PDA

View Full Version : Commonplace Myths (DnD 3.5): Debunked?



Valairn
2008-04-16, 07:06 PM
After reading countless recruiting posts over the course of the last couple of weeks, I decided that there are a lot of presuppositions that people enter into role-playing with that are not necessarily well thought out and so I decided try to expel what I think some myths are.

Myth 1: Building a powerful character means that person intends to break your game.

Simply no. Even if I build Clericzilla it doesn't mean I intend to break your game, it might just mean I intend to play a Cleric who happens to be good at what he does, or plays in a certain way that I enjoy. I'm not out to steal anyone else's spotlight, I'm here to game just like everyone else and enjoy a group activity and watch them rock and roll just as much as I do.

Myth 2: If I force my players to "role-play" into their prestige classes it will make the game balanced, or have better continuity, or .....

Negative. What you actually just did is create a group full of meta-gamers. Congratulations, you will now have 4 people sitting around in your game attempting to contrive certain types of results out of situations so they can take the prestige class they want. You just killed role-playing, by making a mechanical aspect of the game a reward for meta-gaming. This leads into....

Myth 3: Prestige class fluff is important.

No, its just not. Sometimes it is, certain prestige classes especially anything having to do with paladins, fluff matters, but only cause paladins are one of the few classes with fluff based restrictions (role-play a lawful good person!). Fluff is mostly meaningless, you should look at a prestige class as a list of class abilities that a player wants to have, and if the fluff doesn't fit, build new fluff around that character, now those abilities are perfect for that character.

Myth 4: I don't use such and such a book because its "overpowered."

There has been no splat book released so far that is more unbalanced than the Core Player's Handbook. In fact, a lot of the "bottom barrel" classes are in fact from splat books, i mean just look at the CWar Samurai, among others. Even the much "OMG OP" ToB still doesn't bring characters to a power level that the PHB does.

This leads to....

Truth 1: You should trust your players.

They are here to have fun just like you. Do yourself and them a favor and let them play the classes they want and if the fluff doesn't work, CHANGE IT! Its just mechanics, mechanics should never get in the way of good role-playing, and fluff is by far the most "wave my magic wand" change there is.

So there ya have it a few a thoughs. And maybe a little pep talking :-D.

Hope you all enjoy.

Cuddly
2008-04-16, 07:10 PM
If the DM decides that prestige classes require the fluff attached to them, then they require the fluff. No way to get around that, my friend. Well, other than choosing not to play with them.

TheElfLord
2008-04-16, 07:18 PM
Stating your opinions on issues is not the same thing as debunking myths. While you have decent positions, there is plenty of room for people to disagree with you, especially on number 3. I would also say number 4, but since you failed to provide any evidence to back up your point most people will skip the disagreement and just dismiss it. I'm not saying you are wrong about the PHB being the most overpowered, just that making unsupported statements does not win people to your views. Also, note that "In fact!" is not a sentence.

While it is good advice to someone who shares your view, it is far from universally accepted.

Valairn
2008-04-16, 07:18 PM
Just because someone decides that the like the fluff attached to a prestige class, and then decides he wants to force that on his players, does that really progress his game? It doesn't. It in fact hinders that players creativity and excitement about the game by pigeonholing them into roles the DM wants.

This is a group game, it involves players and DM's working together. Its not about the DM its about the group as a whole. Its true the DM can make decisions about a campaign world, that's part of his job, but it doesn't debunk my Myth to say that certain decisions of his can be misguided, it in fact proves it.

Carrion_Humanoid
2008-04-16, 07:23 PM
The book of Nine Swords, Worst book ever. . . Completely overpowered and contradicts itself on many, MANY pages!

Also- MYTHBUSTERS!

Valairn
2008-04-16, 07:24 PM
Stating your opinions on issues is not the same thing as debunking myths. While you have decent positions, there is plenty of room for people to disagree with you, especially on number 3. I would also say number 4, but since you failed to provide any evidence to back up your point most people will skip the disagreement and just dismiss it. I'm not saying you are wrong about the PHB being the most overpowered, just that making unsupported statements does not win people to your views. Also, note that "In fact!" is not a sentence.

While it is good advice to someone who shares your view, it is far from universally accepted.

Presentation matters, I won't disagree. I had an idea when I started posting and it ended as something else, so maybe adjusting my approach could increase "audience appeal". But you didn't really add anything to the discussion here, you just said that some people might disagree with me. Which is of course going to be true, even if I said the world is round (there are still people out there who think otherwise).

And also thank you for pointing out my improper grammar I'll go fix that.

Prometheus
2008-04-16, 07:25 PM
Myth 1: Building a powerful character means that person intends to break your game.

Simply no. Even if I build Clericzilla it doesn't mean I intend to break your game, it might just mean I intend to play a Cleric who happens to be good at what he does, or plays in a certain way that I enjoy. I'm not out to steal anyone else's spotlight, I'm here to game just like everyone else and enjoy a group activity and watch them rock and roll just as much as I do.

The theoretical and the actual run into problems. Theoretically, there is nothing wrong with a more powerful character. Theoretically, it is possible for a player to generate a character more powerful that ordinarily allotted for roleplaying purposes, or maybe even for the fun of everyone else. In practice, anyone who is focused on power-gaming has removed on story-telling elements of D&D for a poorly designed single-player game. Their role in the party tends to take over the role of everyone else, which severely limits their "Rock and roll" capacity, and punishes them for wanting to play any character that is 100% optimized, and probably punishes them even then. So while it may be played with the best of intentions, it frequently has terrible results and the complete disregard for those terrible results tends to undermine those good intentions in the first place. Consider this myth contested.

As far as prestige class myths go, you are at least half right. Prestige class fluff is generally pretty stupid and no one should be forced to roleplay for any of them. But neither should a character pick any prestige class just because they are so concerned about optimization. Does it really make sense for the character to have or want those abilities? Is power really the most importan aspect of character building (see above)?

You're just missing the point, the more each and every player is concerned about cheesing out their mechanics, the more limited the gameplay.

TheElfLord
2008-04-16, 07:28 PM
I think you are too big a fan of the phrase debunking a myth, because you are now calling your own statements myths.

What if one of the players doesn't like the fluff of a prestige class by the rest of the group does? Not everything is always players vs. DM. Fluff is an attempt to build a vibrant colorful world. It should be considered an aid to players, not a hindrance.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-16, 07:28 PM
The book of Nine Swords, Worst book ever. . . Completely overpowered and contradicts itself on many, MANY pages!

Also- MYTHBUSTERS!

Tell me you're being sarcastic.

Valairn
2008-04-16, 07:31 PM
The book of Nine Swords, Worst book ever. . . Completely overpowered and contradicts itself on many, MANY pages!

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't trying to troll my post. But poorly written books are kind of just how Wizards does it. And each book has it examples of either bad design, crappy writing, and the like.

Nebo_
2008-04-16, 07:31 PM
After reading countless recruiting posts over the course of the last couple of weeks, I decided that there are a lot of presuppositions that people enter into role-playing with that are not necessarily well thought out and so I decided to expel certain myths.

Myth 1: Building a powerful character means that person intends to break your game.

Simply no. Even if I build Clericzilla it doesn't mean I intend to break your game, it might just mean I intend to play a Cleric who happens to be good at what he does, or plays in a certain way that I enjoy. I'm not out to steal anyone else's spotlight, I'm here to game just like everyone else and enjoy a group activity and watch them rock and roll just as much as I do.

Myth 2: If I force my players to "role-play" into their prestige classes it will make the game balanced, or have better continuity, or .....

Negative. What you actually just did is create a group full of meta-gamers. Congratulations, you will now have 4 people sitting around in your game attempting to contrive certain types of results out of situations so they can take the prestige class they want. You just killed role-playing, by making a mechanical aspect of the game a reward for meta-gaming. This leads into....

Myth 3: Prestige class fluff is important.

No, its just not. Sometimes it is, certain prestige classes especially anything having to do with paladins, fluff matters, but only cause paladins are one of the few classes with fluff based restrictions (role-play a lawful good person!). Fluff is mostly meaningless, you should look at a prestige class as a list of class abilities that a player wants to have, and if the fluff doesn't fit, build new fluff around that character, now those abilities are perfect for that character.

Myth 4: I don't use such and such a book because its "overpowered."

There has been no splat book released so far that is more unbalanced than the Core Player's Handbook. In fact, a lot of the "bottom barrel" classes are in fact from splat books, i mean just look at the CWar Samurai, among others. Even the much "OMG OP" ToB still doesn't bring characters to a power level that the PHB does.

This leads to....

Truth 1: You should trust your players.

They are here to have fun just like you. Do yourself and them a favor and let them play the classes they want and if the fluff doesn't work, CHANGE IT! Its just mechanics, mechanics should never get in the way of good role-playing, and fluff is by far the most "wave my magic wand" change there is.

So there ya have it a few a thoughs. And maybe a little pep talking :-D.

Hope you all enjoy.

I completely agree.

TheElfLord
2008-04-16, 07:33 PM
Presentation matters, I won't disagree. I had an idea when I started posting and it ended as something else, so maybe adjusting my approach could increase "audience appeal". But you didn't really add anything to the discussion here, you just said that some people might disagree with me. Which is of course going to be true, even if I said the world is round (there are still people out there who think otherwise).

And also thank you for pointing out my improper grammar I'll go fix that.

What I added to the discussion was the idea that you did not in fact debunk any myths. You simply picked subjects and stated you opinion. The closest you came to providing evidence was the anecdotal evidence for myth 1 where you said you may not intend to break a game with a powerful character. Other than that you just spouted your ideas and claimed to have debunked myths. I don't have a problem with people making arguments I disagree with (as I do with 3), but I do have an issue with people making unsupported claims, especially when they appear to think they have presented an air tight proof.

Valairn
2008-04-16, 07:35 PM
I think you are too big a fan of the phrase debunking a myth, because you are now calling your own statements myths.

What if one of the players doesn't like the fluff of a prestige class by the rest of the group does? Not everything is always players vs. DM. Fluff is an attempt to build a vibrant colorful world. It should be considered an aid to players, not a hindrance.

Maybe so, you'll notice a question mark in my thread title. I'm not particularly trying to be a source of all encompassing DnD wisdom here. I was just opening the floor to discussion. Fluff CAN be an aid to players, but it can also get in the way of a player making a character that can do certain things. Character's should come first, campaigns are kind of by their very nature about the PC's first and that's not a bad thing.

Valairn
2008-04-16, 07:37 PM
What I added to the discussion was the idea that you did not in fact debunk any myths. You simply picked subjects and stated you opinion. The closest you came to providing evidence was the anecdotal evidence for myth 1 where you said you may not intend to break a game with a powerful character. Other than that you just spouted your ideas and claimed to have debunked myths. I don't have a problem with people making arguments I disagree with (as I do with 3), but I do have an issue with people making unsupported claims, especially when they appear to think they have presented an air tight proof.

I'm gonna point at the question mark in my thread title, and say that you may be missing the point of why I posted this.

Sorry about Double post!

Cuddly
2008-04-16, 07:38 PM
Just because someone decides that the like the fluff attached to a prestige class, and then decides he wants to force that on his players, does that really progress his game? It doesn't. It in fact hinders that players creativity and excitement about the game by pigeonholing them into roles the DM wants.

This is a group game, it involves players and DM's working together. Its not about the DM its about the group as a whole. Its true the DM can make decisions about a campaign world, that's part of his job, but it doesn't debunk my Myth to say that certain decisions of his can be misguided, it in fact proves it.

You're right. It's a group game. The players shouldn't walk all over the DM. If the DM says "no, that's not in my campaign world, we're playing low power, low magic, and slaying orcs, and you can't be an ethergaunt archmage," that's that. If you don't like it, find another game! If no one wants to play in the particular game, then the DM will have to make concessions. If there's one problematic powergaming player who ignores fluff to make his characters more powerful, then the group will say "hey man, that's not how we play." And then the powergamer may choose to tone it down, or pack up his dice.

