understand the desire to *run* a low-powered game because it's sooooo easy to set up an adventure if *every* thing in the universe is a challenge to your heroes. "Oh no, a house cat! We're all gonna die!" But why would anybody want to play in such a game?

Vhaidara

2015-09-29, 11:44 AM

I'm genuinely curious how you have three players who (a) have sufficiently different goals/playstyles that they won't let the other two boss and (b) are nonetheless all happy with your DMing style.

My guess? Differing levels of competency as GM. Maybe the others don't do well when trying to GM that style of game. For example, I am a pretty good GM, according to most of my players. I have a simple rule that I use: is pretty much everyone having fun? If yes, we're good.

This resulted in a few sessions in a row where a GMPC blasted about half the encounter away, for a very specific reason: we tend to screw around, and most of us wanted to go to bed. But spending 2 weeks on what is basically a random encounter (not actually random, but the analog for plot purposes) isn't something anyone wants to do. The players would have won, and they had always dealt with the major threats. It was just cleanup that the gmpc accelerated (except in one case, where the intervention was how I'd planned to keep them off of an enemy they weren't ready to fight yet).

I recently lost a player who said that he felt I was power tripping. I reposted the Skype message he sent me into our group chat, and everyone had a good laugh at how he had completely missed the point.

I could have run the kind of gme he wanted to be in. I don't think I would have enjoyed it, so I wouldn't have put the effort into it.

Likewise, planning high power games is tricky. You have to avoid rocket tagging people, because no one likes being tagged. Boss fights also become a real challenge in this kind of situation, requiring a ton of prepworl, especially given how I run them (MMO style, where the danger comes as much from the arena as the boss

Pex

2015-09-29, 11:57 AM

I know this pain.

I remember coming up with the most clever and interesting games with exactly the power level I wanted. These weren't D&D games, these were games in more flexible systems, with multi-genre multiversal high-powered self-insert possibilities... because that's the sort of game I want to play in. That's what I would consider fun. And then when someone suggested starting a new game, he was like, "Well, of course, for the new game, we don't want to do anything like THAT. We've already done that."

Sigh.

I'll never understand the desire to play in a really low-powered game. I can understand the desire to *run* a low-powered game because it's sooooo easy to set up an adventure if *every* thing in the universe is a challenge to your heroes. "Oh no, a house cat! We're all gonna die!" But why would anybody want to play in such a game?

I think some who do aren't aware there's another way. They only play, never DM, and aren't as exposed to many rpgs. Their one DM is the only DM they know or play with. The one who only DMs prefers the low power style, whether benignly because he really likes it or it's all he can handle or tyrannically because he's into the power trip of being a DM and can't stand PCs doing stuff and knowing things that threaten his own awesomeness.

There are also those who fall victim to the "Stormwind Fallacy". They cannot perceive the concept that it is possible to have a high-powered game yet still engage in all the involved drama of roleplaying they cherish. They see a character that has and uses big numbers to do things and immediately cry rollplaying munchkin.

LastOblivion

2015-09-29, 12:24 PM

In my home group I am 1 of 3 DM. We rotate once one campaign ends. We still allow other player to try and DM mini campaigns between the larger campaigns. A while back we came up with a system for the sake of balance in our games. We call this the GM treaty House rules.

In the GM treaty, any DM or player can purpose and house rule to rule interpretation. Then we of the DM trio Discuss the rule and will yay or naw it for use in All of our campaigns. If majority the new rule is added to the DM treaty list.

In addition we also have the DM veto system. In this system is one of DMs attempts to cheat the players unfairly (cheating them fairly is fine), the other 2 DMs, (who are currently players) can bring up a veto. If the DM is found to be unfairly using his power his action is stopped.

The rules lawyer can't declare there are no mages in the capital to enchant items for the party since he wants to spite the munchkin that wants items for his munchkin ways.

Since we started using this system our games have been fair and free of complaining. and there as been alot less flying colossal dire sharks.

martixy

2015-09-29, 05:21 PM

I think some who do aren't aware there's another way. They only play, never DM, and aren't as exposed to many rpgs. Their one DM is the only DM they know or play with. The one who only DMs prefers the low power style, whether benignly because he really likes it or it's all he can handle or tyrannically because he's into the power trip of being a DM and can't stand PCs doing stuff and knowing things that threaten his own awesomeness.

There are also those who fall victim to the "Stormwind Fallacy". They cannot perceive the concept that it is possible to have a high-powered game yet still engage in all the involved drama of roleplaying they cherish. They see a character that has and uses big numbers to do things and immediately cry rollplaying munchkin.

I understand that for players, but what about DMs?
What makes the prevalence of low-power DMs so damn pervasive?
Is it lack of system mastery? It's a 10+ year old system, that should not be a factor anymore. Is it lack of will to DM? Why even DM then?
I really would like to know!

Vhaidara

2015-09-29, 05:28 PM

Is it lack of system mastery? It's a 10+ year old system, that should not be a factor anymore.

That means absolutely nothing. I introduced half a dozen people to 3.5 two years ago in college (for game development, so you expect people to play games like this). And I've seen at least a dozen people at Pathfinder Society coming in and it's the first time they've played a d20 system. So that's 18 people in two years, just from my experiences. And at least two of them wanted to GM. And started the game at level 3, both times (everyone agreed level 1 was too squishy and level 2 was meh)

BoutsofInsanity

2015-09-29, 05:48 PM

We have talked about it, and it does seem to be switching gears. But it definitely has been a theme throughout. And when I try to argue with my DM about why my Paladin, who can't afford a high intelligence with a standard point buy deserves more skill points I get pointed that it's the rules, and that it would be unfair.

But I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. I really do like their games for sure. It just was coming from frustration of earlier events.

ZamielVanWeber

2015-09-29, 06:03 PM

Actually, getting used to the giantitp boards filled me with a sense of wonderment how people make a big deal about dumb rules. Relying on RAW to prop up something that doesn't make any sense (like a videogame bug) while demanding RAW solutions to simple and common balance problems and getting frustrated by "Ask your DM." Gear expectations are pinned to this RAW. If I hear again about monks and their fist non-proficiency, as if it weren't so imminently fixable.......I'll become slightly irritated (that means I've seen this brought up a bjillion times).

This pops up from time to time so allow me to explain.
DnD was never meant to exist in a void but on these boards it does.
We have simply no way of determining what a DM would ultimately rule, even on what people would consider very necessary rulings. As am DM can say RAW only this time. That is my right as DM. I could otherwise create sweeping houserules that touch of every facet of the game. As DM that is my right. We have no way of making those decisions in a vacuum so we don't.

If you want to get advice on a build when specific houserule as in effect just put them in the opening post and people will respond based on those houserules.

Pex

2015-09-29, 06:44 PM

I understand that for players, but what about DMs?
What makes the prevalence of low-power DMs so damn pervasive?
Is it lack of system mastery? It's a 10+ year old system, that should not be a factor anymore. Is it lack of will to DM? Why even DM then?
I really would like to know!

Some - Stormwind Fallacy

Others - It's easier to manage for them. For whatever reason they're unable to take the time necessary to develop a high power game. The big numbers and abilities can be daunting to ensure fair encounters that aren't TPKs or Party just wins by accident. The most common reason is "real life". My group's original DM of the main campaign had to step down due to work and growing kids, though we do play a high-power game. He's also our host and for the time being can now only meet once a month. We rotate DMs and the others are each running power games, lucky me :smallcool:, but some DMs in general really can't put in that much effort.

Tyrannical DMs - There are some DMs who get off on the power trip. I facetiously call them "DMs who hate their players". They really cannot stand a PC doing something "powerful". They're the DM. They're the Boss. Only they get to do whatever they want. The players are just there to marvel at his game world. Players win combats to keep playing, but these DMs brag players have to be smart in the game or their character will die. They boast of their PC kills. They dismiss upon the stupid things players have done.

Edit: There are also a number of people who get all hyper about balance. Everyone has to be equivalent in all things. Balance means everything to them. While they resent the game not being able to achieve perfect balance, a low power game gets them as close to it as possible.

