PDA

View Full Version : If I were to run D&D, you might find it refreshing.



Rob Knotts
2007-07-14, 11:10 AM
D&D 3x is not my favourite RPG, it's not even in my top 3 (GURPS, Hero, BESM). However, there are a lot of elements I appreciate about it, and despite selling off most of my collection out of frustration, I still have the core books (and Draconomicon and Lords Of Madness, too cool to let go). Should the opportunity come up again for me to run D&D (and I am currently looking for D&D groups to meet new players), I would probably approach D&D 3x with the attitude of "back to basics".

The first part of what I mean is avoiding supplements. It's not a matter of D&D rules supplements being good or bad, but when you get into the territory of supplements it's very, very easy to just get lost.

Second part would be to consider what I do or don't want to incorporate out of the core books. I don't mean rules, just specific elements like monsters, classes, weapons, magic items, etcetera. It's not necessary to include everything from the core books, and doing so means having to manage variables to keep the game from becoming a mess.

Lastly, I'd base any homebrew material on examples already in the book. New classes would, as suggested in the DMG, simply be reworked official classes, new spells/feats/weapons would simply be extensions of what's already there, new magic items would retooled versions of published items. And new monsters would be built using published monsters, templates, and class levels, with some possible tweaks but nothing involving whole new set of stats and abilities or working the CR from scratch.

Yuki Akuma
2007-07-14, 11:13 AM
...And your point is...?

Congratulations. You play core-only D&D. So do many people.

Rob Knotts
2007-07-14, 11:15 AM
You play core-only D&D. So do many people.I'm not convinced that's true. I think games using supplements are a lot more common than not.

Emperor Tippy
2007-07-14, 11:23 AM
I'm not convinced that's true. I think games using supplements are a lot more common than not.

On these boards? Supplements are more common. In general? They are more rare.

Just look at the sales figures. It's something like 3 core books are sold for each supplement sold. Now people who buy 1 supplement tend to buy more in the future.

Rob Knotts
2007-07-14, 11:29 AM
On these boards? Supplements are more common. In general? They are more rare.

Just look at the sales figures. It's something like 3 core books are sold for each supplement sold. Now people who buy 1 supplement tend to buy more in the future.One way to interpret that statistic is that most players tend to buy all three core books but only buy supplements that relate to the kind of characters they like to play. In my own group I'm usually the only one who owns copies of the game books (whatever game we're playing), but usually when I meet a new D&D group or see a game going on, everybody has thier own copies of the core books.

Alleine
2007-07-14, 11:30 AM
Frankly, I find core to be boring. Its pretty limited in terms of what you can do. Sure, there are several classes and races, tons of feats and equipment. But don't you get tired of the standard adventure party? I have no problem with the feats and equipment, but supplement books provide a lot of interesting races and classes, and more roleplay options for those characters.

Maybe its just me...

Counterspin
2007-07-14, 11:37 AM
I'd rather not. I've yet to find any Wizards book which is disruptive to my game, and I don't find the number of books confusing. As a GM I'd rather not restrict my players except in necessary ways, and as a player I'd rather be free to put together the mechanics of my character the best I can.

brian c
2007-07-14, 12:14 PM
Frankly, I find core to be boring. Its pretty limited in terms of what you can do. Sure, there are several classes and races, tons of feats and equipment. But don't you get tired of the standard adventure party? I have no problem with the feats and equipment, but supplement books provide a lot of interesting races and classes, and more roleplay options for those characters.

Maybe its just me...

I agree. There's only so many times you can play a Rogue-Fighter-Wizard-Cleric party and have fun with it. Additionally, outside of the Core materials there are way more options for a DM in terms of monsters and NPCs. Sometimes a character wants to be a pirate, and not just a Fighter/Rogue who owns a Galley. Sometimes you need a monster the players have never heard of before. Personally, I can't stand playing with just Core material. You end up having to take feats that you'll never really use. It's better if supplements are at least allowed on a case-by-case basis, even if it's not encouraged or required.