Pretty simple, and all opinions. No myths, since opinion can't really be wrong or right.

TheElfLord
2008-04-16, 07:39 PM
Ah okay. When I read the last sentence of your first paragraph where you said, "you decided to expel certain myths" that over road the ? for me.

Perhaps discussion would be facilitated more easily if you could provide an example of a time where fluff has hindered player creativity?

Avor
2008-04-16, 07:40 PM
Myth 1: Building a powerful character means that person intends to break your game.

That is dependent on the power of other party members, and the ability of the DM.

One player is fighter with stats of 18, 17, 16, 13, 14, and so on, who also plans to take a over powered presteige class will only break the game when he is paired up with a pure rouge with a high stats of 16 and 14.



Myth 4: I don't use such and such a book because its "overpowered."

I use the term glass cannon. It totaly owns core classes, encounters, but there is a single, specialy made class, offten found in the same book, that exists just to counter it.

Soulbinders for example, not only strong magic, one day they can be uber melee, the next, super caster, but the only way to defeat it is with a special made class, witchhunter, everybody else just hopes just has to hope he binded the wrong vistage or what ever.


Truth 1: You should trust your players.

Bull****, players treat D&D like any other game, they want every advantage they can get for what ever challange comes next. They will exploit and abuse any and everything, while you try to DM and know the whole game and rules, they hammer away at a single obcure magic and rules trying to gain the upper hand on you.

When a player asks, can I be a <insery cheesey class/race>, you know more likely to be about rules than fluff.

I accauly met a D&D player who cheated his pants off, saying that it's the duty of the DM to catch and prevent him. He accauly tried to play with a screen to hide his rolls!

Avor
2008-04-16, 07:43 PM
Perhaps discussion would be facilitated more easily if you could provide an example of a time where fluff has hindered player creativity?

A player of mine wanted to be an assassin, but the fluff requirement was that he needed to be evil.

I don't DM evil games, so let him be N and use the class.

Valairn
2008-04-16, 07:45 PM
I'm really not trying to make a veiled statement saying that POWERGAMING IS THE ONLY WAY TO PLAY.

It isn't, and I wouldn't take that from anyone. But sometimes you just want to play someone that can do something like an Eldritch Blast, but is Lawful Good. That's an instance of fluff getting in the way of character generation. Warlocks are kind of... gimpy (not all the time), but I might want to play something that has abilities that are either very similar but not have the Warlock fluff. That's an instance of what I'm talking about.

Of course that doesn't really respond to your statement. Just cause I want a certain mechanical trick doesn't mean I'm trying to power game or cheese my character out at all. Maybe I just want to have a wizard with a heal spell, cause I think that's snazzy or it works with my character idea, healing isn't really that OP, especially in place of other valuable wizard spell slots. But it is a mechanical thing I can add to my character that isn't really oriented toward cheese at all.

Cuddly
2008-04-16, 07:49 PM
Yeah, I'm all for that sort of thing, but you see so many threads that go like this:

OP: I want to play a dwarf fighter than dual wields bastard swords. I think it would be cool and dwarfy!
Poster1: You should look at ToB, but really, just play a gray elf wizard with 2 flaws, maybe undwarfy and really not dwarfy.
Posters n+1: Play a caster!!1

Valairn
2008-04-16, 07:51 PM
Yeah, I'm all for that sort of thing, but you see so many threads that go like this:

OP: I want to play a dwarf fighter than dual wields bastard swords. I think it would be cool and dwarfy!
Poster1: You should look at ToB, but really, just play a gray elf wizard with 2 flaws, maybe undwarfy and really not dwarfy.
Posters n+1: Play a caster!!1

Lol so true!

Valairn
2008-04-16, 07:56 PM
Bull****, players treat D&D like any other game, they want every advantage they can get for what ever challange comes next. They will exploit and abuse any and everything, while you try to DM and know the whole game and rules, they hammer away at a single obcure magic and rules trying to gain the upper hand on you.

When a player asks, can I be a <insery cheesey class/race>, you know more likely to be about rules than fluff.

I accauly met a D&D player who cheated his pants off, saying that it's the duty of the DM to catch and prevent him. He accauly tried to play with a screen to hide his rolls!

Ouch, that player sucks. I guess I should have started that "truth" by saying for when you are trying to recruit people for games, since that's kind of what sparked this whole post of mine. Good player relations and all, you should probably give people at least some benefit of the doubt. After all its easy to see if they want cheesey goodness most of the time.

Actually that leads me into another potential truth. If you want to play a certain class combo that is powerful mechanically(regardless of your intentions), you should be up front with the DM.

This is probably another double post... sigh.

TheElfLord
2008-04-16, 08:02 PM
Ouch indeed. Once again I am thankful that my group is a group of friends that plays rpgs, not an rpg group.

I guess the thing that bothers me about saying fluff is not important is that it focuses everything on mechanics. If you ignore fluff then you are just looking for things to make your character more powerful. This is fine if you have already developed a strong sense of fluff for your character, but not all people do that.

The other approach is to pick a prestige class based on the fluff of your character. "My character is like x, what prestage classes are like x"

Cuddly
2008-04-16, 08:05 PM
The other approach is to pick a prestige class based on the fluff of your character. "My character is like x, what prestage classes are like x"

And a lot of people play like that. The only problem is that when playing with people who are able to divorce fluff and crunch, they're at a serious power disadvantage, and often find themselves not doing much during combat.

Jasdoif
2008-04-16, 08:06 PM
Roleplaying requirements are fine, as long as there's actually a roleplaying reason for them. If a player wants to play a LG warlock, and you don't see a reason against it, just waive the alignment prereq and all's well.

On the other hand, if your world has a prestige class that represents the top tiers of a global organization, a player should be required to be in said top tiers of said organization before taking it. Crafting a similar class that "happens" to mesh with the player's place in the world and/or its organizations could be a good idea though.


Now, if the roleplaying requirements are supposed to balance the class mechanically...then there's a problem.

Cuddly
2008-04-16, 08:09 PM
Now, if the roleplaying requirements are supposed to balance the class mechanically...then there's a problem.

Why?


needlesscharacters

Hadrian_Emrys
2008-04-16, 08:16 PM
1. That's how I play. I build powerfully (even "game breakingly" so at times) but stick with a level of play that matches the rest of the party unless there is am immediate threat of PC death. At that point, a period of theatrical heroism that saves an ally tends to make the game worthwhile on both a technical and RP level while saving the DM from lowering the tension by fudging rolls. I play with more people with no sense of machanics than not, yet all are amazing roleplayers. I just want to keep the less martially inclined players alive long enough to shine in the areas where they are strong.

2. As previously said pres. classes are just a bundle of neat abilities. I'd like to tack on that the fluff (in my book anyway) is just the suggested version.

3. As a DM, the game starts with me taking what the players want in terms of limits. As a player, I am choked by unreasonable and/or stupid rules that hinder personal creativity. The worst offender from both perspectives is the majority of alignment restrictions, those get tossed out faster than a sick cat heaving over the carpet.

4. Not once have I ever imposed such a rule, nor thought along those lines. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The same can be said about the connection between uses of books and the game.

Jasdoif
2008-04-16, 08:17 PM
Why?Because ideally, mechanical benefits should be accounted for with mechanical requirements.

Tying a mechanical benefit to a roleplaying requirement is effectively punishing roleplaying that doesn't meet that requirement. It's a disincentive to honest roleplaying.

TheElfLord
2008-04-16, 08:18 PM
Why?


needlesscharacters

I'm presuming because if you handwave away said requirements you just removed all the balance constraints.

Cuddly
2008-04-16, 08:19 PM
Because ideally, mechanical benefits should be accounted for with mechanical requirements.

Tying a mechanical benefit to a roleplaying requirement is effectively punishing roleplaying that doesn't meet that requirement. It's a disincentive to honest roleplaying.

So clerics should get spells regardless of behavior?

TehJhu
2008-04-16, 08:23 PM
After reading countless recruiting posts over the course of the last couple of weeks, I decided that there are a lot of presuppositions that people enter into role-playing with that are not necessarily well thought out and so I decided try to expel what I think some myths are.

Myth 1: Building a powerful character means that person intends to break your game.

Simply no. Even if I build Clericzilla it doesn't mean I intend to break your game, it might just mean I intend to play a Cleric who happens to be good at what he does, or plays in a certain way that I enjoy. I'm not out to steal anyone else's spotlight, I'm here to game just like everyone else and enjoy a group activity and watch them rock and roll just as much as I do.

Myth 2: If I force my players to "role-play" into their prestige classes it will make the game balanced, or have better continuity, or .....

Negative. What you actually just did is create a group full of meta-gamers. Congratulations, you will now have 4 people sitting around in your game attempting to contrive certain types of results out of situations so they can take the prestige class they want. You just killed role-playing, by making a mechanical aspect of the game a reward for meta-gaming. This leads into....

Myth 3: Prestige class fluff is important.

No, its just not. Sometimes it is, certain prestige classes especially anything having to do with paladins, fluff matters, but only cause paladins are one of the few classes with fluff based restrictions (role-play a lawful good person!). Fluff is mostly meaningless, you should look at a prestige class as a list of class abilities that a player wants to have, and if the fluff doesn't fit, build new fluff around that character, now those abilities are perfect for that character.

Myth 4: I don't use such and such a book because its "overpowered."

There has been no splat book released so far that is more unbalanced than the Core Player's Handbook. In fact, a lot of the "bottom barrel" classes are in fact from splat books, i mean just look at the CWar Samurai, among others. Even the much "OMG OP" ToB still doesn't bring characters to a power level that the PHB does.

This leads to....

Truth 1: You should trust your players.

They are here to have fun just like you. Do yourself and them a favor and let them play the classes they want and if the fluff doesn't work, CHANGE IT! Its just mechanics, mechanics should never get in the way of good role-playing, and fluff is by far the most "wave my magic wand" change there is.

So there ya have it a few a thoughs. And maybe a little pep talking :-D.

Hope you all enjoy.
{Scrubbed}

Hadrian_Emrys
2008-04-16, 08:27 PM
So clerics should get spells regardless of behavior?

More like the mistaken view that one most role play a torred scene with a fey in order to gain the benefits of the Nymph's Kiss feat.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-16, 08:38 PM
Why?

Because either nobody can get in even if they want to, or they can get in, and once they do they are too powerful.

Either the class is of the right power level for the game and fits their character and they should be allowed into it, or it is too powerful to be in the game and shouldn't be.

The Superman PrC.

You must rescue 150 people from a burning building to enter this class.

level 1 ability: You are invulnerable and can kill with a look, this is not a death effect.

Now the DM has to choose between going out of his way to prevent anyone from rescuing people from burning buildings, or he can allow them to rescue people and then have an unbalanced game.

The RP entry requirement in no way balances mechanical power.

Samakain
2008-04-16, 08:42 PM
The book of Nine Swords, Worst book ever. . . Completely overpowered and contradicts itself on many, MANY pages!

Also- MYTHBUSTERS!

This just goes to show how playstyles between group to group vary. D&D, in the end, is a social game, meaning different people numberd 5-6 around a table every odd week or so. For one this young gentleman thinks ToB is overpowered and contradictory, i disagree and with the risk of sounding trollish my first impression of this post was to give him a hat of sodium and kick him into a rainstorm, but that ain't cool. People differ, groups differ, players and DM's differ. And i wish this poor soul luck in his decidely unfunky adventures.