BoutsofInsanity

2015-09-29, 07:28 PM

Ill give a legititamate example of why going low power and low stats is a good way to do things.

In a public game with new players, playing by the rules and with low stats is a good way to maintain control of the game in a setting where people may not be able to handle high power stuff.

Again, I don't have a problem scaling up my encounters or letting players get away with one shotting my boss. Because it's about them and not about my ego or story. It's their story. Now I am going to do everything short of cheating to prevent it. Even if it means I have to stop the game, grab a book and start looking. But if it's a legitimate kill, then the boss dies. The biggest complaint I get is that I don't punish stupidity enough. (I'm working on that.)

I think it also is the basis of how your GM does things too. A standard point buy technically says you are exceptional. But unless the DC's of skill checks and the world represents that, the standard array might not be that strong. If I play a fighter, who has a 13 int, and strength only having 3 skill points, I want the DC's to represent the fact that I couldn't afford skill points to make my Knight character work.

I want to be able to expound on Knowledge History, Geography, and Nobility. But remember, I make war, so I should be able to climb, swim, run, and jump. If the DC's represent the fact that I might only have a plus 1 bonus in some of those stats, like DC 5 - 8, then sure, standard array is plenty. But, how often are your DC's in the 15+? Then your knight fighter guy can't do anything then swing his sword.

That's what I mean when I say I want to be able to have a powerful exceptional character. Conan could sneak, intimidate, survival, run, jump, climb, ride, swim, and knew the geography. I want to be Conan, I want skills, and stats that represent the fact that I'm better then most people. Most of us rock a 14 intelligence by the sole fact we went to school. People who work out everyday are rocking a 12-15 strength score. 10 is average, by way of a normal guy, who might go outside every now and then, who goes to work, and what not. That 18 though? That's Olympian. That's exceptional. That's training, dedication and good genes.

If you DM and you want a low power game, fine, but have the DC's represent that fact and not limit players by having High DC's and not letting them have skills. Or stats to accomplish tasks or saves. Holy crap, I should do a post on adventurers and why they are scary!

Crake

2015-09-30, 12:46 AM

It seems you think the hypocrisy arises from them expecting nice things in your game, while at the same time not giving those same nice things out in their games. That's not hypocrisy, that's simply them recognising your DM style and adapting to it. You're well within your right to say no to their requests, but the reason they ask for them is because they know you'll say yes. You can't fault them for taking the things you give freely in your game, but not giving out the same things in their own. I, for example, DM at very high optimization level, and allow players to take all kinds of high OP things, but at the same time, I wouldn't expect that to be returned, simply because I know the other DMs don't run games at that high level of optimization. I don't fault my players for taking the things I give them freely, but then not giving them back to me in my game.

As for allowing players to just do things, instead of having to take the appropriate feats/skill tricks, well, what about the guy who actually invested feats/skill points into those resources. You're basically saying to his face "you wasted all of those character creation resources". It closes off a whole section of character creation, because now the guy who can pull off those tricks isn't unique in some way, it's not something he's trained himself to pull off, giving him a decided advantage over others, it's just something anyone can do, so I honestly would have to side with the other DMs on that note.

Have you ever actually tried saying no to your players? Or running a lower powered game? I mean, the players seem content to play in eachother's games, so they must be fine with that? Maybe not all of them want to play at the high fantasy level you do? Or maybe you've lost perspective of what the ability scores mean. For example, your array that you use isn't "powerful" it's more akin to "superhuman". Even the ability array your friends use has everything mostly above average. Perhaps you just need to re-adjust your perspective. This (thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2) might be a good read for you in that case.

Yahzi

2015-09-30, 01:41 AM

What makes the prevalence of low-power DMs so damn pervasive?
Like Tommy, I prefer games that are quite... mundane. I generally start my characters at 0th level, so that gives you an idea. I generate whole continents that do not contain a single 17th lvl character.

So now that I have established my bona-fides: why?

1) System mastery. I've probably been playing D&D longer than many of you have been alive. Even so, I have a real life. I don't have time to learn or even read all those splat books, let alone think about how they interact. I want my players to surprise me with their character choices, not with rules.

2) Verisimilitude. 9th level spells and medieval societies do not mix. But it goes beyond the effects on society: if scry & die is a tactic, then why don't the bad guys use it on the players? "Because that would be an unsatisfying game" doesn't really work for me.

3) Drama. I don't find the typical D&D game dramatic: the basic definition of an encounter (using up 1/4 your resources) offends me. Monsters are not going to keep attacking you when they know they will lose. They do not exist to die on your blade and cover you in glory. In my world most encounters are ECL+5, meaning it's a fair fight. The players still always win, of course, because they are smarter than me, but there is no sense in which they expect to win.

Taken together I think all of these spell the same thing: simulation vs narrative. Some DMs tell stories, in which case it's OK that a PC is the only person in the kingdom who can cast Cure Disease and save the King's life. Other DMs run simulations, where the monsters are trying just as hard as the PCs to get ahead. I would be deathly bored in a game where my character was a special snowflake, privileged above ordinary mortals by the fiat of the gods. But I get that other people think differently; hence I give the PCs Action points and the benefit of the doubt, and in the end we muddle through.

Longcat

2015-09-30, 02:48 AM

This is a repost of my answer to you from your thread in the 5e board:

According to the 48 Laws of Power:

When asking for help, appeal to people’s self-interest, never to their mercy or gratitude

What you have been doing, essentially, is appealing to their gratitude for the extreme leeway you have shown them in the past. With predictable results, it would seem. The logical course of action, according to the Robert Greene quote above, would be to appeal to their self interest. And you have exactly what is needed for that: leverage.

I suggest you do the following: When you get together with your group the next time, have a talk with them. Tell them about your expectations for the game, what you consider fair, and get the group to agree to a consensus. Tell them if they continue to lowball their games with rules that do not appeal to you, you will cease to be so accommodating yourself. If they enjoyed your game styling, it is in their self-interest for it to continue, and in order for that to happen, they will need to adjust their DMing style as well.

After all, by continuing to be the generous DM while everyone else is strict and controlling, you not only lower the value of your bargaining chip but also position yourself as a doormat that they can walk all over. And one last piece of advice: Be prepared to walk out of there if you do not see eye to eye. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-09-30, 02:52 AM

Like Tommy, I prefer games that are quite... mundane. I generally start my characters at 0th level, so that gives you an idea. I generate whole continents that do not contain a single 17th lvl character.

So now that I have established my bona-fides: why?

Maybe so, but you can't have been playing 3.X for more than 15 years, same as anyone else on this board. Earlier editions were only superficially similar to 3rd. The folks at WotC, as opposed to TSR, completely overhauled the game. You may have more roleplaying experience than most of us but you've only got about 3 years on me, personally, in the game's mechanics and I know with certainty that a few have been on it since launch day.

1) System mastery. I've probably been playing D&D longer than many of you have been alive. Even so, I have a real life. I don't have time to learn or even read all those splat books, let alone think about how they interact. I want my players to surprise me with their character choices, not with rules.

Ah the old, "I have a life," excuse. You've been playing this game for 15 years. In all that time you couldn't find -any- time to crack open a few new books beyond core? I find that difficult to believe. "I have a life" is a valid reason for why you can't learn quickly. If you've had time to plan encounters, campaigns, and actually sit down to play, you've had time to learn -something- new to incorporate even if not the whole of all the supplements.

Besides, how many surprises can be left when you're restricting the players to low-level, class-based mechanics and almost nothing else. You know everything they can do and you set the scenes. Surprises would be a hell of a trick at that point and I don't mean that in a good way.

2) Verisimilitude. 9th level spells and medieval societies do not mix. But it goes beyond the effects on society: if scry & die is a tactic, then why don't the bad guys use it on the players? "Because that would be an unsatisfying game" doesn't really work for me.

That one's easy. They do. If the players are at a level that scry and die is an option and they've made an enemy of someone who could use that tactic without taking precautions, they get hit hard and fast at the first good opportunity. As for societal impact, the costs are insane compared to what common folk make, barring high-op commoners. That, the relative rarity of casters, and their general concern with dealing with one another over the common rabble tends to make it a lot less noticeable than people tend to think.