Joltz
2007-07-14, 12:39 PM
Frankly, I find core to be boring. Its pretty limited in terms of what you can do. Sure, there are several classes and races, tons of feats and equipment. But don't you get tired of the standard adventure party? I have no problem with the feats and equipment, but supplement books provide a lot of interesting races and classes, and more roleplay options for those characters.

Maybe its just me...

I agree. The core is good to introduce players (I learned with just the core :smallbiggrin: ) but once you get into it there's very little there. You need more than a few pages of feats and a list of magic items and spells long enough that you can't memorize all of them. I once dumbfounded my DM by listing off every enhancement on a suit of armor we found based on its description (blah blah blah, black and shiny with...=shadow and sonic resistance).

In addition, the core has absolutely no rules for simulating some classic things like the evil of a cursed tomb slowly corrupting the people exploring it (taint, Heroes of Horror) or incredible feats of martial skill that cause supernatural effects (maneuvers from the ToB).

One thing that sticks out at me from the topic starter's post...

...
Lastly, I'd base any homebrew material on examples already in the book. New classes would, as suggested in the DMG, simply be reworked official classes, new spells/feats/weapons would simply be extensions of what's already there, new magic items would retooled versions of published items. And new monsters would be built using published monsters, templates, and class levels, with some possible tweaks but nothing involving whole new set of stats and abilities or working the CR from scratch.


The core is just that. It provides the framework for the game and the supplements are the nice juicy details. If you base everything on what's already there, you just end up with more of the same stuff. Somebody has to invent cool new feat ideas and interesting class features or you'll end up using the same abilities over and over and over and...

Matthew
2007-07-14, 12:53 PM
Mechanics are mechanics. They don't have much impact on whether an adventure is boring or not. Pages and pages of rules for this and that might be attractive to some, but it doesn't sound any more interesting to me than having the core of the game.

Rob's version of D&D sounds fine to me, but no more attractive than any other mechanical diagram of the game.

And honestly, "I guessed what the properties of such and such were from the description my DM gave me...?" So what? All that shows is that your DM was using formulaic descriptions for items you'd already encountered (or imagined). Hardly a demonstration of why it's better to use more books.

Ceres
2007-07-14, 12:58 PM
The core is just that. It provides the framework for the game and the supplements are the nice juicy details. If you base everything on what's already there, you just end up with more of the same stuff. Somebody has to invent cool new feat ideas and interesting class features or you'll end up using the same abilities over and over and over and...

Go go gadget homebrew rules! Seriously, you don't need all those books. Just talk to your GM, tell him what kind of character you want to play, and create a new class/feats/whatever together with him/her :smallsmile:

A lot cheaper, and you will be able to create exactly the character you want to play, and the GM can fling at you monsters/treasure best fitting for the setting.

Although, I admit, this requires a GM/players who know the rules well, and have a good imagination. Also the players and GM must be mature and trust eachother in not twisting the rules to their advantage.

de-trick
2007-07-14, 01:06 PM
core is all right for me because isn't 9 classes enough, because most of the new classes from supplements are basically 2 classes intertwined with a couple of new things
eg Duskblade =wizard and fighter
beguiler = rogue, wizard
swashbuckler = fighter, rogue
do I have to go on

Khantalas
2007-07-14, 01:10 PM
All these threads make me want to start my own thread...

If I were to run D&D, it'd be a lot like M&M.

-Hey, is that an Ultimate Power you got there, DM?

-No, it's a Mastermind's Manual... darn.

-I knew it! This isn't D&D, this is M&M! Get him!

Matthew
2007-07-14, 02:00 PM
All these threads make me want to start my own thread...

If I were to run D&D, it'd be a lot like M&M.

-Hey, is that an Ultimate Power you got there, DM?

-No, it's a Mastermind's Manual... darn.

-I knew it! This isn't D&D, this is M&M! Get him!

*Laughs* Now that's some good internet conveyed humour.

Lolth
2007-07-14, 04:05 PM
I was just wondering what the point to this thread was, given the title of it and the OP's original post.

Are you offering to run it someplace?