But as i said, what we get with D&D groups is VARIETY OF PEOPLE. This means, frankly, chaos. Between each D&D group and each individual player there are going to players you can't and can trust, people who will try to leech every advantage for the character out of the game to make it overpowered and unaligned, power wise, with the rest of the party, you'll have gold whores or worse, pot smokers! nothing is fixed and if your've played as often as i have you begain to releaise, as surely as i can spell, you will 80% of the time bring large chunks of negative to the table with new people

most of the time, once they get into the swing. they'll become decent if not excellent people to spend your time and game with, the other half of the time they remain the same embarrising amount of dooche they where on day one. And your left to wonder, "man i can drink with you, grease myself up and wrestle ducks at a bus stop with you, but i just can't play with you. Your a ****"

Which is why once you find your 6, you hang onto those people for as long as you can, nail them to the ****ing table and feed them 3 times a week if nessicary. as much as players need to fit together to make a good group, a DM needs to fit with the players. Come off to buddy buddy with your gameface on and you'll be there bitch, come off with a god complex and like hell they won't stay.

I must admit thou, fluff can be changed, as long as it aligns with other fluff.

Cuddly
2008-04-16, 08:49 PM
Because either nobody can get in even if they want to, or they can get in, and once they do they are too powerful.

Either the class is of the right power level for the game and fits their character and they should be allowed into it, or it is too powerful to be in the game and shouldn't be.

The Superman PrC.

You must rescue 150 people from a burning building to enter this class.

level 1 ability: You are invulnerable and can kill with a look, this is not a death effect.

Now the DM has to choose between going out of his way to prevent anyone from rescuing people from burning buildings, or he can allow them to rescue people and then have an unbalanced game.

The RP entry requirement in no way balances mechanical power.

So you set up a strawman and then declare it true for all cases?
Fail.

Jasdoif
2008-04-16, 08:49 PM
So clerics should get spells regardless of behavior?In the case of clerics, the mechanical benefit isn't strictly tied to the roleplaying requirement. Different faiths get almost the exact same powers (domains and alignment-related spells are a little different), so in theory any particular style of roleplaying could get the mechanical benefit of cleric spellcasting. It's more of a style thing then a roleplaying cost.

I'm referring to things more like "this class is super powerful, more then any other class you could take, because you have to be super lawful and stuff". Something like this effectively punishes everyone who doesn't take the class, and by extension everyone who isn't roleplaying "super lawful and stuff".

TheElfLord
2008-04-16, 08:51 PM
In the case of clerics, the mechanical benefit isn't strictly tied to the roleplaying requirement. Different faiths get almost the exact same powers (domains and alignment-related spells are a little different), so in theory any particular style of roleplaying could get the mechanical benefit of cleric spellcasting. It's more of a style thing then a roleplaying cost.

I'm referring to things more like "this class is super powerful, more then any other class you could take, because you have to be super lawful and stuff". Something like this effectively punishes everyone who doesn't take the class, and by extension everyone who isn't roleplaying "super lawful and stuff".

And such a class would be?

Cuddly
2008-04-16, 08:56 PM
But what of a class that grants you a set of powers, but you may only use those powers in specific circumstances, or risk losing those powers? Smite Evil, for instance, or favored enemies, are proto-examples of what I mean.

Book of Exalted Deeds has a lot of stuff like that, for instance, though I don't particularly care for the book.

Of course, this could lead to situations where all the party faces are challenges that involve whatever they're good against, and they ignore everything else.

While I agree that, in general, roleplaying requirements lead to trouble, the don't necessarily have to. Claiming that roleplaying requirements prevent good mechanics is as logically sound as claiming that powergaming prevents roleplaying. Neither are both sufficient and necessary conditions.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-16, 08:59 PM
Soulbinders for example, not only strong magic, one day they can be uber melee, the next, super caster, but the only way to defeat it is with a special made class, witchhunter, everybody else just hopes just has to hope he binded the wrong vistage or what ever.

HAHAHAHA! That's really funny.

Except that Witch hunters are a terrible class and way, way down on the list of things that can beat a Binder every single day.

That list goes: Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian/Ranger/Binder.

Valairn
2008-04-16, 09:00 PM
What PrC wouldn't the mean DM let you play?

{Scrubbed}

To respond to your question anyway, I've never played a character I didn't want to play. If there were serious campaign setting issues with a certain type of character, I'm a big kid I can make a different type of character. Low Magic being what it is, playing a Gishzilla probably isn't going to fly, but that's a different issue than, "I don't like the fluff of that prestige class so its not allowed." Shrug.

Valairn
2008-04-16, 09:04 PM
But what of a class that grants you a set of powers, but you may only use those powers in specific circumstances, or risk losing those powers? Smite Evil, for instance, or favored enemies, are proto-examples of what I mean.

Book of Exalted Deeds has a lot of stuff like that, for instance, though I particularly care for the book.

Of course, this could lead to situations where all the party faces are challenges that involve whatever they're good against, and they ignore everything else.

While I agree that, in general, roleplaying requirements lead to trouble, the don't necessarily have to. Claiming that roleplaying requirements prevent good mechanics is as logically sound as claiming that powergaming prevents roleplaying. Neither are both sufficient and necessary conditions.

I started this didn't I? oops! My original post wasn't ever meant to imply that role-playing requirements were wrong, in fact they can be perfectly appropriate, I was merely saying that if a player wants certain class abilities, but different fluff attached, its not that hard to do really, and personally as a DM is part of what I love about DM'ing.

Fluff can be changed is not synonymous with fluff is unimportant. Though I'm not sure I made that distinction very clear in my original post, my bad.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-16, 09:12 PM
So you set up a strawman and then declare it true for all cases?
Fail.

No, it's not a strawman.

If you have an ability which is too mechanically powerful for the campaign but has an RP mechanic it is either too powerful or can never be used.

If the entry requirement is to do X, then after you have done X you are more powerful then the other PCs, that's not good. If everyone else has classes based on mechanical balance (give up a spell slot to get an ability) and you have a class that is based on RP balancing (defend justice and get an ability) it's bad for the game.

Take Paladins. Paladins are equal to Fighters/Barbarians/Rangers (supposedly) when fighting evil enemies. The second you have to face Neutral enemies they are less powerful. That's bad. It would be just as bad if they were more powerful then everyone else when fighting evil, because either they would be facing evil disproportionally (likely if you have a Paladin PC) and he would make everyone else feel bad, or you wouldn't and he would suck.

RP requirements are like AMFs/Spellbooks/and Smite Evil. Either they don't come up, or they ruin the game when they do. (That's why everyone puts so much work into finding ways to bypass AMFs/Spellbooks/and Rp requirements).

Also, as regards Clerics. I wish people would stop bringing up that Fallacy. You can be a Cleric of anything you want. You pick your Cleric of X abilities based on what you want to RP. Then you do whatever you want, and it's inline with your beliefs, because you would have to be an idiot to choose to RP a Cleric of Pelor is you wanted to build an undead army.

Various
2008-04-16, 09:16 PM
A friend of mine created powerful characters for the express and stated purpose of breaking my games.

MYTH CONFIRMED!!!


No I'm not really adding anything meaningful but I do have such a friend. And I don't really care because we have fun. :smallbiggrin:

Jasdoif
2008-04-16, 09:17 PM
And such a class would be?I don't know of such a class offhand, though a few things in Book of Exalted Deeds gave me this kind of "sheer mechanical power at the cost of roleplaying requirement" vibe. I'm pretty sure a class like that is out there somewhere, though, I just can't remember what it is; though I'm looking at this from a "DM making classes for own campaign" view, rather then just adapting existing material.


While I agree that, in general, roleplaying requirements lead to trouble, the don't necessarily have to. Claiming that roleplaying requirements prevent good mechanics is as logically sound as claiming that powergaming prevents roleplaying. Neither are both sufficient and necessary conditions.I'm saying that roleplaying requirements shouldn't be used to prevent good mechanics. Primarily because it isn't fair to other roleplaying; but also because it isn't always effective, as Chosen_of_Vecna has been saying.

Ideally roleplaying requirements should be met for roleplaying reasons, not mechanical ones.

Cuddly
2008-04-16, 09:21 PM
No, it's not a strawman.

If you have an ability which is too mechanically powerful for the campaign but has an RP mechanic it is either too powerful or can never be used.

If the entry requirement is to do X, then after you have done X you are more powerful then the other PCs, that's not good. If everyone else has classes based on mechanical balance (give up a spell slot to get an ability) and you have a class that is based on RP balancing (defend justice and get an ability) it's bad for the game.

Take Paladins. Paladins are equal to Fighters/Barbarians/Rangers (supposedly) when fighting evil enemies. The second you have to face Neutral enemies they are less powerful. That's bad. It would be just as bad if they were more powerful then everyone else when fighting evil, because either they would be facing evil disproportionally (likely if you have a Paladin PC) and he would make everyone else feel bad, or you wouldn't and he would suck.

RP requirements are like AMFs/Spellbooks/and Smite Evil. Either they don't come up, or they ruin the game when they do. (That's why everyone puts so much work into finding ways to bypass AMFs/Spellbooks/and Rp requirements).

Also, as regards Clerics. I wish people would stop bringing up that Fallacy. You can be a Cleric of anything you want. You pick your Cleric of X abilities based on what you want to RP. Then you do whatever you want, and it's inline with your beliefs, because you would have to be an idiot to choose to RP a Cleric of Pelor is you wanted to build an undead army.

So rogues are also bad since the are decidedly less good against constructs and the undead (barring a +3 weapon and some 10k gems from MiC)? And rangers are also bad because they are good against some things and not as good against others?

You're setting up a single case and declaring it true for all cases, when clearly there can be a case where an RP requirement is also a good mechanical limitation.

Unfortunately, building characters around RP-based mechanics is generally bad, since it is so limiting. If you're going to powergame, build the most powerful character your group will let you, and then reflavor it. That is certainly one way to play (it's how my group plays).

But to say that that's the ONLY way to play, and every other way to play is wrong, is merely a statement of opinion, not fact.

Valairn
2008-04-16, 09:25 PM
A friend of mine created powerful characters for the express and stated purpose of breaking my games.

MYTH CONFIRMED!!!


No I'm not really adding anything meaningful but I do have such a friend. And I don't really care because we have fun. :smallbiggrin:

LOL! I guess that would be an instance that my myth is broken, but I would say that the intent to break a game had to come first, the powerful characters were just an approach to his "deviance." :D

TheElfLord
2008-04-16, 09:25 PM
Fluff can be changed is not synonymous with fluff is unimportant. Though I'm not sure I made that distinction very clear in my original post, my bad.

Well you did state that "Fluff is important" was one of the myths you were working against, which leads to the position "Fluff is unimportant"
I agree with you that fluff can be changed for specific circumstances, but I don't really like the idea of ignoring fluff completely.

Valairn
2008-04-16, 09:32 PM
I was more referring specifically to prestige class fluff. Fluff is what make this a "role" playing game rather than a "roll" playing game. So yeah ITS IMPORTANT. But if the game designer provided fluff is getting in the way, screw it, they didn't make that fluff with the thought of your campaign setting, they made the fluff cause they needed to fill book space with more than just tables and ability explanation. Giving an example context to work with is also a good creative foothold for DM's, so in that regard it can be useful. I just think that fluff for the prestige class is secondary to the fluff surrounding a character.

That make sense?

Jasdoif
2008-04-16, 09:36 PM
I was more referring specifically to prestige class fluff. Fluff is what make this a "role" playing game rather than a "roll" playing game. So yeah ITS IMPORTANT. But if the game designer provided fluff is getting in the way, screw it, they didn't make that fluff with the thought of your campaign setting, they made the fluff cause they needed to fill book space with more than just tables and ability explanation. Giving an example context to work with is also a good creative foothold for DM's, so in that regard it can be useful. I just think that fluff for the prestige class is secondary to the fluff surrounding a character.