3) Drama. I don't find the typical D&D game dramatic: the basic definition of an encounter (using up 1/4 your resources) offends me. Monsters are not going to keep attacking you when they know they will lose. They do not exist to die on your blade and cover you in glory. In my world most encounters are ECL+5, meaning it's a fair fight. The players still always win, of course, because they are smarter than me, but there is no sense in which they expect to win.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to run a meat-grinder but it's hardly a low-level, low-op only concept. Every game has a balance of narrativism, gamism, and simulationism. None of these is tied, intrinsically, to any level range. I prefer gamism to be on top of the three, myself, followed by simulationism then narrativism, not that I slack on any of them.

Taken together I think all of these spell the same thing: simulation vs narrative. Some DMs tell stories, in which case it's OK that a PC is the only person in the kingdom who can cast Cure Disease and save the King's life. Other DMs run simulations, where the monsters are trying just as hard as the PCs to get ahead. I would be deathly bored in a game where my character was a special snowflake, privileged above ordinary mortals by the fiat of the gods. But I get that other people think differently; hence I give the PCs Action points and the benefit of the doubt, and in the end we muddle through.

There's nothing wrong with that, though I see serious flaws in how you got to that conclusion.

Honestly, I wouldn't even have commented if your preamble hadn't come off quite so very elitist. If you and yours enjoy playing a low-level, low-op games, more power to you. Game on and keep enjoying yourselves.

Please don't imply that those of us who prefer something more complex are "doing it wrong."

Crake

2015-09-30, 04:03 AM

This is a repost of my answer to you from your thread in the 5e board:

According to the 48 Laws of Power:

What you have been doing, essentially, is appealing to their gratitude for the extreme leeway you have shown them in the past. With predictable results, it would seem. The logical course of action, according to the Robert Greene quote above, would be to appeal to their self interest. And you have exactly what is needed for that: leverage.

I suggest you do the following: When you get together with your group the next time, have a talk with them. Tell them about your expectations for the game, what you consider fair, and get the group to agree to a consensus. Tell them if they continue to lowball their games with rules that do not appeal to you, you will cease to be so accommodating yourself. If they enjoyed your game styling, it is in their self-interest for it to continue, and in order for that to happen, they will need to adjust their DMing style as well.

After all, by continuing to be the generous DM while everyone else is strict and controlling, you not only lower the value of your bargaining chip but also position yourself as a doormat that they can walk all over. And one last piece of advice: Be prepared to walk out of there if you do not see eye to eye. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

This does seem a little extreme a position to take. While I agree with the bit about not being a doormat, it does seem that the other players are happy to play at lower levels, as nobody else seems to have issue with it, and they all run lower power games. In the same vein, it doesn't seem like the OP is having a bad time with his group, he just wishes that the others DMed like he did. That's not to say that they're bad DMs, just restrictive, which is not at all a bad thing to be honest. I would not be surprised if the players are completely fine with the OP just DMing as the others do, but then that would just remove the fun that he has while DMing. Honestly, considering he mentioned that the other games tend to go for longer than his, one might have to question if this is because his games are so high powered that everything just rushes past and is over before anyone has a chance to enjoy it. Not everyone has fun playing with god mode on after all.

ThinkMinty

2015-09-30, 06:14 AM

I'll pre-empt this by saying I'm one of those people that tends to play T2/T3 classes all the time. T1 doesn't interest me because it hypothetically makes things too easy, and because prepared casting is a logistical pain in the tush when you're not reading some Jack Vance.

As far as d20 stuff is concerned, I play online games so I can be picky enough as a player to not play something I'm less likely enjoy. I don't play below level 5 if I can help it, low-magic is dreary, low-wealth doubly so. I prefer a point buy to rolling my stats, and there's nothing wrong with that. I want to play some spell-slinging adventures where I'm fighting monsters that mean business, rather than the artificial difficulty of being naked, gimped, and statless. Pathfinder spoiled me on skill ranks too much to want to play 3.5 again; it's just better when it comes to that. I like to have enough control over my character sheet where spell selection is more under my control than the DM's.

I'll gladly try other systems if the campaign sounds interesting, of course. One-off tabletop experiences are something I'll just plain say yes to for the sake of it. I just know enough about how I enjoy my d20 experience to avoid things I consider dreadfully dull.

Thurbane

2015-09-30, 07:51 AM

I have a vaguely similar complaint to the OP - our group does rotating DMs; when I DM, I tend to allow pretty much everything for character creation, with the exception of Psionics and Incarnum: and I could be persuaded on Incarnum.

Yet when anyone else DM's, it's either:
A.) Core Only
B.) Core Only + PHB2
C.) Core Only + any other 1 (one) book of your choice

This infuriates me. Not only does it limit the way I can build characters (my first and only chance at playing a Favored Soul was limited to core + Complete Divine only: there were so many things I wanted to do with the character [feats, PrCs] but couldn't; I ended up playing second fiddle to the core only Cleric who did pretty much everything I could do only better).

I'm dying to play a Binder, but that is also unlikely to ever happen. The only DM who might allow it wants to tweak the class so that for "story reasons", he can hand vestiges out to me like spells known to a Sorcerer (i.e. I won't know all [or most] vestiges when I hit a given level). The other kicker, is that the same DM who might allow it is determined to run E6 next time he DMs. So, yanno, I'll never have more than one vestige at a time.

Beguiler? Yep, it's in the PHB2, so it sometimes is up for grabs - except the other two DMs, who aren't optimizers, think it's "ludicrously overpowered", and now enjoys a perm-ban status as a PC option. :smallmad: (My group similarly considers Warlock and Warblade "chronically overpowered" due to two PCs from my last outing as a DM).

The real salt in the wounds is that I have, by far, the largest 3.X book collection of my group, and I only get to use 90% of them when I'm DMing. :smallfrown:

I like the group I play with, they are all good friends of mine, but their myopic insistence on core only drives me nuts...

Crake

2015-09-30, 09:19 AM

I dunno, in my opinion there are worse things a DM can do than limit material. Like limit material you want, only to allow other players to take it.

Me as a wizard a day before next session: Hey DM, can I take greater resistance as one of my limited known spells in my spellbook, it's in spell compendium?
DM: No, spell compendium is full of power creep!

Druid, day of the session: Hey DM, can I have greater resistance on my spell list as a spell I can access whenever i please without any cost?
DM: Ok.

wat. DM did the same thing by not letting me play a warblade, then letting another player play a crusader. That said, this DM went out of his way to screw me over because he had the impression I was some horrible powergamer, despite there being 2 divine metamagic clerics in the party :smallconfused:

martixy

2015-09-30, 10:16 AM

~snip~

Thank you.
Couldn't have said it better myself.

I can see the draw of low-power play, as it is a stage in the game that lends itself uniquely to certain narratives. It'd be fun for sure - once on each side(player and DM). Then the lack of options starts wearing thin.

@Yahzi: Here's another telling question: Do you roll for stats or use point buy?
Just from what you've said so far my educated guess would be classic 4d6d1 roll.

When you're low-level and lack meaningful class features what do you have to fallback upon? Your natural abilities. Especially at L0...
At higher levels class features start overshadowing the impact of your natural abilities.

Besides... novelists tell stories.
DMs don't tell stories. They set the stage.
And the players are literally your players. (Shakespeare may have been a DM :smallbiggrin:)

Delwugor

2015-09-30, 03:06 PM

Crake

2015-09-30, 10:16 PM

I had been in a similar situation years ago and realized that 3.x has a problem in that it doesn't separate cinematic actions from the numbers. Which leads to escalation of numbers to feel heroic, which of course leads to accusations of power gaming. The problem was that my gaming expectations did not match the standard 3.x mechanics. Once I realized this the solution was simple, find systems that did.

I would recommend discussing with your group trying out other systems which gives more heroic/cinematic play without the escalating numbers. A few that may be of interest.