Rob Knotts
2007-07-14, 04:10 PM
It's just a case of me thinking out loud and wanting to hear what people thought of the idea. If I join a new D&D group any time soon I might suggest it, although most players I've met in person never even think about limiting mechanics to the core rulebooks.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-14, 06:37 PM
Frankly, I find core to be boring.

I dissent that the entertainment of a game is related either way to the amount of books used. With a good DM, a good story, and players you can relate to, roleplaying is fun regardless of which rules or books you use, if any. With a bad DM, a cliche story, and annoying players, roleplaying is no fun, again regardless of which rules or books you use.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-14, 06:42 PM
I dissent that the entertainment of a game is related either way to the amount of books used. With a good DM, a good story, and players you can relate to, roleplaying is fun regardless of which rules or books you use, if any. With a bad DM, a cliche story, and annoying players, roleplaying is no fun, again regardless of which rules or books you use.

I don't think he meant "boring" so much as "bland". In a universe without limits (like D&D), why limit what your characters have access to?

Kurald Galain
2007-07-14, 07:00 PM
I don't think he meant "boring" so much as "bland". In a universe without limits (like D&D), why limit what your characters have access to?

On the contrary, why limit your imagination to what is written down in the books? Less rules means more freedom.

Scotty
2007-07-14, 08:15 PM
I dissent that the entertainment of a game is related either way to the amount of books used. With a good DM, a good story, and players you can relate to, roleplaying is fun regardless of which rules or books you use, if any. With a bad DM, a cliche story, and annoying players, roleplaying is no fun, again regardless of which rules or books you use.


Ditto...it doesnt matter how many classes, feats, or spells you have to choose from. If you have a good DM and a good imagination...the skys the limit.

BCOVertigo
2007-07-14, 08:24 PM
On the contrary, why limit your imagination to what is written down in the books? Less rules means more freedom.

I've made PrC's and races and base classes and pretty much everything else you can imagine and a fair amount of those have been inspired by either fantasy books or dnd supplements. I don't feel limited at all, more like I have a muse in the works of other people if I need it.

More books in no way inhibit freedom, creativity or any other facet of the game.

Matthew
2007-07-14, 09:22 PM
It's two sides of the same coin. Source Books can both inspire and inhibit, just as the imagination can be inspired or inhibited without such input. They can be mutually supporting or not. In the end, though, it's going to be a matter of personal experience.

It's just like anything else, it's how you use the information you're given that's important.

Starbuck_II
2007-07-14, 10:10 PM
core is all right for me because isn't 9 classes enough, because most of the new classes from supplements are basically 2 classes intertwined with a couple of new things
eg Duskblade =wizard and fighter
beguiler = rogue, wizard
swashbuckler = fighter, rogue
do I have to go on

In Core: Duskblade would suck if stuck as a wizard/fighter. His bab (assuming keeping classes equal or without a prc vwould be 15 instead of 20), he would have wider selection of magic though, low hps (as wizaard hd sucks), can't wear armor without spell failure, and have more feats.

Granted, with the right optimazation and Prc Eldritch Knight you can get 9th level spellds and good bab. But Duskblade is better for beginners wanting those choices.

Beguiler: Rogue/Sorceror fits better. Though, Beguiler has no sneak attack. But better HD in Beguiler. And cast in light armor.

Rob Knotts
2007-07-14, 10:17 PM
Ditto...it doesnt matter how many classes, feats, or spells you have to choose from. If you have a good DM and a good imagination...the skys the limit.No, the limit's actually pretty close to the ground. Take classes for example. You can get a lot of a variety of classes, but you can only stretch classes so far.

Regardless of how many supplements you use, D&D has a finite set of mechanics, and the mechanics defined by classes are a even smaller set. If you get into 20 or 30 different classes in one setting, the mechanics start to overlap so much that fluff text starts to be the only thing that sets each class apart.

Same goes for basic races and even PrCs. Each element of character creation only relates to a limited set of mechanics, and there are only so many ways you can mix and match things.