That make sense?You're saying that the fluff presented in the book shouldn't be considered an unalterable part of the class, and is best discarded and replaced if that's the only part of the class that interferes with the game; right?

If so, I agree.

TheElfLord
2008-04-16, 09:45 PM
That make sense?

Yes it makes sense, I was just explain where people would get the idea you thought fluff wasn't important.

Valairn
2008-04-16, 09:51 PM
You're saying that the fluff presented in the book shouldn't be considered an unalterable part of the class, and is best discarded and replaced if that's the only part of the class that interferes with the game; right?

If so, I agree.

Yes, that's pretty much exactly it.


Yes it makes sense, I was just explain where people would get the idea you thought fluff wasn't important.

OH, well then thank you :-D.

Epinephrine
2008-04-16, 09:53 PM
I disagree on some points. A character I am playing atm would do really well with a 1 level dip in monk. I can't see that from the character's perspective - he wouldn't do it. He's not self-disciplined enough, and wouldn't want to subject himself to the environment. That's part of role-playing, not just stat twinking. Your point about meta-gaming may be somewhat true, I could change my personality so I could justify it, but I won't, because I actually role-play. Your argument basically is that role-playing shouldn't get in the way of your mechanics, when you are role-playing.

Yes, how vile, to let a little thing like role-playing come into a role-playing game.

Too much power can ruin a game, particularly if you have more than the other players. It's about fun, and if they're not having any, it's bad. DMs should not go by RAW if they feel it's unbalanced, and should feel free to limit players, especially in the name of fun.

Fluff can be important, or not. I'd agree that it varies. It doesn't have to be the fluff as written, but "fluff" can add depth, provide adventure material, build character - all of which is important to the game.

I agree completely with the last point - trusting players. Being ready to bend rules, make adjustments, engineer more fun; that's what the game is about.

Valairn
2008-04-16, 10:05 PM
Yeah, I can see what you mean. Then again, maybe the class abilities monk provides could make sense with your character even if the fluff doesn't. If your character is just really fast and dexterous, flurry of blows could be an appropriate addition to his repertoire. You could just change the fluff for why he's taking a level in that class. Fluff can be molded to the character just as easily as you can mold the character to the fluff. I just think it generally produces better results if you mold the fluff to the character rather than the other way around.

In the end class fluff can be just as obnoxious as PrC fluff.

I guess this has lead me to the realization about how I think character's themselves should be created. I guess I think that characters should be designed around two things, who they are, and what they can do, how does what they can do affect who they are and visa versa. And it shouldn't matter about class restrictions or game designer imposed restrictions, which really have nothing to do with my character and honestly are pretty arbitrary most of the time. Hrm... something to think about!

Cuddly
2008-04-16, 10:08 PM
On the other hand, you could defluff the monk and just be like "my dude trains in the unarmed martial arts instead of the armed ones" and take the dip. If you think your character would want to go unarmed and unarmored, it makes sense that he would pursue a career path that would allow him such feats. The only thing standing in his way is the piss-flavor of the monk. If it's integral to your game world that all monks are Monks, and have to train more rigorously than others to get wisdom to AC and flurry of blows, then sure, right on. But if it's not that big a deal that monks may not live in monastaries or know about ki or say "ohm" and "hyah! karate CHOP", then why not do what fits your character concept?

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-16, 10:12 PM
I disagree on some points. A character I am playing atm would do really well with a 1 level dip in monk. I can't see that from the character's perspective - he wouldn't do it. He's not self-disciplined enough, and wouldn't want to subject himself to the environment. That's part of role-playing, not just stat twinking. Your point about meta-gaming may be somewhat true, I could change my personality so I could justify it, but I won't, because I actually role-play. Your argument basically is that role-playing shouldn't get in the way of your mechanics, when you are role-playing.

Why does that level of Monk need to be represented in character as being a Monk.

What you actually gain from that level of Monk is the ability to hit things hard with your fist, why not just say: I'm taking a level of Barrom Brawler which gives me Flurry of Blows, Wis to AC, and really strong fists.

Squash Monster
2008-04-16, 10:14 PM
I disagree on some points. A character I am playing atm would do really well with a 1 level dip in monk. I can't see that from the character's perspective - he wouldn't do it. He's not self-disciplined enough, and wouldn't want to subject himself to the environment. That's part of role-playing, not just stat twinking.This kind of argument bugs me to no end.

You should first design the character you want to play. All fluff, rest doesn't matter. Then you should figure out what this character looks like mechanically. Then you should make this work using the constraints of D&D's class system.

If, during this process, you find that your character would work best with a few levels of monk, then you should put those levels in, even if your character doesn't fit the monk's fluff. If you want a character with fast movement and unarmed strikes who isn't harshly disciplined, the game's fluff is failing you and should be ignored.

Letting the constraints of the system curtail your creative vision is not good role-playing.

Hadrian_Emrys
2008-04-16, 10:15 PM
The major issue, with class based games, comes from how people tend to be broken into two parties. Party 1 is fine with doing what they are. Party 2 is chafed by the "creativity limiting" system because they want to play in a such a way that they are what they do. The pre-made fluff only serves to further irritate the issue, and topics like this crop up as a result. I love DnD, it was my first tabletop experience, it's still a tattered wreck of a system though. :smalltongue:

Sleet
2008-04-16, 10:20 PM
So clerics should get spells regardless of behavior?

That's not a balance issue.

The assertion is that roleplaying requirements should not be considered to balance mechanical advantages, not that there should be no roleplaying requirements.

Sleet
2008-04-16, 10:22 PM
... players treat D&D like any other game, they want every advantage they can get for what ever challange comes next. They will exploit and abuse any and everything, ...

Wow, that describes my players... not in the slightest.

I trust my players. They trust me. It works out great. :smallsmile:

SadisticFishing
2008-04-16, 10:31 PM
I came into this thread seriously expecting something whiny.

But bravo, my thoughts exactly - though if a player likes a Prestige class' fluff - that's fine! My best example is Chameleon. I LOVE the abilities, and the fluff is okay, but so DREADFULLY limiting... but another of our players loves the fluff and is playing one by those guidelines exactly.

Another one that really annoys me - Ruby knight Vindicator. Oh, and Jade Phoenix Mage. I wanna play a Cleric/Crusader of Kord! Well, I'm gonna be flat out workse than an RKV. I wanna DM an EVIL Mage/Initiator! Nope. I've houseruled both to be the Knight Vindicator and the Jade Phoenix Mage/ ... something else, I don't have a name for it.

Citizen Joe
2008-04-16, 10:50 PM
Myth 1: Building a powerful character means that person intends to break your game.

Corollary: Persons intending to break your game build powerful characters.
While the powerful character builder may not intend to break the game, they often do by accident. But game breaking usually requires power gaming.



Myth 2: If I force my players to "role-play" into their prestige classes it will make the game balanced, or have better continuity, or .....

Corollary: If I don't force the "role-play" into prestige classes then those classes are not very prestigious. If they are not prestigious, then they are just other classes. If they are just other classes, then they count towards the multiclassing rules.



Myth 3: Prestige class fluff is important.

See Corollary to Myth 2.




Myth 4: I don't use such and such a book because its "overpowered."

Corollary: I don't use such and such book because the game is overpowered enough as it is.



Truth 1: You should trust your players.

Correction: You should BE ABLE TO trust your players. But trust isn't given, it is earned.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-16, 10:53 PM
Corollary: If I don't force the "role-play" into prestige classes then those classes are not very prestigious. If they are not prestigious, then they are just other classes. If they are just other classes, then they count towards the multiclassing rules.


That's ridiculous. "Prestige classes" haven't been prestigious since... well, pretty much EVER. Making them count towards multiclassing penalties accomplishes absolutely nothing... especially since multiclassing penalties are already a really bad mechanic.

Sholos
2008-04-16, 10:55 PM
The only fluff that ever really annoyed me was allowing clerics to worship an ideal. Thus making all of the gods and goddesses completely redundant. Unless you go to the lengths (as a DM) to heavily involve the churches of the world with the world and make life hell for your cleric. Which isn't nice and tends to be bad on relationships OOC. So, as a DM, I just require clerics to pick a specific god/goddess and to follow that god/goddess. I'm not real strict on it, but there's a few things I don't allow, like clerics of Pelor creating undead.

My point is that fluff is important, but not so important that it should cripple gameplay. Though I agree that a lot of people seem to completely ignore fluff and concentrate solely on mechanical advantages. Meaning no actual role-playing. Which I don't really like.

purepolarpanzer
2008-04-16, 11:12 PM
Because ideally, mechanical benefits should be accounted for with mechanical requirements.

Tying a mechanical benefit to a roleplaying requirement is effectively punishing roleplaying that doesn't meet that requirement. It's a disincentive to honest roleplaying.

And paladins don't need to follow code. Lots of examples, some of them relevant, some not.

Bottom line- if the DM says you can't be a duelist unless your a chicken, you better go find some wizard to polymorph you. Sometimes the DM is wrong, but if they put a requirement, even if it is the same one as in the book, either strive to meet it or give up on the class. Yes, it sucks you don't get to play, but the DM needs the power of the final word.

Jasdoif
2008-04-16, 11:23 PM
Bottom line- if the DM says you can't be a duelist unless your a chicken, you better go find some wizard to polymorph you. Sometimes the DM is wrong, but if they put a requirement, even if it is the same one as in the book, either strive to meet it or give up on the class. Yes, it sucks you don't get to play, but the DM needs the power of the final word.As a player, yes. As the DM, it's best not to create such an issue in the first place.

Reinboom
2008-04-16, 11:24 PM
Corollary: If I don't force the "role-play" into prestige classes then those classes are not very prestigious. If they are not prestigious, then they are just other classes. If they are just other classes, then they count towards the multiclassing rules.

I would like to build from this statement.
Myth.. whatever: The multiclassing rule helps the game. Hitting that much experience from players, in most cases I've found, hurts role playing more since it predecides that a character can't roleplay in to a class combination that otherwise would make sense in character. It may limit the powergamers, but it usually limits the other players more.


Aside,
a Truth I have found: Knowing your players is the first step to knowing your game.

Bleen
2008-04-17, 12:00 AM
Corollary: I don't use such and such book because the game is overpowered enough as it is.

Those Fighters and Rogues are so overpowered, man. Totally. :smallwink:

Reel On, Love
2008-04-17, 12:05 AM
the DM needs the power of the final word.

This is not a universal truth. There are certainly other ways to play than "DM gets final say, period". There are even games that run without a DM.

"What the DM says goes, no matter what" may work well with slapped-together group, but a group of mature players should have moved well beyond that.

TheElfLord
2008-04-17, 12:42 AM
This is not a universal truth. There are certainly other ways to play than "DM gets final say, period". There are even games that run without a DM.

"What the DM says goes, no matter what" may work well with slapped-together group, but a group of mature players should have moved well beyond that.

You could just as easily say that a group of mature players has no problem giving the DM the final say.

Valairn
2008-04-17, 07:25 AM
I think part of the point of my post was to say, that just because you CAN wield authority about using this or that in your game, doesn't mean you should.

Having authority about something isn't the same as using it properly, its also not the same as having your decisions make any sense.

Also the multi-classing xp penalty actually doesn't make any sense. Its a meta-mechanic designed to make players either role-play or not power game. It really accomplishes neither. Also the idea that as a character you need an xp penalty because you are learning something foreign to you is also pretty much a silly idea, I can tell you right now, as I was learning martial arts when I went from one skill level up to the next, everything felt foreign to me, new stances, new ways of thinking about positions and movement. So even withing a field of expertise new information in that field can often be just as difficult if not MORE difficult than learning about something where you know "nothing."