5E (imo best system WotC has done)
0E/BECM/AD&D
13th Age
Dungeon World
Savage World
Unisystem
Basic Fantasy
Fate Core
Strands of Fate (my favorite for emulating D&D in a cinematic manner).
OSR Games (Swords and Wizardry, Labyrinth Lords)

Can you explain this to me? I'm genuinely interested why you think the player is limited in their cinematic descriptions of events. There's nothing to stop the player from saying "I charge at the enemy with reckless abandon, my axe held high as I leap into the air and bring my greataxe crashing down upon him, slicing through his defenses and gashing him wildly across the chest". The player doesn't gain any additional benefit for a description like that (though if he had the leap attack feat, he would get extra power attack bonuses), but that doesn't stop him from setting the scene with his descriptions. Similarly, the rogue might say "I roll past the enemy, dodging the swing of his sword by mere inches before catching him off guard and sliding my dagger between the weak points in his armor, causing him to stagger as I strike at his vital areas" to describe a simple "tumble past the enemy, flank, attack, hit, sneak attack".

The difference is that the OP wants to have associated bonuses to apply to his cinematic descriptions, and wants to describe the situation BEFORE it occurs, rather than rolling the dice, seeing what happens, and THEN describing the situation in a cinematic way.

Personally, as a DM, I use these kinds of cinematic descriptions to give players insights into what kind of abilities the enemy might have, rather than just saying "the rogue sneak attacks you for XX damage"

Nerdguy88

2015-10-01, 08:05 AM

Sounds like your more interested in rollplaying then roleplaying. You might be in the wrong game or the wrong group. Sounds like you just don't like the system.

Albions_Angel

2015-10-01, 09:14 AM

Thought I would through my weight in. I have just started my first full campaign. All home made (the world and setting, not the rules, its home made, not home brew).

If they are not used to DMing all that much, and by used to, i mean having DMed full campaigns for years, they are going to be doing it by the books/forums. And the books are ****.

My group, the group I have been playing in for the last 3 years, and I am now DMing for, is very good at what they do. We usually play with the same rule set (32 pt buy, same set books of core, complete, races + a couple more, dodge is passive and affects all targets, not just one, because its stupidly underpowered otherwise), which makes things easy for me, but I am still batting way too low for them. They just know how to min/max. And to a degree, so do I when I am playing. They sound like you. I would hazard a guess that I am like your other players/dms. I know my characters, but DMing is new.

Now the DMG says that for a party of 4 level 1 characters, a CR1 encounter is level appropriate and should make up 50% of all encounters. My party would destroy a CR1 encounter in about 10 seconds. Granted there are 6 of them, not 4, but still. One of them could handle a CR 1 encounter. Our usual DM gave me some advice, so I bumped the encounters up to CR 3 for the most part. They still demolished them, but I was able to make a few of them fall unconscious. So bare in mind, your other DMs may be reading from the book, and getting it wrong. Talk to them about how you would build appropriate encounters and how they should build their NPCs (each enemy they face is also a 32 pt buy, unless its a monster with predefined stat block).

Here is part two. You have a disconnect between what people play and what they dont. Remember, NPCs are USUALLY not PC classes. They are Commoners. At best they are Warriors. They suck. Really badly. Just because your Fighter is "nothing special" doesnt mean he is a taxman. He could still cut down LITERALLY ANY NORMAL NPC in the world with one stroke. He can take magical blasts to the face and come out smiling. You are playing Heros in your friends games. What you arnt playing are Gods. Its ok to want to play them, and in your games it seems like people do. But we are talking the difference between a party being a group of adventurers, as they are in Pool of Radiance, and being one man armies, as they are in Diablo III.

Your games sound like fun. I have always wanted to play my Diablo character in D&D, and literally beat up devils and prime evils with my bare fists. But most of the time, in most games, adventurers are just above average people in the right place at the right time. They arnt normal, but they wont be single handedly taring open the fabric of space/time at level 5.

Talk to your players and DMs. Say you dont enjoy their games because you miss the powerlevel of your own games. Ask them to play a high powered game and help them build the world, and show them how to set up encounters of appropriate level. Also ask them about your own games, because if you are feeling this much of a disconnect, and yet they keep playing lower level stuff, it might be that they find your games too... overpowered? Challenging? Difficult? Dare I say Boring? They may have pointers for you, based on what they are comfortable playing. Keep open the communication lines. Otherwise both sides of this will end up hating the other.

Vhaidara

2015-10-01, 09:28 AM

Sounds like your more interested in rollplaying then roleplaying. You might be in the wrong game or the wrong group. Sounds like you just don't like the system.

Sounds like you need to read the Stormwind Fallacy: wanting to play powerful or competent characters does not preclude roleplaying. Sometimes you want to be Bob the level 1 fighter who can't do anything because his gear keeps getting stolen. Sometimes you want to play Batman. You know, someone not boring and lame.

System mastery has no negative correlation with roleplaying. To claim that is like saying that because someone is good at math/science (he mechanical, fact driven side) they are bad at creative writing (the fluff, imagination driven side).

If anything, higher system mastery increases the ability to roleplay. Because you find ideas that mesh together into a greater whole than what you'd have had playing with core only.

For example, one character I wrote was for a gestalt eberron game. I love playing warforged, so that's where I started. I remembered hearing about a thing called Warforged, so I looked into it. It's basically pseudo-undead warforged, best represented by the tomb-tainted soul feat. I made a soldier who was lost in one of the great battles of the war. He was affected by the necromantic magic, and found he could bring himself back to strength. Though he was a peerless warrior (we were level 6 in eberron), he also had skills at manipulation, with an instinct for fear.

Mechanically, I used Hexblade and Dread Necromancer. Hexblade gave me the martial stats I needed, along with some debuffig power. Dread necromancer, however, was the real enabler of the build. A fear aura, a spell list with multiple fear effects, and the ability to go into the Dread Witch prestige class (also known as I scare things immune to fear). I could send PALADINS running in fear for their altars. I could scare things that were freaking mindless. That is a true incarnation of terror.

If I hadn't had the system mastery to go for Dread Witch, he would have been a robot with a scythe who scares people in a highly inefficient way (since there is no way to get a free Intimidate check when you tear someone's spine out with a scythe). The ability to create a character who was mechanically powerful ENHANCED my ability to make him into a character.

atemu1234

2015-10-01, 09:46 AM

Crake

2015-10-01, 10:41 AM

Sounds like you need to read the Stormwind Fallacy: wanting to play powerful or competent characters does not preclude roleplaying.

To be fair, just because one doesn't preclude the other, doesn't mean you must be interested in both equally. If he had said "sounds like you only want to rollplay" or "doesn't look like you care about roleplaying", sure, but all he said was "looks like you're more interested in rollplaying". I mean, it's still a shallow and shortsighted thing to say, but it's not entirely invoking the stormwind fallacy.

SimonMoon6

2015-10-01, 10:53 AM

There is no set of circumstances under which wiping out a setting is a thing players would do.

Wait, I've had players destroy the entire campaign universe before!

Oh, that's not what you're talking about. Never mind.

Pex

2015-10-01, 12:29 PM

Sounds like your more interested in rollplaying then roleplaying. You might be in the wrong game or the wrong group. Sounds like you just don't like the system.

The eastern coast of the US, as of this writing, is being affected by a tropical storm off shore. Some areas are getting lots of rain and wind. I see this Storm Wind is also having an affect here.

BowStreetRunner

2015-10-01, 12:45 PM

The eastern coast of the US, as of this writing, is being affected by a tropical storm off shore. Some areas are getting lots of rain and wind. I see this Storm Wind is also having an affect here.
That's Storm Wind Joaquin, not Storm Wind Fallacy. They are named alphabetically starting with the first storm of the year beginning with A. So Storm Wind Fallacy would have been the 6th storm of a particular year.

atemu1234

2015-10-01, 12:49 PM

That's Storm Wind Joaquin, not Storm Wind Fallacy. They are named alphabetically starting with the first storm of the year beginning with A. So Storm Wind Fallacy would have been the 6th storm of a particular year.

If that's true for hurricanes, I want a hurricane named Hurricane Alduin.

cfalcon

2015-10-01, 01:43 PM

cfalcon

2015-10-01, 01:54 PM

DM did the same thing by not letting me play a warblade, then letting another player play a crusader.