On the other hand, what if you only have two classes? At that point they cover such a limited amount of mechanics that you really need to start adding abilities to each class to compensate for the lack of diversity. One way to encourage diversity with only two classes would be to make sure there's a good number of PC races to choose from. Even so, races are not classes, and they can only cover so much.

D&D character creation is a process of choosing from different sets of stereotypes (race/class/alignment) and then fine-tuning the character with feat/spell/skill choices to make it unique. When players are choosing from the stereotypes available, too few options can leave an adventuring group at a prohibitive disadvantage under the standard rules, Too many options can lead to players believing thier choices don't really make any difference.

Too few choices can cripple the characters, too many choices and the players stop caring.

Gavin Sage
2007-07-14, 10:42 PM
I don't think he meant "boring" so much as "bland". In a universe without limits (like D&D), why limit what your characters have access to?

Because you can drown in it. When you allow everything it can feel very very random and strung together with little depth for all that variety.

Especially when something is similar but also very different. Like Archivists and Clerics for example, I don't think they should ever be used in the same setting. The former undermines the basic premise of the latter by making divine gifts into just another study for anyone. Not that there couldn't be great settings for an Archivist, just not ones that have Clerics and gods that walk the prime material and battle each other.

Limiting options can help build a cohesive identity and feel to a whole campaign. People may like the notion of being able to be anything in general, but for any given situation it can be better to only allow certain choices.

Jack Mann
2007-07-14, 11:18 PM
And I think the opposite. I think clerics and archivists should be used together. The differences (and similarities) make for a lot of potential conflict. Conflict is a good thing. It gives a world depth, and drives the story. Besides, clerics can already get by without a god by following a cause instead. Godless divine casters were nothing new.

And remember, you can always abandon the premade fluff. You can have two characters with the exact same mechanics who are completely different, or you can have two characters who are very similar in game with extremely different different mechanics. Mechanics should support the fluff, but if you can support different fluff with it, or else find better mechanics to support that fluff, I say to do so. More options doesn't have to drown the story. Remember, your characters do not know their classes. They know their abilities, but they don't know that they have X levels of swashbuckler and Y of fighter. They just know that they have a specific style.

If you think using the fluff of all the new classes would drown the story, then don't use it. But there's no reason not to use the classes themselves, unless they're so inextricably tied to the fluff that you absolutely can't use one without the other. This is rarely the case.

Your characters shouldn't know if they've faced a rogue/sorcerer or a beguiler (even if the players can figure it out). They just know that he was a sneaky spell-casting bastard. They don't know if the guards are fighters, rangers, or even warriors, unless you tell them. And remember, there's room for a lot of different capabilities in a world. Different disciplines from different countries, or even self-taught masters who are the only known practitioners of that particular craft.

The fluff is yours to control. Use whatever crunch works, or even work out your own. Don't tie the two together more than absolutely necessary.

CasESenSITItiVE
2007-07-15, 10:52 AM
i wonder why everyone is determined to actually make an individual class for every idea they come up with. you could make a pirate with a rogue, but no. in comes swashbuckler. you can make a ninja with a monk, but no, in comes ninja class. the original classes are more than the classes themselves. find multiple uses for them for gods sake

Matthew
2007-07-15, 11:14 AM
It is a fairly normal reaction to a Class Based system, I think. I don't like it much, but there it is. If the eleven Core Base Classes were more generic we might not have this reaction, but then Wizard's wouldn't be able to sell you more Books with more Base Classes (which would be bad for them).

The DMG even talks about making your own Base Classes to suit specific ideas. It is really no big deal, as it just supports different preferences.

Dervag
2007-07-15, 12:29 PM
i wonder why everyone is determined to actually make an individual class for every idea they come up with. you could make a pirate with a rogue, but no. in comes swashbuckler. you can make a ninja with a monk, but no, in comes ninja class. the original classes are more than the classes themselves. find multiple uses for them for gods sakeThe problem is that many of the core classes have constraints that are unsatisfactory for playing these secondary ideas.

For instance, a rogue can't stand and fight against a tough opponent. They don't have good hit points. They don't have full BAB. The only thing that makes them effective in a fight is Sneak Attack, and there are a lot of circumstances where Sneak Attack is ineffective.