Oslecamo
2008-04-17, 07:55 AM
Also the multi-classing xp penalty actually doesn't make any sense. Its a meta-mechanic designed to make players either role-play or not power game. It really accomplishes neither. Also the idea that as a character you need an xp penalty because you are learning something foreign to you is also pretty much a silly idea, I can tell you right now, as I was learning martial arts when I went from one skill level up to the next, everything felt foreign to me, new stances, new ways of thinking about positions and movement. So even withing a field of expertise new information in that field can often be just as difficult if not MORE difficult than learning about something where you know "nothing."

Mythbusters to the rescue!

1-A roleplaying game having mechanics that incentive the players to roleplay and tries to stop them from growing too powerfull is NOT a bad thing.

2-D&D doesn't care about real life. It's a FANTASY game. It doesn't care that you can dual wield shotguns and hit a target 200 fet away while kicking a dozen thugs around you and singing the 9th symphony of Bethoven at the same time in real life, and thus won't change it's own mechanics just because you claim or heard some impressive thing.

Unless you can swim in lava unprotected of course. Can you?

3-The DM is called dungeon master for a reason. He's suposed to provide challenges and adventure to the party, but how can he do this if he can't control his own world? If the DM says something, then he has his own reasons to do so, and it's the player's duty to play along with what the DM gives them, not to drag down the game asking for his favorite splatbook or why their combo of doom isn't allowed. If the DM wanted to use those, he wouldn't had banned them on the first time.

4-It's not the end of the world if your combo of doom or favorite splatbook isn't allowed. Actually, with just core, you can do pretty much anything with a little imagination, good roleplaying and civil talck with the DM. But alas, wotc has to sell books to keep in business, and most people go with their talck of needing 10 000 pages worth of material to have fun.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 08:03 AM
1-A roleplaying game having mechanics that incentive the players to roleplay and tries to stop them from growing too powerfull is NOT a bad thing.

I believe his point is that the multiclass restrictions do neither of those. They fail at it. They in fact do the opposite by discouraging RPing.


Actually, with just core, you can do pretty much anything with a little imagination, good roleplaying and civil talck with the DM.

No you can't.

Valairn
2008-04-17, 10:57 AM
Mythbusters to the rescue!

1-A roleplaying game having mechanics that incentive the players to roleplay and tries to stop them from growing too powerfull is NOT a bad thing.

Too powerful is a game by game issue, and shouldn't be part of a game design mechanic. And also the mechanic itself doesn't do anything you are talking about, so in that it fails as well. Its a useless unnecessary mechanic and does nothing for the DM or the players in keeping their games "balanced."



2-D&D doesn't care about real life. It's a FANTASY game. It doesn't care that you can dual wield shotguns and hit a target 200 fet away while kicking a dozen thugs around you and singing the 9th symphony of Bethoven at the same time in real life, and thus won't change it's own mechanics just because you claim or heard some impressive thing.

Unless you can swim in lava unprotected of course. Can you?

Unfortunately it does care. Otherwise the game wouldn't exist at all. DnD is as close to reality as it can get while still allowing dragons and magic and fighters who can jump over buildings. But its modeled after reality, and in fact the idea of class's is similar to the idea of a profession, and since it is similar I drew a simple corollary that sometimes learning a new profession is in fact simpler than advancing in the one you are currently in. Since the game is "moderately" modeled after reality, it does matter.

Now with that, the mechanic still fails and protects nothing about reality and creates no benefit for the players or DM.



3-The DM is called dungeon master for a reason. He's suposed to provide challenges and adventure to the party, but how can he do this if he can't control his own world? If the DM says something, then he has his own reasons to do so, and it's the player's duty to play along with what the DM gives them, not to drag down the game asking for his favorite splatbook or why their combo of doom isn't allowed. If the DM wanted to use those, he wouldn't had banned them on the first time.

It is not the player's duty to play along. Duty is a very strong word and completely inappropriate in a discussion about gaming. The players and the DM work together to create an enjoyable playing experience for all, if the player REALLY doesn't want to cooperate with how the group wants to play, he might try finding a different group, but the same goes for the DM. No one is immune to good manners.

Also you seem to think I'm arguing for powergaming. Which I am in fact not doing. My combo of doom might just happen to be a warlock/fighter, totally subpar compared to what I could be, but it still might be restricted, because there are some DM's out there who think that eldritch blast is OP.



4-It's not the end of the world if your combo of doom or favorite splatbook isn't allowed. Actually, with just core, you can do pretty much anything with a little imagination, good roleplaying and civil talck with the DM. But alas, wotc has to sell books to keep in business, and most people go with their talck of needing 10 000 pages worth of material to have fun.

Except that's what I've been talking about all along, civil talk and good role-playing, and how unnecessary restrictions often impede that rather than help it. Of course not all restrictions are unnecessary, not allowing wizards in a world where magic is wild and can't be prepared, but that's different than not allowing wizards cause you think that such and such a combo is OP. There are about six bajillion combos in the game that are redonkulous and to get rid of them all, would literally to be remove most of the core game and a lot of splat books would remain largely untouched.

Shrug.

Citizen Joe
2008-04-17, 11:01 AM
All I can say about PrC's is that if you want to cherry pick and dip you really need to be playing a classless game where that is the point. GURPS and Champions and many other games let you customize your character to exactly what you want (given sufficient points to do so).

Artanis
2008-04-17, 11:04 AM
Aww, and here I thought were were actually going to talk about various myths and debunk them. I was looking forward to showing the proof that Einstein was a 5th-level Expert :smallfrown:

TheElfLord
2008-04-17, 11:09 AM
Too powerful is a game by game issue, and shouldn't be part of a game design mechanic.
Also you seem to think I'm arguing for powergaming. Which I am in fact not doing. My combo of doom might just happen to be a warlock/fighter, totally subpar compared to what I could be, but it still might be restricted, because there are some DM's out there who think that eldritch blast is OP.


Lol, I'm back to try and explain a perception again. I may be completely wrong but I'll give it a shot.

You are right, power is a game by game issue. The problem is you seem to be making universal statements in your first few posts. They sound like they are meant to apply to all games. This creates a large umbrella. Underneath the umbrella are both creative roleplay enthusiasts like yourself, and power gamers who think fluff gets in the way of their awesomeness. Both parties benefit. So while you may intend to advocate for creative roleplaying, you have created a situation where you are also advocating for powergaming (unintentionally).

Its not that your combo of doom couldn't be a warlock/fighter, its that the same argument allows for one dimensional power machines.

Valairn
2008-04-17, 11:11 AM
All I can say about PrC's is that if you want to cherry pick and dip you really need to be playing a classless game where that is the point. GURPS and Champions and many other games let you customize your character to exactly what you want (given sufficient points to do so).

A role-playing game is just a tool to facilitate role-playing. I'm pretty sure that its okay to use PrC's however you want. Home-brewing at a certain level is often times cherry picking and combining abilities in an order and with a flavor you want them to have, no one gets upset about that though. Why should i switch to using a completely different system for the sole purpose of accomplishing something that I can accomplish just fine with this system?


Lol, I'm back to try and explain a perception again. I may be completely wrong but I'll give it a shot.

You are right, power is a game by game issue. The problem is you seem to be making universal statements in your first few posts. They sound like they are meant to apply to all games. This creates a large umbrella. Underneath the umbrella are both creative roleplay enthusiasts like yourself, and power gamers who think fluff gets in the way of their awesomeness. Both parties benefit. So while you may intend to advocate for creative roleplaying, you have created a situation where you are also advocating for powergaming (unintentionally).

Its not that your combo of doom couldn't be a warlock/fighter, its that the same argument allows for one dimensional power machines.

But neither result is really wrong, powergaming isn't wrong, its just a different way to play, if my system facilitates powergaming, /shrug, to each his own.

Sholos
2008-04-17, 01:00 PM
One way to control abuse of PrCs is to make them part of organizations (which means the character will incur various duties) or to require training in them (meaning that the player will have to roleplay at least a little to get in). This shouldn't bother roleplayers and should help cut down on powergaming through PrC abuse.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 02:47 PM
One way to control abuse of PrCs is to make them part of organizations (which means the character will incur various duties) or to require training in them (meaning that the player will have to roleplay at least a little to get in). This shouldn't bother roleplayers and should help cut down on powergaming through PrC abuse.

That's incredibly bad. You force people to RP the characters you want instead of the ones they want. It doesn't cut down on Powergaming, it cuts down on roleplaying.

Powergamers have no problem meeting RP requirements in order to get into the PrC they want. Roleplayers do. So now the Powergamers have all the PrCs and the RPers get left further in the dust. Normally, powergaming and RPing are not mutually exclusive, but if you do that they become so.

Secondly, PrC abuse? What is that? There are two PrCs in the entirety of D&D that I have actually ever seen abused. Neither of them comes up often. PrCs are options for the characters. Why do you want to prevent them from taking them so much?

And 90% of PrCs don't make sense as organizations. And they shouldn't. They are just things you learn how to do that are different from the normal, if you can take a level of Fighter without going to Fighter school you can take a level of Bear Warrior without going to Bear Warrior school.

Sholos
2008-04-17, 02:54 PM
Says the person that holds the opinion that a non-optimized party is full of people who don't know how to play.

What exactly is wrong with requiring certain things of PrCs? I just get tired of no one really paying attention to the character as a character. All it is to most people is a line of stats and a list of abilities. There's no fluff or reason behind anything.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-17, 03:05 PM
And 90% of PrCs don't make sense as organizations. And they shouldn't. They are just things you learn how to do that are different from the normal, if you can take a level of Fighter without going to Fighter school you can take a level of Bear Warrior without going to Bear Warrior school.

Actually, it is stated in the PHB that PCs are expected to have gone through training to have the abilities they have at level 1. It is one of the reasons in the book that there are different starting ages. Personally, I wouldn't let a player take a level of fighter (after level 1) unless they had some ic reason for the character doing so. If they have been casting spells the whole time and not even hanging around any martial characters it would make no sense for them to automatically know how to be a fighter all of a sudden. They wouldn't need to go to Bear Warrior school, but they should at least have observed a Bear Warrior in action... or a lot of bears.

Now, being blindly tied to fluff is a bad thing, but saying that it is unimportant is just as wrong. The level to which fluff matters is entirely dependant upon the group and the kind of game you want to run.

Frosty
2008-04-17, 03:13 PM
More like the mistaken view that one most role play a torred scene with a fey in order to gain the benefits of the Nymph's Kiss feat.

What does "Torred" mean?

valadil
2008-04-17, 03:14 PM
Just because someone decides that the like the fluff attached to a prestige class, and then decides he wants to force that on his players, does that really progress his game? It doesn't. It in fact hinders that players creativity and excitement about the game by pigeonholing them into roles the DM wants.

This is a group game, it involves players and DM's working together. Its not about the DM its about the group as a whole. Its true the DM can make decisions about a campaign world, that's part of his job, but it doesn't debunk my Myth to say that certain decisions of his can be misguided, it in fact proves it.

A bad DM can hinder a game without the aid of prestige class fluff. I've never seen a DM enforce fluffy prerequisites as a way to stop a player from getting to a prestige class. It's always been a way to add a quest to the game or to take the PrC's duty and turn that into a hook for a larger plot. I've also seen players make up new fluff for a PrC and the DM rolls with that fluff instead.

FWIW I mostly agree with what you're trying to say. I think most of the other posters would too. But claiming that a paragraph of opinion debunks or proves anything is dubious at best.

Rutee
2008-04-17, 03:18 PM
What does "Torred" mean?

He means "Torrid", and it refers to a steamy sex scene, I do believe.

elliott20
2008-04-17, 03:22 PM
He means "Torrid", and it refers to a steamy sex scene, I do believe.

god I hope for the fey's sake the fey is the male then.

DeathQuaker
2008-04-17, 03:40 PM
Basically... it's kind of a two-way street, all around. Not myth territory, just a matter of player/DM communication.