I would not play in a game where access was divided like that. I'm sorry that happened to you. Nerfing a specific player is dirty as hell. Not supporting any or all books is fine- the majority case, I think. But specifically telling you no, while bending over backwards to help another, is bad news.

martixy

2015-10-01, 05:20 PM

[...] And the books are ****. [...]
The books aren't ****.
The just have to be taken in the context in which they were released. In a core only world a CR1 encounter may very well have a good chance of being a challenge to a party of 4 L1s.
But we have 10 years of splatbooks and community theorycrafting between THAT L1 party and something you might see today. And the low levels are the most volatile anyway so your point is moot with regard to that specific number at least.
Also, the CR systems was never, not even back then, meant as a rigorous tool. Just a guideline, to suggest what creature is appropriate for what stage of the game. And even then there were frequently wildly mis-CRed monsters.

[...] But most of the time, in most games, adventurers are just above average people in the right place at the right time. [...]
You all people need to learn not to rely on your own preconceptions of what the game should or shouldn't be! It gets silly repeating the same thing over and over and over again.
Power is relative!
In a game full of commoners and low-level NPCs, a heavily optimized T3 and above character may very well be a god.

In a game where the world is full of high-level mages and guilds of professional warriors or adventurers - not so much.

If in most games adventurers are just above average people, that is because most DMs just put below average effort in constructing their worlds - see cfalcon's post above.

3.5 is fun because of the complexity. IMO that is its main "shtick" right now.
If the DM is not willing to tackle that, then they might as well use a system that removes the complexity, instead he himself taking on the task of artificially limiting it.
5E is easy to learn, streamlines a massive amount of concepts and players are less likely to be able to break it.

ThinkMinty

2015-10-01, 05:24 PM

I would not play in a game where access was divided like that. I'm sorry that happened to you. Nerfing a specific player is dirty as hell. Not supporting any or all books is fine- the majority case, I think. But specifically telling you no, while bending over backwards to help another, is bad news.

That's a table I'd leave until the rules were the same for the same people.

Sounds like your more interested in rollplaying then roleplaying. You might be in the wrong game or the wrong group. Sounds like you just don't like the system.

Said already, but Stormwind Fallacy.

The system isn't the problem, it's the duplicitous gimping of one PC over another.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-10-01, 05:34 PM

-snip-

It's also important to remember that a challenge of CR X is supposed to drain 1/5 of a level X party's daily resources. If you want a challeng that seriously threatens the party, you want CR X+2 to X+4, subject to your party's op level.

Crake

2015-10-01, 09:35 PM

DMing is much more a chore than playing. It's much much harder.

This is actually why there are so many "awful DM" stories. It's not that awful people are everywhere in gaming, nor even that they gravitate towards DMing (though I suspect they do to some extent). It's that, even at a table with six players and one DM, the DM is still the most in demand. DMing is a chore. It's not a thankless one, but compared to the effort and creativity needed, it kind of is- you generally have to really like what you are doing, and who you are doing it for. Or at least some combination of those two.

So when you are like "hey, I like playing better", that's like saying you prefer foods that are super tasty over foods that are not. It's the majority opinion, by a large enough section that even with 3-7 players being served by a single DM, there's always more people looking for a DM.

I generally agree with other posts in this thread- you want to play in a game world with a DM that basically *is* you. I won't say that's rare either- I'll say, that's a sign that you are DMing the way you'd like to be DMed for. That's the #1 sign of a not-psycho DM, lol.

Now, I don't like the things you say- I do different other things. For instance, I give out a large amount of stat points, and I essentially ban stat boosting items. I encourage players to build characters that are one identifiable thing, not a hodge-podge- for instance, I limit players to one prestige class ever. But I go through efforts to make sure that the prestige classes fit into the game world, handle a bunch of niches, and I do write ups to talk about how these things fit in the world, which temple employs them, which clan trains them, or whatever. I'm absolutely certain that some people reading would love this, and others would hate it.

The point is, I run a world that fits my sensibilities, and that I would be pleased to run in, and so do you. But out of all the groups of friends I've run with in my life, there's only been three DMs over this whole set of the groups- myself, a friend of mine I met in college who is running a game right now, and a guy I knew from middle school through about my mid twenties, who was more into crazy situations that rendered the players powerless than he was the world building. There's been over a dozen players across these groups, and I've DMed for all of them at some point, and will again.

I don't have great advice, except to enjoy what you do have access to- a rotating DM situation. That's better than being stuck as the DM always. If you express to the rest of the group that you'd like to be in a higher powered campaign, or one with more house rules, then that could work. Alternatively, if you figure out what character you want to play ahead of time, you might be able to work up a custom class for you to play- one that is balanced in the world of your DM. You mention having a bunch of skill points- I certainly wouldn't boost the skill points available to fighters in my games. In my games, fighters are martial supremacists with the ability to switch out some of their feats daily, wear armor well, etc. Ideas I borrowed from various sources. But I certainly never gave them more skills. I would consider that "out of kit", and insist that a player take a different class. Does your DM friend have this idea? Does he just want it to be from a book because he trusts that? Find out what his philosophy is, and work within it- he might be concerned that you have greater understanding of the mechanics, would would make something that would end up overshadowing the rest of the table, even if that wasn't your intention. A final piece of advice is to try out different tables, or check out something like Pathfinder Society. You'll often find other groups forming in these environments, and one might have a philosophy similar to yours.

I'm in much the same situation as a DM, though I might be one of the few rare ones that actually PREFERS DMing :smallbiggrin: I find that the way to satiate my hunger for making characters is to take the character ideas I have and use them as NPCs in my world. Sometimes the NPCs never even have any face time, but the knowledge that they're there, they exist in the game world somewhere, and that the players, if they maybe just take the right turns, will stumble across them, seems to be a satisfying enough state for me.

I would not play in a game where access was divided like that. I'm sorry that happened to you. Nerfing a specific player is dirty as hell. Not supporting any or all books is fine- the majority case, I think. But specifically telling you no, while bending over backwards to help another, is bad news.

Yeah, I left that game after the DM told one of the other players, who had the decency to go ahead and tell me, that he was actively stifling any attempt I made to do ANYTHING in the game, because he apparently thought I was a "powergamer" or something. He insisted he was a "story driven DM", which practically amounts to him railroading everything to make sure the story goes as he intends it to, which was bad enough, but that was the last straw. I could honestly rage-rant about that game for days on end, but sufficed to say, I left that game. A few of the other players missed me, and eventually convinced me to make another character, saying to make a martial character of some sort, because then surely the DM couldn't just handwave away my abilities to not work. Sure enough he found a way, and I quit again, this time with 2 of the other players following me.

The books aren't ****.
The just have to be taken in the context in which they were released. In a core only world a CR1 encounter may very well have a good chance of being a challenge to a party of 4 L1s.
But we have 10 years of splatbooks and community theorycrafting between THAT L1 party and something you might see today. And the low levels are the most volatile anyway so your point is moot with regard to that specific number at least.

To be fair, I think many people can agree, even in core only, with the t1 classes those CR1 encounters could be quite a cakewalk for the players. I've always insisted that the DM needs to meet the optimization level of the players by optimizing his creatures to a similar degree. Even just changing up some of the feats, or applying a CR+0 template here or there, or even just playing the enemies smarter (as long as it's justified). For example, in one of the games I'm running, the players, at level 2, fought 2 wolves with the spellwarped template. At that early level, spellwarped applies 0 change to CR, so each wolf was CR1, making them together an EL2 encounter (i know double of the same level are supposed to increase EL by 2, but according to this (http://www.d20srd.org/extras/d20encountercalculator/), that's apparently not the case in the super early levels). Not only that, but spellwarped gives them some decent intelligence, so they could employ some more interesting tactics, and gauge their enemies' strengths and weaknesses. This turned what was supposed to be a "consume 25% of the party's resources" into a fight for survival. The wolves scored some pretty lucky hits along the way, but at the same time, I had decked the party out with some pretty sweet elven armor for story reasons, so that did help to a degree. And that was only the first encounter for the day! They're getting up and ready to move again, and the upcoming dungeon is, well, let's just say CR1/3rd doesn't mean they can't be scary.