So if you make your pirate a rogue, then he'll have a lot of trouble swinging onto enemy ships and battling it out with the enemy crew in traditional pirate fashion.

Hence the swashbuckler, a class designed to exploit battlefield terrain, fight in light or no armor, and be able to duke it out with strong enemies in melee combat.

Likewise, the ninja. Monks can do the ninja thing, but the monk archetype is based on the martial artist. Monks don't carry swords. Monks have abilities that don't make sense for ninjas. Monks are constrained to Lawful alignment, while there is no reason to assume that ninjas are.

Hence, it's hard to imagine a ninja with all the desired ninja features and few extraneous and useless non-ninja features without creating a new class.

If you want your pirate's ability to swing onto enemy ships and fight with a cutlass, or your ninja's ability to disappear into the darkness to have mechanical consequences rather than being pure flavor, you end up tempted to create these classes.

Dausuul
2007-07-15, 02:22 PM
In addition, the core has absolutely no rules for simulating some classic things like the evil of a cursed tomb slowly corrupting the people exploring it (taint, Heroes of Horror) or incredible feats of martial skill that cause supernatural effects (maneuvers from the ToB).

Here you demonstrate exactly why I feel supplements ought to be strictly limited, and allowed only when they make a major contribution to the game. The taint rules in HoH? Have you actually read those rules? They're abysmal. Poorly thought out, horribly unbalanced, no fun, incoherent and just plain bad. Taint is the sort of thing I would homebrew.

On the other hand, the Tome of Battle has some excellent mechanics, even though the descriptions given are not really my style. It makes warrior classes far more fun and interesting to play, not to mention improving game balance relative to casters. So that's actually a supplement worth having.


The core is just that. It provides the framework for the game and the supplements are the nice juicy details. If you base everything on what's already there, you just end up with more of the same stuff. Somebody has to invent cool new feat ideas and interesting class features or you'll end up using the same abilities over and over and over and...

While I agree that D&D core gets boring after a while--purely in a mechanical sense--I disagree that supplements are an adequate solution. Yeah, sometimes there's fun stuff, but in my experience a supplement won't freshen up a stale game for very long. It is ultimately up to the DM, and to a lesser extent the players, to keep things fun and interesting through the application of what is so disparagingly called "fluff." Crunch is just numbers.

To me, the main value of supplements is that they provide new tools to help the DM and players construct the world that they want. My inclination as DM would be to pick and choose the supplements that provided mechanics I felt contributed to a better game and fit with my game world, then ban all others.

Kizara
2007-07-15, 02:47 PM
D&D 3x is not my favourite RPG, it's not even in my top 3 (GURPS, Hero, BESM). However, there are a lot of elements I appreciate about it, and despite selling off most of my collection out of frustration, I still have the core books (and Draconomicon and Lords Of Madness, too cool to let go). Should the opportunity come up again for me to run D&D (and I am currently looking for D&D groups to meet new players), I would probably approach D&D 3x with the attitude of "back to basics".

The first part of what I mean is avoiding supplements. It's not a matter of D&D rules supplements being good or bad, but when you get into the territory of supplements it's very, very easy to just get lost.

Second part would be to consider what I do or don't want to incorporate out of the core books. I don't mean rules, just specific elements like monsters, classes, weapons, magic items, etcetera. It's not necessary to include everything from the core books, and doing so means having to manage variables to keep the game from becoming a mess.

Lastly, I'd base any homebrew material on examples already in the book. New classes would, as suggested in the DMG, simply be reworked official classes, new spells/feats/weapons would simply be extensions of what's already there, new magic items would retooled versions of published items. And new monsters would be built using published monsters, templates, and class levels, with some possible tweaks but nothing involving whole new set of stats and abilities or working the CR from scratch.


I'd need to know a bit more about how you DM, but yes, I would happily play in your game and find it refreshing. For the record I own like 10+ suppliment books (thats only counting 3.5).

In fact, if you live in Alberta or are doing it over ORPG, PM me and you got a player.