Sure, powerful builds are not the same thing as powergamer builds, or "deliberately trying to screw with my GM" kind of builds. A GM shouldn't assume that someone's trying to break his game--unless he knows the players well, and knows what to expect--and in which case, hopefully GM and player know each other well enough to compromise, or one can say "No" with a reasonable explanation and have the other accept it.

Common sense: create a concept you like, ask the GM for character creation rules, build that concept the best you can within the guidelines provided by the GM. If you respect your GM's guidelines, your GM should respect your choices made within that framework. If there is an exception you would like to be made, ask yourself, "Is there a reason the GM might not have allowed this?" "Is this fair to other players/will they accept it if I use this?" If you think it out, but still think it's worth asking for, then ask the GM for the exception in a reasonable manner. No whining allowed on either side. If the GM still says no and is calm and reasonable about it, accept it. If the GM is unreasonably pissy about it, find a new GM.

As for "Fluff" versus mechanics of character building -- generally, all I ask the player is that whatever they do make sense and stay true to their character concept.

Frex, on one hand, if someone playing a hardened infantryman decides they want a wizard level, I want that player to say something like, "I borrow books of magic from my wizard sister and begin to study them," or "I ask Wizard Steve at the Magic Item Shop to show me a few tricks" -- before he takes that class level. Because if the concept of magic in the world is that a wizard needs to study before he casts magic, then I expect that person to study. Being someone extensively trained in war campaigning and handling a pike and a short sword shouldn't automatically indicate someone with sudden magical talent out of nowhere.

On the other hand, if the player says, "I'm building a rapier user who relies on speed and precision," I'm not going to ask for an explanation for why he has fighter, rogue, and duelist levels, or have him "roleplay" into the Duelist PrC--by all rights, the player's pretty much already doing it. It's inherent in how he's playing the character to begin with.

As for PrC fluff, the fluff is usually there for a reason. If I'm running the Forgotten Realms and someone wants the Harper Agent class, I'm going to expect it's because they want to join the Harpers. Since in that campaign, the only way you get those abilities is by getting the blessings of those who watch over the Harpers, I'll want a story about how he gets into the Harpers--and I'll in fact work that in as part of the plot, which isn't too hard.

However, by the same token, if someone says, "Hey, this is my concept, and I think this class works the best for what I'm trying to build, and THIS IS WHY, but I don't think my character would follow what it says in fluff paragraph #1" --- as long as it makes sense, I'm going to allow it, or allow a slightly tweaked version of the PrC if there is a "fluff-based" ability that doesn't make sense for the character but the rest of the class does.

Common Sense: Communicate openly with your GM your concept and intentions for your build from the beginning. Make sure he understands your concept and stay true to your concept. Take classes that suit the way you want to play, that the GM allows. If the GM has a reason for tagging fluff requirements onto a class, there's probably a fairly good reason ("No, you can't be a Heartwarder; you're a thief who worships Cyric, and I can't see how you would get those abilities other than from working in the name of Sune"). Again, no whining is aloud on either end, and both sides should be reasonable and willing to negotiate.

As for splatbook usage, that is something I do firmly believe needs to be in the hands of GMs and GMs only. I know I generally disallow splatbooks because I want to spend time writing my campaign, not reading rulebook after rulebook and making sure I've accounted for everything. Not everyone owns the same books, either, and I've seen and had games ruined by people "sneaking" stuff on their character sheets from books only they had and totally throwing things off because of the way their abilities were presented. Doesn't matter why the GM disallows it--what the GM is basically saying is, "It's easier for me to run without this book, thanks." You want things to be easier for the GM to do, trust me.

And also, generally, in splatbook wars, the GM eventually wins. If you just start throwing stuff at him, he'll find something from the Encyclopedia Obscurica and crush you with it, and you'll have to suck it up because you were the one who argued for freedom of splatbooking in the first place.

Common Sense: Again, respect the GM's char creation rules, and the GM will respect your character. Even if you're limited to a few books, D&D 3.5 is versatile enough you can build nearly any concept with it. Your only true limitation is your creativity.

On trust: Should GMs trust their players? Sure. They should trust their players as much as players trust them to be making the decisions they do for a reason.

Further Common Sense:
If you don't like what the GM says, again, don't let the tavern door hit you on the way out. Likewise, GMs should feel free to boot out problem players who are more interested in arguing about rulebooks and what's on their character sheet than actually playing the game or cooperating with a group of people.

Finally, D&D is a cooperative game, and that includes cooperation between GMs and players. A GM needs to be able to listen and compromise and see things from the players' POV, but likewise the player needs to see things from the GM's POV and understand the extensive work it takes to build a good campaign, and therefore also be willing to compromise even when each others' philosophies on fluff versus mechanics don't mesh.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 03:43 PM
Says the person that holds the opinion that a non-optimized party is full of people who don't know how to play.

Your point?


What exactly is wrong with requiring certain things of PrCs? I just get tired of no one really paying attention to the character as a character. All it is to most people is a line of stats and a list of abilities. There's no fluff or reason behind anything.

What exactly is wrong with figuring out if an ability fits a character through evaluating the characters personality goals and experience rather then saying: "You can't take levels in this class unless you've uncovered corruption in your own church!"

It sounds to me like you need players who actually want to RP. You can't force RPing on someone who doesn't want it, and you can't take it away from someone who does. You can of course mechanically penalize the character who wants to RP their character not yours. Which is what RP requirements for PrCs do.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-17, 03:47 PM
He means "Torrid", and it refers to a steamy sex scene, I do believe.

Well, let me put it like this... there's Nymph's Kiss, and then there's Lich Loved.

And then there's "friendly contact" with an evil outsider, wink wink nudge nudge say no more!

elliott20
2008-04-17, 04:05 PM
GAHH!!! STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT!!!

Dammit, it's the gay zombies comment all over again!

Valairn
2008-04-17, 04:32 PM
Did my post just get derailed by necrophilia..... LOL

Myth 1: Talk of gayness and zombies cannot happen.

Apparently.... IT DOES!

Hadrian_Emrys
2008-04-17, 04:39 PM
He means "Torrid", and it refers to a steamy sex scene, I do believe.

This is why posting when tired is ill advised. One could spell spell slpel and not note the error. :smalltongue: I do mean torrid by the denfinition presented by Rutee, and it really doesn't matter who is what gender in any case. You can back story that you were lost in the woods as a child, found by some friendly fey, and keep occational contact with them. It still meets the open ended prereq.

In any case, once again, the issues that come from how people view the paying of the game breaks down into the two opposite stances of either doing what you are and being what you do. DnD is designed to be the former, but can be played as the latter. People get all butt hurt over the subject for know real reason other than the bigoted belief that their way is THE way.

Tabletop gaming is a means by which one can set a firm outline for group make-belief so that everyone can feel like a protagonist in a fantasy story. Some games do it well (I like Serenity best, but Spycraft is amazingly fun) and some do not (4E looks like a a shallow MMO turned tabletop so far). There is no "right" way to do anything in the realm of imagination, but some rule sets are more of a hinderence to creativity than anything.

As an aside: good and evil has no place being defined by anyone else. The way most alignment systems are set up, they would be better defined as:
Law = Systematic
Neutral = Adaptive
Chaotic = Improvising
Good = Idealism
Neutral = Realism
Evil = Pragmatism

An improvisng idealist goes with the flow, and reacts to it, with the goal of making the world a little bit better through their actions. A systematic pragmatist likes having a system in place so that future events are easier to forsee and profit the most from. "Alignments" have no place being a prereq for anything mechanical either. Take real world examples for instance:

You can have "II(CG)" suicide bombers because, from their perspective, they are acting in a manner that promotes the greater good. That does not mean that they ARE good mind you (I personally think they are not), but the intent and determination DO say something about the individual's character (no matter how misguided their beliefs in my eyes).
At the same time, one can have a "SP(LE)" religious leader that manipulates their congregation for personal gain.
Putting the tag of "good" or "evil" on people, that aren't mentally unhealthy anyway, is not unlike calling the act of pulling teeth bad simply because it hurts. The world is shades of grey, and is a lot more complicated than that.

If your idea of fun is a game where you get to play the fantasy version of the Justice League, more power to ya. Give Lex a knuckle snadwich for me.
If your idea is something a bit more complex, the same sentiment of approval goes to you (sans the Lex part).
Fantasy is just that, a game where your life is more than the mundane drudge that reality often feels like. You ARE the hero/anti-hero/villian, your actions are the stuff that movies are made of. However you do it, do try to keep in mind that you aren't playing alone though. The people around the table are there, at the core, for the same reason you are. No matter how it manifests, the game is there for you to work together and enjoy.

Sleet
2008-04-17, 10:16 PM
Mythbusters to the rescue!

... Nope, sorry, the XP penalty still doesn't make sense to me. I threw it out the window on Day 1; this has never been a problem.

Cuddly
2008-04-17, 10:57 PM
Secondly, PrC abuse? What is that? There are two PrCs in the entirety of D&D that I have actually ever seen abused.

Your idea of abuse is different than most others' idea of abuse, for sure.


Neither of them comes up often. PrCs are options for the characters. Why do you want to prevent them from taking them so much?

Because either a) the PrC wouldn't make sense- the character is dipping it for a level or two for no other reason than a specific ability, and ignores all the others or b) because it would make the character too powerful.

I know this may be difficult for you to grasp, but some people, when they play D&D, have different ideas of what is an acceptable level of power in the world. Regardless of the opinions you hold, and which you clearly believe to be the only right ones, they have different opinions. Because of this, they play a different way than you. Certain prestige classes may be too powerful for the campaign world, and simply don't exist.


And 90% of PrCs don't make sense as organizations. And they shouldn't. They are just things you learn how to do that are different from the normal, if you can take a level of Fighter without going to Fighter school you can take a level of Bear Warrior without going to Bear Warrior school.

Totally depends on the game. Some games I've played in, everyone needs down time and to find a trainer or something to take the next levels in a class. If you want to put points in a skill, you better start practicing that skill before you put points in it. If you want to learn some obscure language, you have to go seek out the manuscripts or whatever.

Then in other games, leveling up happened like it was a videogame. Ding!

Talic
2008-04-17, 11:11 PM
As an aside: good and evil has no place being defined by anyone else. The way most alignment systems are set up, they would be better defined as:
Law = Systematic
Neutral = Adaptive
Chaotic = Improvising
Good = Idealism
Neutral = Realism
Evil = Pragmatism



So Improvising Pragmatists eat babies, and Systematic Idealists stop them? :smallbiggrin:

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-17, 11:18 PM
the PrC wouldn't make sense- the character is dipping it for a level or two for no other reason than a specific ability, and ignores all the others

If the PrC didn't make sense, the character wouldn't take it. There is no reason you should have to want all the abilities of a class just because you took one level in it. There are plenty of reasons that it might make sense for a character to take a couple levels in the PrC and not the later ones, especially because the early levels provide abilities that many types of characters might have, whereas the later level abilities cater to specific character ideas.

Taking a couple early levels of a class because it provides abilities that make sense with your character and not later ones is just sensible. Pious Templars shouldn't be the only people in the world with Mettle, it makes sense for plenty of other characters.

Rutee
2008-04-17, 11:23 PM
Because either a) the PrC wouldn't make sense- the character is dipping it for a level or two for no other reason than a specific ability, and ignores all the others
Is it odd that I consider this to be part of the point? It's less about power for me then getting the fighting style I want replicated mechanically.

JaxGaret
2008-04-17, 11:38 PM
I completely agree.

+1.

Also, I like the way you think, Nebo.