Yahzi

2015-10-02, 07:08 AM

Earlier editions were only superficially similar to 3rd.
That's not actually true. There are all sorts of absurd little bits in 3.5 that are there only because they were in 1E. Spells are particularly bad about this, but the entire concept of "attack increases with level while defense increases with wealth" is an artifact common to all iterations of D&D (well I don't know about 4E or later).

Ah the old, "I have a life," excuse. You've been playing this game for 15 years. In all that time you couldn't find -any- time to crack open a few new books beyond core?
There is a link in my sig that leads to tens of thousands of words I have written on D&D, trying to make a consistent and realistic world out of the core rules. I managed to do pretty good with only one house rule (although it is a big one). I created an economy that keeps wheat at the 1cp per pound the DMG lists and pays 1st level adventurers 1 gp a day like the book suggests; a world in which wandering the wilderness killing monsters is a viable career but staying home and being a land-ruling noble is also; a world that is protected from the Shadowclypse not by DM fiat but by simple operation of the rules, even while allowing Shadows to exist and do their thing; a world in which there is a reasonable explanation why a wizard would make a magic sword.

In other words, I spent my time filling in the cracks in the existing D&D books. I don't have time to fill in the cracks in the splat books. If they didn't print three cracks per page I might be interested.

Besides, how many surprises can be left when you're restricting the players to low-level, class-based mechanics and almost nothing else. You know everything they can do and you set the scenes. Surprises would be a hell of a trick at that point and I don't mean that in a good way.
Character choices are supposed to be the surprise. Not character mechanics. And in any case, back in the day when we only had 3 books, we came up with plenty of surprises. I once terminated a 1st to 11th lvl campaign with a doorway, using only the standard rules in the standard books. (And yes, it was uphill both ways.)

You note later that you are more gamist, and I admit there probably isn't any of that in my games. Not that there's anything wrong with that; but as I said, my worlds are simulationist, so mechanics surprises would be bad for everyone.

the relative rarity of casters
See, this is one of the reasons I spent so many words trying to patch the cracks. According to core, high-level casters are not relatively rare. Any nation of a few hundred thousand people is likely have a fistful of 15+ caster. And then we are expected to believe the King is a 7th level aristocrat...

In any case scry & die is only one tactic. The more splats, the more tactics. At some point the number of tactics exceeds the number of defenses, and then the PCs all die horribly.

Part of the problem is by design. D&D is about kicking down doors and taking people's stuff. The spell list is almost exclusively dedicated to killing things. Protection is a far second, because it is assumed the PCs are the attackers, and every part of the game is weighted in their favor. That kind of offends me. The only possible response is for the DM to just hand-wave the NPCs, and that offends me even more. As a simulationist I want the rules to be equal for everyone.

I see serious flaws in how you got to that conclusion.
Well, it was my best guess at what the difference was. I think it's still kind of true: as a substitute for "system mastery" we can say "system mastery at a level capable of maintaining simulationism." Obviously that increases the DC, and makes it less pejorative.

Honestly, I wouldn't even have commented if your preamble hadn't come off quite so very elitist.
Hmm, didn't intend it to be elitist; I meant more of a "even 30 years of this stuff isn't enough time" vibe.

Again, I think people who are interested in narrative first are not concerned about the behind-the-scenes mechanics; while simulationists expect the narrative to arise out of of the mechanics.

Here's another telling question: Do you roll for stats or use point buy?
Point-buy. I don't even roll for the NPCs - they have to point-buy too, at the same rate the PCs do.

Besides... novelists tell stories. DMs don't tell stories. They set the stage.
As I am literally both, I think I know the difference. :smallwink:

However, this is kind of my point: I can't set the stage if the mechanical rules of the world are surprising. I want the players to surprise me with their choices, not their actions. I build a sandbox world, in which everything makes sense (mostly). Because of this the players can make informed choices. But also because of this I have to limit the amount of damage done to the rules of physics. If splat books confined themselves to fluff, I wouldn't have a problem; but they don't just add a few disassociated mechanics for flavor, they invariably add huge chunks of DOES NOT COMPUTE for the rest of the system.

And yes, the most broken stuff is in core, but I've fixed all that. It took tens of thousands of words, but I did it.

In a core only world a CR1 encounter may very well have a good chance of being a challenge to a party of 4 L1s.
But we have 10 years of splatbooks and community theorycrafting between THAT L1 party and something you might see today.
This... makes my point. This is what my real life gets in the way of. I can't keep my Hearthstone deck up to meta-tech, I sure as heck can't keep my D&D game there.

Crake

2015-10-02, 07:36 AM

However, this is kind of my point: I can't set the stage if the mechanical rules of the world are surprising. I want the players to surprise me with their choices, not their actions. I build a sandbox world, in which everything makes sense (mostly). Because of this the players can make informed choices. But also because of this I have to limit the amount of damage done to the rules of physics.

I kinda agree and disagree with this at the same time. Splatbooks give players many more options that pursue archetypes that they would otherwise be generally unable to play. Sure they add a couple of annoying spells for the higher tiers here and there, but in general they bring the lower tiers up a notch or two, making them actually worth playing. I find it hard to believe that your world is so tenuously balanced that introducing say, a warlock, would make it fall apart. I mean, I can understand things like not allowing incantatrixes, but if you can at least suss out the problematic things from the not-too-bad stuff, I don't see any reason to limit to core only.

If splat books confined themselves to fluff, I wouldn't have a problem; but they don't just add a few disassociated mechanics for flavor, they invariably add huge chunks of DOES NOT COMPUTE for the rest of the system.

Can you give an example of something like this? I'm interested what you think is so powerful it would break apart the whole setting you've put together, and why you feel you can't just ban those bits of the splatbooks while allowing the rest?

This... makes my point. This is what my real life gets in the way of. I can't keep my Hearthstone deck up to meta-tech, I sure as heck can't keep my D&D game there.

To be fair though, 3.5 is no longer being updated, hearthstone is :smalltongue:

Yahzi

2015-10-03, 09:31 PM

I find it hard to believe that your world is so tenuously balanced that introducing say, a warlock, would make it fall apart. I mean, I can understand things like not allowing incantatrixes, but if you can at least suss out the problematic things from the not-too-bad stuff, I don't see any reason to limit to core only.
For me to suss out the broken stuff would require me to read and understand all those splatbooks... which leads back to "I have other things to do with my time." :smallbiggrin:

To be fair, if a player had a specific class he wanted to play, I would probably work it in. The rules of my world allow for new prestige classes, so a local area or culture could have access to one or two classes that aren't generally seen on a world-wide scale. For instance I ban monks by default (because they just don't fit my setting) but I could see a local monastery if a player was really into being a monk. But that means creating a whole group of NPCs, placing them in the world, explaining why they exist and other people aren't monks... a bit more work than just OKing a splat-book. And I need to do that fitting-in work for every unique power.

To be fair though, 3.5 is no longer being updated, hearthstone is :smalltongue:
I'm pretty sure my deck would be out of meta even if they never made a single update...

A detail that might put it into perspective: I give different classes different amounts of point-buy; fighters get 29 and wizards get 21, for example. So that's more work I've invested in making things make "sense."

martixy

2015-10-03, 11:22 PM

For me to suss out the broken stuff would require me to read and understand all those splatbooks... which leads back to "I have other things to do with my time." :smallbiggrin:

To be fair, if a player had a specific class he wanted to play, I would probably work it in. The rules of my world allow for new prestige classes, so a local area or culture could have access to one or two classes that aren't generally seen on a world-wide scale. For instance I ban monks by default (because they just don't fit my setting) but I could see a local monastery if a player was really into being a monk. But that means creating a whole group of NPCs, placing them in the world, explaining why they exist and other people aren't monks... a bit more work than just OKing a splat-book. And I need to do that fitting-in work for every unique power.

I'm pretty sure my deck would be out of meta even if they never made a single update...

A detail that might put it into perspective: I give different classes different amounts of point-buy; fighters get 29 and wizards get 21, for example. So that's more work I've invested in making things make "sense."