Sholos
2008-04-18, 01:12 AM
If the PrC didn't make sense, the character wouldn't take it. There is no reason you should have to want all the abilities of a class just because you took one level in it. There are plenty of reasons that it might make sense for a character to take a couple levels in the PrC and not the later ones, especially because the early levels provide abilities that many types of characters might have, whereas the later level abilities cater to specific character ideas.

Taking a couple early levels of a class because it provides abilities that make sense with your character and not later ones is just sensible. Pious Templars shouldn't be the only people in the world with Mettle, it makes sense for plenty of other characters.

By "make sense" do you mean in character or through metagaming?

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-18, 01:45 AM
By "make sense" do you mean in character or through metagaming?

I mean in character, but unlike many people, I feel no slavish desire to adhere to the PrC fluff. If it makes sense for your character to have Mettle, find a PrC with Mettle at first level that has other abilities that also make sens for your character, I don't care if that class is dedicated to crusading/neutrality/having wild parties/whatever, there is nothing about the mettle ability that requires it to fit under which ever one of those the PrC calls for.

PrCs are collections of abilities, and if your character should have an ability because he is really tough/smart/strong/prone to going crazy/agile/fast/what have you, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to gain abilities that reflect that.

JaxGaret
2008-04-18, 02:01 AM
I mean in character, but unlike many people, I feel no slavish desire to adhere to the PrC fluff. If it makes sense for your character to have Mettle, find a PrC with Mettle at first level that has other abilities that also make sens for your character, I don't care if that class is dedicated to crusading/neutrality/having wild parties/whatever, there is nothing about the mettle ability that requires it to fit under which ever one of those the PrC calls for.

PrCs are collections of abilities, and if your character should have an ability because he is really tough/smart/strong/prone to going crazy/agile/fast/what have you, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to gain abilities that reflect that.

I have to agree with this. While the stock fluff of PrCs can be used to great effect, that doesn't mean that it must be used. A little imagination and reflavoring can go a long way.

As long as your players aren't being munchkins or making characters wildly out of whack with the overall optimization level of the party or the overall campaign theme (and why are your players doing that in the first place? You should be communicating to the players before character creation even starts that such things are unacceptable), then there should be no problem with letting them build the character they want to build, both mechanically and flavorfully.

Ponce
2008-04-18, 02:30 AM
Unless a character happens to match the fluff of a prestige class, bad things occur. It forces the player to choose. Does he,

a) Take the prestige class to get the abilities that would suit his character - good! Unfortunately, he now has to make his character join some guild, or act in a certain way, be of a certain alignment, or do something not in line with his character's desires. You've forced an otherwise honest player to "powergame" in order to represent his character concept fully - bad!
b) Not take the prestige class. Pretty self explanatory - the player doesn't get to make his character - bad!

Neither option is very nice.

As such, I find class fluff to be quite often worthless. Take note of The Avenger (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070401a). It is basically an assassin refluffed to allow it to be good-aligned. Of course, they simply tacked different fluff. Take note also of the paladin variants in unearthed arcana. The chaos monk? WotC has already set the standard for this; fluff can needlessly block creating what should be -your- character. It is very frustrating to be barred from a prestige class because its fluff is unsuitable.

Using mechanical or roleplaying rules to dissuade powergamers simply doesn't work. By definition, powergamers will seek out any loopholes or exploits they can find, and use them to full effect. You can make all the rules you like, but if someone honestly wants to make an obscene character and derail your campaign, you'll be fighting them till the cows come home, and you're simply better off just telling them to find another table. Meanwhile, if you imposed the aforementioned "rules" you are doing your honest players a great disservice by handicapping their ability to create their characters in the unique manner they desire.

Example: Suppose you want a cleric of Zeus. Do you know what would be good to represent that? Stormlord. Spear mastery and lots of lightning/thunder-oriented abilities. Just do away with that pesky Talos fluff, and off you go!

JaxGaret
2008-04-18, 02:43 AM
Using mechanical or roleplaying rules to dissuade powergamers simply doesn't work. By definition, powergamers will seek out any loopholes or exploits they can find, and use them to full effect. You can make all the rules you like, but if someone honestly wants to make an obscene character and derail your campaign, you'll be fighting them till the cows come home, and you're simply better off just telling them to find another table. Meanwhile, if you imposed the aforementioned "rules" you are doing your honest players a great disservice by handicapping their ability to create their characters in the unique manner they desire.

Quoted for great truth.


Example: Suppose you want a cleric of Zeus. Do you know what would be good to represent that? Stormlord. Spear mastery and lots of lightning/thunder-oriented abilities. Just do away with that pesky Talos fluff, and off you go!

Indeed.

What domains would you give the Cleric of Zeus? Storm and... Retribution? Transformation? Wrath?

Ponce
2008-04-18, 02:52 AM
What domains would you give the Cleric of Zeus? Storm and... Retribution? Transformation? Wrath?

Zeus is already defined in Faiths and Pantheons I think. If I had to pick, you've hit the mark, I think. I might throw Lust in there for good measure, heh.

Deepblue706
2008-04-18, 02:57 AM
PrCs are collections of abilities, and if your character should have an ability because he is really tough/smart/strong/prone to going crazy/agile/fast/what have you, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to gain abilities that reflect that.

While I don't really disagree with this, don't you think that choosing PrCs like this is a piss-poor method of simulation (not that the alternatives are very good)? I've always felt D&D was pretty much designed for people to essentially play cliches and just accept the fluff. While the rulebooks say "change things around to your liking", details of PrC organizations and mechanics with heavy fluff baggage give me the impression that if you're going to drop some of this out, you're losing part of the intended package. Not to say there's anything holy about it, but, I feel like there's a huge gaping hole in the design of D&D, and it only becomes more apparent when you build characters this way.

If everyone just used the Generic Classes, you could get Spells, Skills, or BAB (or mix and match) and choose your class abilities every few levels. I'd stick to using this variant, but unfortunately, nobody I know of seems to prefer that method, or variations thereof.

I actually much prefer GURPS (Generic Universal Role Playing System) to any other gaming system, but not nearly enough people play it. Hell, over at Steve Jackson games forums, they have threads about What can't you make using GURPS? and the like - I don't recall much talk about having to get levels in this and that...oh wait, that's because it's entirely skill-based because levels are dumb.

You can play as a sentient toaster in GURPS, with full rules supporting you. A toaster. If you like, and have abilities that include firing flaming toast at people, and strangling others with your cord. You don't have to wait until you level up and can grab a level in whatever to do a pretty lame mockery of what you imagine your character doing, and you don't have to have a ridiculously high point buy to do cool stuff.

You could be a mage who doesn't even use anything other than Food spells (yes, that's actually a spell college, equivalent to a school in D&D) and be highly useful. Can you be a Food Mage in D&D? Maybe, but I bet you have to wait until level 18 before you get all of the abilities you like, and your character sheet would undoubtedly be marked with 5 different classes, at least 2 of which making absolutely no sense in the predetermined context, and would probably have never been combined otherwise because one is a PrC to model a feral caveman and the other is for chief boating registrars. Even if you ignore the fluff, you still have "level 2 Boating Registrar" on your sheet, and that's stupid, especially since all you wanted was Improved Licensing. And what's more, you had to either wait to get there, or beg your DM to start the game at a higher level so you could start with it.

If D&D were about freely developing your characters as you saw fit to every detail, it wouldn't have been designed the way it has been. It's "Here, you get to be A, B, or C, and you get to make it unique by putting a number next to the letter. Some numbers are better than others. Have fun!"
I think the reason why some people fail to accept the cherry-picking is because they're following the rigid flow of the game, because that's how it was intended to run, and to them, that's how it's best run. I understand the idea of grabbing what serves you and not the system, and encourage it because I play D&D and want everyone I play with to be satisfied - but, isn't this conflict a sign of a really bad game?

Also, sorry for a lengthy post that doesn't directly address anything in the OP.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-18, 03:02 AM
Meanwhile, in GURPS, your sentient food mage is also a one-eyed impotent paraplegic, because you needed the points. He's also an hemophiliac suffering from amnesia, which got you enough points to be able to kill anything
That you have to do calculus to figure out the AoE of.

Cybren
2008-04-18, 03:06 AM
Meanwhile, in GURPS, your sentient food mage is also a one-eyed impotent paraplegic, because you needed the points. He's also an hemophiliac suffering from amnesia, which got you enough points to be able to kill anything
That you have to do calculus to figure out the AoE of.

That's kind of a misrepresentation of the GURPS rules (and in violation of, given standard disadvantage limits).

Reel On, Love
2008-04-18, 03:10 AM
That's kind of a misrepresentation of the GURPS rules (and in violation of, given standard disadvantage limits).

I thought I'd stay on Deepblue's level. :smallwink:

I guess I should've said that you max out your disadvantages, taking ones that you won't care about or that you can negate, and pick the right sourcebooks to get powers cheaper (IIRC, compare Supers and Magic).
The calculus is restricted to GURPS: Vehicles movement.

Cybren
2008-04-18, 03:24 AM
I thought I'd stay on Deepblue's level. :smallwink:

I guess I should've said that you max out your disadvantages, taking ones that you won't care about or that you can negate, and pick the right sourcebooks to get powers cheaper (IIRC, compare Supers and Magic).
The calculus is restricted to GURPS: Vehicles movement.

Well, there is a big advantage in not taking as many disadvantages. Some disads hurt the whole group, so they're also not particularly attractive. But any disadvantage is an intrinsic agreement between the player and the GM that the GM has permission to use them against the players interest (that is, the GM will make sure they are disadvantaged by it. Part of that agreement is that the player will not try to weasel out of disadvantages. Avoiding them is fine, people try to avoid their flaws in real life, but taking them just as 'free points!' violates the spirit of the rules).

Now, picking the 'right books' is kind of misleading because now in 4th edition the Basic Set will model most anything, and the GM has the responsibility of outlining the Powers (capital "P") and the powers available in his campaign. Most of the rules from Supers won't be used in your average fantasy campaign, for example. (Though I imagine some things could be usable)

Reel On, Love
2008-04-18, 03:45 AM
So, with mature players, sensible house rules, and communication, the system works fine.

Gosh, I'd imagine that'd also work wonders for D&D.

warmachine
2008-04-18, 04:29 AM
That's [one eyed, impotent, haemophiliac, amnesiac, paraplegic food mage that can kill anything] kind of a misrepresentation of the GURPS rules (and in violation of, given standard disadvantage limits).
I'd say that shows the flexibility of the rules: you can even describe silly worlds for silly campaigns. Such a character is legal under book rules but would violate campaign rules of all campaigns except the silliest. GURPS has a wealth of character options but campaigns will only list a subset as the rest have no place in the campaign world and style.

For example, a GM may not allow haemophiliac as the angst of someone bleeding to death disrupts the flow of his action adventure. Amnesia could be off the list as sufferers would be stuck in hospital according to the campaign world culture and certainly not be allowed in the throne room when the king is holding court. It could be the GM knows the player's acting or trustworthiness isn't up to playing an amnesiac. Impotent would have to be invented as it doesn't exist but GMs will usually allow it as it has no game effect and, thus, is a 0 point feature.

Similarly, abilities and modifiers powerful enough to kill everything in the campign world would usually not be listed in campaign rules. Or there may be other, non-mechanical consequences for killing the wrong things, such as having everyone in the galaxy hate you. Still, a GM may think uber-powerful killing would be funny in a silly campaign.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-18, 04:47 AM
So, with mature players, sensible house rules, and communication, the system works fine.

Gosh, I'd imagine that'd also work wonders for D&D.

Yes, and that completely missed the point of what Deepblue was saying - namely, that certain character concepts that are relatively easy to build in GURPS are next to impossible to model in D&D.

This is the result of the design in D&D, wherein many (most?) abilities cannot be taken by themselves, but only in conjunction with other abilities or prerequisites - a simple example being that it is impossible for any character to be highly skilled in anything, without also obtaining a decent amount of combat skill (BAB). So either book learning will improve your swordmanship, or anyone unable to wield a dagger effectively is also unable to study crafts.