Then allow me to offer two suggestions I think you make it easier for everyone:

a) Switch to 5e.
> It's perfect for "I don't wanna bother" people and is rather nicely designed.
b) If you're THAT much of an "I don't wanna bother" person, make sure to notify each and every person that expresses an interest in your games the precise reason as to why you lead your games the way you do.
> The way I see it, a vast majority of people stick to 3.5 for the breadth of content - yes, including(or perhaps even especially) because of all its brokenness!

I get that a bunch of random strangers on the internet have scant little chance of changing your opinion, but please do extend this simplest of courtesies to any players that might dare cross your path.

Crake

2015-10-04, 02:47 AM

For me to suss out the broken stuff would require me to read and understand all those splatbooks... which leads back to "I have other things to do with my time." :smallbiggrin:

To be fair, if a player had a specific class he wanted to play, I would probably work it in. The rules of my world allow for new prestige classes, so a local area or culture could have access to one or two classes that aren't generally seen on a world-wide scale.

But that's just basically how it goes. People want to play different things, so you have a look at it, and work it in, then over time eventually more and more classes are fit into the world. I include practically all 3.5 content in my world, but just because I do, doesn't mean that it's necessarily a common thing in the world.

For instance I ban monks by default (because they just don't fit my setting) but I could see a local monastery if a player was really into being a monk. But that means creating a whole group of NPCs, placing them in the world, explaining why they exist and other people aren't monks... a bit more work than just OKing a splat-book. And I need to do that fitting-in work for every unique power.

This just doesn't make sense to me though. What's the point of banning a class if you're willing to allow players to play them anyway? And just because a player is playing the class "monk" doesn't mean they necessarily have to be part of a monastery. They could simply be a martial artist, focusing on unarmed combat, maybe learning their style from some form of military training or the like.

A detail that might put it into perspective: I give different classes different amounts of point-buy; fighters get 29 and wizards get 21, for example. So that's more work I've invested in making things make "sense."

How do you handle multiclassing? If i take a level of fighter, then multiclass into wizard, do i get to keep my high point buy? Why do you think that wizards having a lower point buy makes "sense" anyway? I know it's one of the methods of balance that jaronk suggested in his tiers list, but I personally think it's the worst to implement, I far prefer his partial gestalt option honestly.

Delwugor

2015-10-05, 05:07 PM

Can you explain this to me? I'm genuinely interested why you think the player is limited in their cinematic descriptions of events.
For me it's a matter of play style and expectations. Please note, I'm not saying it limits a player to what they could describe. My point was that in 3.x actions are not separated from the numbers. The numbers deter me from cinematic actions in three ways.
1. Actions separated from resolution. If I'm worried about whether some crazy stunt succeeds or not, them most likely it's not worth doing. My style is to do a crazy stunt and then see if it succeeds.
2. Zero Sum. Number escalation that doesn't really add anything for me, but detracts from what I'm attempting to do.
3. Random success. I spend an entire session setting up for a great cinematic action or event - "rolls a 3". At time players should have the ability to succeed no matter what. It should not be used often and it should always come at a cost, but for cinematic play, the players should have more control than random numbers.

There's nothing to stop the player from saying "I charge at the enemy with reckless abandon, my axe held high as I leap into the air and bring my greataxe crashing down upon him, slicing through his defenses and gashing him wildly across the chest".
You are correct that there is nothing stopping a player from saying that. I have a super hero character who always monologues ... wrestling style. Nothing to stop it and it's great fun with roleplaying his character. But that is not the same as his cinematic actions.

The difference is that the OP wants to have associated bonuses to apply to his cinematic descriptions, and wants to describe the situation BEFORE it occurs, rather than rolling the dice, seeing what happens, and THEN describing the situation in a cinematic way.
You make a very important point and it demonstrates a difference in styles. I don't want to roll and then describe, this put mechanics over what I want to do. Instead I want to do some action then determine the resolution.
For me players are always more important then system mechanics.

Personally, as a DM, I use these kinds of cinematic descriptions to give players insights into what kind of abilities the enemy might have, rather than just saying "the rogue sneak attacks you for XX damage"
I take a broader view of cinematic actions than attack/damage or even combat. How about a great cinematic run away?
How cinematic would it be to single handedly destroy a Rune Well (RotRL) in one round. That was one of the most cinematic and fantastic events I've ever had, and it would not have been possible without the GM over riding the technical rules. The GM had these advantage/disadvantage cards, I drew the "Destruction" card that session. "I call down the wrath of Desna on this device of evil" (I had no idea what it was at the time) and watched the gm's draw drop. The "by the rules" RAW was to use many holy waters to do "XX damage", instead I was allowed to break RAW and do something completely cinematic.

Tommy_Dude

2015-10-08, 08:06 PM

I think a part of this discussion may also stem from the idea of "Custom World" DMs and "Pre-written Adventure" DMs. Many people here just assume that every campaign world comes from the talent of their DM or that the encounters are ones that DMs write.

For my case, and my case alone (I do not intend to put words into anyone's mouths) I do not have time to create my own campaign world. So I rely heavily, very heavily, on running Paizo Adventure Paths (for pathfinder) as a DM. So if players are out of the system assumptions, these can get boring very quickly. I can apply templates, add a class level here and there, but if something is obviously made with a higher power level in mind, it will trivialize encounters, even the culmination of BBEG fights, to a one round knockout. That said, I usually give 20 point build, and will allow anything paizo printed, and even third party things upon approval (this approval usually comes in the form of editing, I mean, c'mon, if you can't READ THE RULE as it's presented in an intelligible way, then how do you expect me to use this thing?). I've allowed everything from DSP (psionics, path of war, akashic), I've allowed equipment and technology from Pure Steam!, and Rogue Genius Games have showed up in my BBEG alterations sometimes. But, for every thing I allow that's not in the system's core assumption is more work I have to do. So yes, I will put limiters or politely ask players to play something else if it's too overly broken. (Right now we had issues in Kingmaker AP where, due to 15 minute workdays, the Swashbuckler was actually ending most encounters in two rounds, even APL +3, the player decided to take an archetype that toned down that level of death-bringing and actually switched to worshipping a new god in-character because of it.)

I'm even willing to use rules that are near-universally considered "broken" or "bad" such as Paizo's mythic if the players want it.

That said, it's alot of work to adjust these pre-written modules and adventures to those systems. Work that, if I'm going to be honest, only one player actually thanks me for and understands. She thanks me after every game for putting my time into this, while other players just expect it out of me.

So after DMing for all this power level, after adjusting for all these powers, at the end of the day, when I play, I'd like my 15 point buy dwarven fighter who uses a greataxe, and has Iron Will and Toughness. I enjoy just fighting stock and standard CR 1/3 goblins with no templates :). But that is my preferred playstyle. For me, my group comes first and I tend to try and make it fun for them, but at the same time, they know and acknowledge that they are on the rails, but they are great at buying into these pre-made stories and no one begrudges me for using them. But some days, I wish my players were more like me so I didn't have to adjust the pre-written encounters.

Crake

2015-10-08, 10:51 PM

You make a very important point and it demonstrates a difference in styles. I don't want to roll and then describe, this put mechanics over what I want to do. Instead I want to do some action then determine the resolution.
For me players are always more important then system mechanics.

I don't see what the significant difference is to be honest? In one case you determine the cinematic action (performing a wild leap attack for massive damage), determine success or not, then describe the action, in the other, you determine the cinematic action (same as before), then describe it, but holding off on the resolution, then determining success or not, and then concluding the description? Am I missing something? Either way there needs to be a roll to determine success. If you want things like the ability to improve your chances of success, things like action dice, or the 5e inspiration mechanic help with that, but I honestly can't see any difference in what you're saying. The player failing, rolling a 1 on their attack roll, doesn't have to detract from the cinematic nature, that 1 could represent their enemy happening to dodge at just the right moment or whatnot.

The only argument I can see, which isn't one you actually brought up, is needing to spend character resources to achieve some of the more cinematic maneuvers with bonuses. For example, any player can say they kick up a wall and swing down heavily on their opponent to represent a power attack or even just a regular attack, but only players with the right feats can gain actual bonuses from that, like extra power attack damage, and bonuses to hit from coming down onto your opponent (these are actual feats and abilities from cityscape iirc). A DM who ignores those feats and just passes out benefits to players is essentially penalizing any character who picks up those feats.

Tvtyrant

2015-10-09, 12:07 AM

The only argument I can see, which isn't one you actually brought up, is needing to spend character resources to achieve some of the more cinematic maneuvers with bonuses. For example, any player can say they kick up a wall and swing down heavily on their opponent to represent a power attack or even just a regular attack, but only players with the right feats can gain actual bonuses from that, like extra power attack damage, and bonuses to hit from coming down onto your opponent (these are actual feats and abilities from cityscape iirc). A DM who ignores those feats and just passes out benefits to players is essentially penalizing any character who picks up those feats.

No he isn't. D&D isn't a competition, someone else getting a bonus in no way penalizes another player. That's like saying that allowing someone to optimize their character penalizes people who don't look up optimization guides on the Internet. Tit-for-tat penalties and bonuses aren't nearly as important as having fun and a general balance between players.

Yahzi

2015-10-09, 12:54 AM

a) Switch to 5e.
Well, I have a lot invested in 3E; but more to the point the minute I saw that in 5E you are completely healed after 24 hours regardless of how much damage you have taken, I knew I would never be able to deal with 5E. There's tons broken in 3E when it comes to running a realistic world, but that just strikes me as utterly giving up.

b) If you're THAT much of an "I don't wanna bother" person, make sure to notify each and every person that expresses an interest in your games the precise reason as to why you lead your games the way you do.
That... has never been a problem. But for me, character creation is always the first session. The idea of showing up with a character when you don't even know the world just seems weird.

then over time eventually more and more classes are fit into the world
Sure, and that's fine; but that is a very different position than "all splatbooks by default, go ahead and bring your half-dragon half-troll asimar warforged gunfighter to my Merlin campaign."

This just doesn't make sense to me though. What's the point of banning a class if you're willing to allow players to play them anyway?
Because I am trying to create a whole world. For instance, the decision to allow clerics means Zone of Truth is a thing that virtually every town should have access to. This is important for the same reason other technologies (like crossbows) are important. You can't just have one gun-fighter in an adventuring party; either gunpowder is a known tech or it isn't.

Also, classes in my world are actual tangible things, not merely abstractions representing training (a weird idea, I know, but it works really well). A trained fighter has a STR of 16 instead of 12. A level of Fighter is a supernatural enhancement.

How do you handle multiclassing? If i take a level of fighter, then multiclass into wizard, do i get to keep my high point buy?
Of course. Anybody who dilutes their levels of wizard with a non-casting class automatically deserves the best possible point-buy. The, ahem, point of point-buy is to impose some balance, and a 19 Wiz/1 Fighter is significantly weaker than a 20 Wiz, so he is more than welcome to a few extra stats.

Why do you think that wizards having a lower point buy makes "sense" anyway?
Mechanically, balance; fluff, because wizards are spending their time learning academics instead of being well-rounded. I give NPC classes even better point-buys and they pay half as much XP per level, in attempt to make them reasonable choices (at least at the lower levels, but then 9th lvl is really high in my world); the justification being that only a truly exceptional person would try to become a hero with an NPC class.

Also, the point-buy limitation is the least intrusive. I want my guide to making a sandbox world to be usable by everyone, so by restricting to Core and fiddling only at the edges, people will be able to implement them with minimum effort.

Crake

2015-10-09, 03:37 AM

Sure, and that's fine; but that is a very different position than "all splatbooks by default, go ahead and bring your half-dragon half-troll asimar warforged gunfighter to my Merlin campaign."

It's not that different really. It's more a stance of "all splatbooks by default, but I reserve the right to veto anything I don't want in my game/setting", which is the stance I personally hold tbh, but I mean, if it makes you feel better to instead say "core only, but if you bring me something outside of core that I like, I'll allow it" sure. Logically they're the same thing.

Yahzi

2015-10-09, 06:00 AM

Logically they're the same thing.
Not quite, because limiting it to Core means the players know what to expect. I run a sandbox world, so the players pick their own adventures. This means they have to have a way to make informed choices. Because levels and classes are tangible in my world, they know the Baron is 5th level, they usually know his class, and a little investigating or common sense will tell them probably what magic items he has. This lets them make their own decision about whether they should make an enemy of him.

Of course there will be monsters or NPCs with unknown powers; but generally these will be marked in such a way the players know they don't know what they are facing.

Admittedly this is a bit different than the some D&D games. I don't create encounters with appropriate WBL and ECL. I create a whole world and then you tell me what you do in it. If you want to level quickly, take big risks and win. If you want to play safe, run away from things that look dangerous. I generally find the whole process of leveling somewhat boring; what is interesting to me is who the players choose to befriend or attack. Of course I still have plot hooks; the NPCs are pursing their own agendas, many of which probably do not favor the PCs. But it's up the to PCs to figure out what to do about that, or even if they should.

You can see, with all of this going on, why I need to minimize the purely mechanical interactions of the world. I have established that 1st level Fighters on horseback with horse and lance are in fact a dangerous foe to almost everyone; knights are therefore well-respected, every Baron employs a number of them, and people know not to jack around with knights on open ground. I have no idea what a Swordsage can do, but if one of his 1st level powers shuts down mounted lance charges, then that doesn't just change what a character can do; it changes the entire shape of society, as Fighters become liabilities and war horses become obsolete.

In other words, limiting the classes available establishes the fluff of the world (or as Gygax would say, the mileu). A world with War Forged as ordinary citizens is very, very different than a world with Sir Gawain and Lancelot, or for that matter Conan and the Grey Mouser. Now it is true that the entirety of published sources constitutes a specific mileu, but a) I don't think that mileu makes sense in the way I have carefully structured my world to make sense, and b) I don't want to run a game in that mileu. Part of a DM's job is creating a unique world with a specific flavor, and control over fluff/mechanics can be part of that.

EldritchWeaver

2015-10-09, 02:12 PM

Sounds like your more interested in rollplaying then roleplaying. You might be in the wrong game or the wrong group. Sounds like you just don't like the system.Sounds like you need to read the Stormwind Fallacy: wanting to play powerful or competent characters does not preclude roleplaying. Sometimes you want to be Bob the level 1 fighter who can't do anything because his gear keeps getting stolen. Sometimes you want to play Batman. You know, someone not boring and lame.

System mastery has no negative correlation with roleplaying. To claim that is like saying that because someone is good at math/science (he mechanical, fact driven side) they are bad at creative writing (the fluff, imagination driven side).

If anything, higher system mastery increases the ability to roleplay. Because you find ideas that mesh together into a greater whole than what you'd have had playing with core only.

For example, one character I wrote was for a gestalt eberron game. I love playing warforged, so that's where I started. I remembered hearing about a thing called Warforged, so I looked into it. It's basically pseudo-undead warforged, best represented by the tomb-tainted soul feat. I made a soldier who was lost in one of the great battles of the war. He was affected by the necromantic magic, and found he could bring himself back to strength. Though he was a peerless warrior (we were level 6 in eberron), he also had skills at manipulation, with an instinct for fear.

Mechanically, I used Hexblade and Dread Necromancer. Hexblade gave me the martial stats I needed, along with some debuffig power. Dread necromancer, however, was the real enabler of the build. A fear aura, a spell list with multiple fear effects, and the ability to go into the Dread Witch prestige class (also known as I scare things immune to fear). I could send PALADINS running in fear for their altars. I could scare things that were freaking mindless. That is a true incarnation of terror.

If I hadn't had the system mastery to go for Dread Witch, he would have been a robot with a scythe who scares people in a highly inefficient way (since there is no way to get a free Intimidate check when you tear someone's spine out with a scythe). The ability to create a character who was mechanically powerful ENHANCED my ability to make him into a character.

While I agree on the Stormwind Fallacy, there is another possibility: Various systems have a different amount of rules. While with various books it is possible to get the result you want (or close enough) most of the time, it takes a lot of knowledge to get there. Some people do not want to invest that much time. For example, Numenera is light on explicit rules and allows to fluff your character any way you want to fill out the gaps. In D&D, refluffing is more the domain of the DM. So to some extent switching the rule system can actually help.