Valairn
2008-04-18, 07:06 AM
If everyone just used the Generic Classes, you could get Spells, Skills, or BAB (or mix and match) and choose your class abilities every few levels. I'd stick to using this variant, but unfortunately, nobody I know of seems to prefer that method, or variations thereof.

Well the generic classes are pretty weak, and the rules for them are not nearly as fleshed out as they could be. Also they probably don't have enough bonus feats, and can run into the question of should I take a class ability bonus feat or just take a regular feat?

While a really interesting idea, they fail to make up in mechanics what could be an otherwise strong system of progression. IMO.

DnD's strength actually does lie in its fluff, people come into the game mostly knowing what a wizard is or fighter or cleric, so it can be a bit easier to pick up. Additionally, a prestige class even if you ignore the fluff still has a theme, and that can often trigger players interest. For instance, even though its very powerful, the Inantitrix can be seen as a metamagic master, that part of the class might appeal to a person, but that whole planar guardian mumbo-jumbo may not. /shrug

Tsotha-lanti
2008-04-18, 08:29 AM
I would like to build from this statement.
Myth.. whatever: The multiclassing rule helps the game. Hitting that much experience from players, in most cases I've found, hurts role playing more since it predecides that a character can't roleplay in to a class combination that otherwise would make sense in character. It may limit the powergamers, but it usually limits the other players more.

You've just made me consider importing the Conan d20 multiclassing mechanic into my D&D games (no XP penalties; instead, you get bonus feats for levels in your favored class; one each at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, etc. class levels). Suddenly, elves do make good wizards! (And humans make better ones. Oops.)

I've always disliked how few feats D&D gives most characters, anyway.


What does "Torred" mean?

Judging by the context of fey, I believe the writer meant Korred, a type of satyr-like fey.

:smallamused:

Valairn
2008-04-18, 09:03 AM
I guess there is a difference between splat books and campaign setting books. A prestige class in a campaign setting book is probably less malleable than a prc in a splat book just by its very nature, so yeah my Myth isn't exactly perfect, neither is its debunking, but I think everyone already realized that soooo...

DeathQuaker
2008-04-18, 09:11 AM
You've just made me consider importing the Conan d20 multiclassing mechanic into my D&D games (no XP penalties; instead, you get bonus feats for levels in your favored class; one each at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, etc. class levels). Suddenly, elves do make good wizards! (And humans make better ones. Oops.)


That's kind of a neat idea, except those characters with Fighter as a favored class are going to be drowning in feats. Which could be broken at low levels and boring at high levels ("I've already taken every one on the list").

Maybe bonus feats chosen from specific lists, including maybe race specific lists of feats....

KIDS
2008-04-18, 10:52 AM
Agree with OP; of course what he posted isn't a law or something but the opposite situations that he describes are tremendously annoying from either a player's or DM's side.

elliott20
2008-04-18, 11:01 AM
Yes, and that completely missed the point of what Deepblue was saying - namely, that certain character concepts that are relatively easy to build in GURPS are next to impossible to model in D&D.

This is the result of the design in D&D, wherein many (most?) abilities cannot be taken by themselves, but only in conjunction with other abilities or prerequisites - a simple example being that it is impossible for any character to be highly skilled in anything, without also obtaining a decent amount of combat skill (BAB). So either book learning will improve your swordmanship, or anyone unable to wield a dagger effectively is also unable to study crafts.
in addition to that, if you wanted say, mettle as an ability, you need to find a class that gives you that ability and hope that the other abilities they the class gives also makes sense for your character. If not? well then, back to reading and re-reading the books in the hope of finding something that does fit.

I don't know, D&D character building is starting to feel more and more like a contest on how well you can play librarian at times.

Valairn
2008-04-18, 11:13 AM
in addition to that, if you wanted say, mettle as an ability, you need to find a class that gives you that ability and hope that the other abilities they the class gives also makes sense for your character. If not? well then, back to reading and re-reading the books in the hope of finding something that does fit.

I don't know, D&D character building is starting to feel more and more like a contest on how well you can play librarian at times.

That seems more to be a problem with the lifespan of 3.5. There are a lot of supplements out for it now. Not much you can do about that.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-18, 11:30 AM
That seems more to be a problem with the lifespan of 3.5. There are a lot of supplements out for it now. Not much you can do about that.

No, rather, it is primarily the result of the fact that nearly everything has prerequisites, and every ability from a class of prestige class comes in conjunction with other abilities, whether you want it to or not.

The earlier example was a food mage? You can't learn how to magically make food unless you're also a fifth level cleric. That automatically means you'll also have decent (but not great) combat ability, certain good saving throws, a plethora of other spells, and the ability to turn undead. What if I don't want those abilities, but nevertheless want to create food? I can't. I need to either convince the DM to houserule something up, or I need to read splatbooks until I find something that enables the combo I want.

D&D is the only game that makes character creation a challenge (and Hackmaster/Munchkin, but those are D&D spinoffs). This can be a fun challenge (see my sig) but I can easily imagine it frustrating players. Plus it means that you can make a character that is ineffective, without being aware of it (the proverbial fighter/mage combo ends up as something that can neither fight well, nor cast spells well).

Irreverent Fool
2008-04-18, 11:53 AM
That argument above is why I don't play GURPS. It tends to draw in the sorts of people who like to point out how superior it is to D&D and that any system other than GURPS is stupid, whereas D&D players seem to readily accept the fact that the system we use is stupid and wonder why anyone would bother wasting the time to point it out.

I also don't like the 'generic' bit. The unique systems of different games is part of the appeal. I saw far too many of my off-the wall systems absorbed into the behemoth that was GURPS and had everything that was special about them destroyed... Eg: Cyberpunk 2020

Deepblue706
2008-04-18, 12:00 PM
I thought I'd stay on Deepblue's level. :smallwink:


I'm glad you're sporting!

But, if you're going to talk about how GURPS flaws and disadvantages are easy to exploit, just look at the ones for D&D. Howabout "Noncombatant", "Feeble" or "Pathetic" for a Wizard? That's just plain sloppy. GURPS' disadvantages are actually disadvantages in that they're aspects you're supposed to roleplay (despite whether or not they'll harm you and others), and the GM is supposed to use against you - like compuslive gambling, dependents, and alcoholism. It's not so easy to "just take the ones you need", because the game encourages you to take a wide assortment of things, and not just be "Batman" or some other such concept. Far more emphasis is placed on encouraging the players to make a character, and not so much a build - because no matter who you are, you can still pretty much do anything you want with the proper skills, not levels.

My argument was about having freedom of character construction, which D&D really lacks.

So, people who want to make a character [in D&D] who does something that happens to be very effective in game are called powergamers, and so forth, and they can't really do anything about it because they can't emulate what they want without having classes that give them extra cheesy abilities by default (and NOT using them will detract from their fun).

GURPS has some weak spots, sure - but I can still find mechanics for just about anything I can dream playing as, and I don't necessarily have to be any specific power level if the abilities I want aren't particularly far-fetched (in comparison to other abilities considered appropriate for the campaign, anyway). Excluding, maybe, a sentient meme.

And what the hell is wrong with doing a little calculus? I thought everyone liked math.

warmachine
2008-04-18, 12:36 PM
How about another myth. I could be wrong but it's what I suspect from game design.

Myth 5: Not being able to create any character I can imagine is a design weakness
It's not a weakness because it's a deliberate design philosophy. D&D is a high magic, combat-oriented, action adventure and that's all it's meant to be. If a class is no good in combat or helping others in combat, it shouldn't be in the game. That you can't create an all-knowing librarian or creator of bountiful food that can't fit into D&D gameplay is merely preventing disappointment. D&D is simply not aimed at games where non-combat/support characters might be fun to play. If you want other types of characters, you want another kind of campaign world and style and RPG system that's supposed to handle it.

Deepblue706
2008-04-18, 12:59 PM
How about another myth. I could be wrong but it's what I suspect from game design.

Myth 5: Not being able to create any character I can imagine is a design weakness
It's not a weakness because it's a deliberate design philosophy. D&D is a high magic, combat-oriented, action adventure and that's all it's meant to be. If a class is no good in combat or helping others in combat, it shouldn't be in the game. That you can't create an all-knowing librarian or creator of bountiful food that can't fit into D&D gameplay is merely preventing disappointment. D&D is simply not aimed at games where non-combat/support characters might be fun to play. If you want other types of characters, you want another kind of campaign world and style and RPG system that's supposed to handle it.

But what about things that actually involve combat and just plainly not well-supported (like always using a shield as a Fighter and not being craptastic)?

D&D is obviously a combat game, and made for combatative characters, I'll grant you that. But that doesn't mean it should lack freedom.

Also, if you're saying the Food Mage can't participate in GURPS, you're dead wrong.

From Kromm, a GURPS editor:

Provided that the GM is strictly enforcing the rules for rations, meals, starvation, etc., this doesn't have to be a silly concept at all if the party's primary role is essentially exploration, scouting, and raiding far from friendly territory. Not having to carry a ton of food into the desert, for instance, will let the party move quickly and without leaving much of a trail (even low-tech rations come wrapped in something). Infinite endurance in the field is a truly enviable advantage for a small unit.

Don't overlook the misuses of the spells, either. Seek Food is a quick and easy way to find enemies if the mage has a good Survival skill and knows what to exclude -- just seek any food but what's indigenous to the area and you'll quickly find your foe's rations and thus your foe. Hunger and Thirst are (or ought to be, if the GM is on his toes) very effective for persuading captives to talk -- especially if you can dangle the results of a Fool's Banquet nearby as a "reward." Water to Wine and Distill, taken together, mean an infinite supply of flammable liquid.

The key to making it all work is to ensure the wizard also has mundane skills to back up his handiwork: enough Survival to abuse Seek Food, enough Interrogation to play mind games with starving captives, enough Throwing to chuck burning liquids around, etc. Alchemy is a "maybe yes, maybe no" prospect, depending on how available ingredients are, but not a bad use of a few points. It's probably wise for the wizard not to be too much of a purist when it comes to using out-of-college prerequisites, too.

And as others have pointed out, outfit him like a chef. Drop $400 on a fine, balanced kukri (Martial Arts, p. 228) and you'll have a light, handy weapon that's as deadly as a shortsword, effective in close combat, and that you could probably convince the GM is a cleaver of some kind that might get past searches for weapons. Make sure he keeps his chili powder in a long corked tube -- corked at both ends -- and has the Blowpipe skill. There's nothing like a chef ninja!

(And yes, I once GMed for a player who ran a food mage.)


In GURPS, you're not limited to a "job". You can use magic and still do things that don't have anything to do with magic, too. That's why I prefer it.

Maybe D&D is not meant for such freedom - but, I think it's quite obvious that a lot of people are still seeking it through the numerous splatbooks and classes they read up about - ignoring the fluff associated with it, and just grabbing the "neat abilities". This is a conflict inherent in the system, and I suspect it may have been intentional on the basis that players will continue to buy new books if the developers control the rate at which those players can implement the abilities they wish they had for their characters.

Not exactly a design weakness, I guess, if your perspective is that of WotC.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-04-18, 01:19 PM
I also don't like the 'generic' bit. The unique systems of different games is part of the appeal. I saw far too many of my off-the wall systems absorbed into the behemoth that was GURPS and had everything that was special about them destroyed... Eg: Cyberpunk 2020

When did CPunk 2020 ever get absorbed into GURPS? The new edition (203X) came out like the other year. (It was horrible. The interior art wasn't even close to the worst part. Better off using 2020 and Listen Up, You Primitive Screwheads! And GURPS actually is best precisely for gritty SF, like cyberpunk.)

I totally agree that systems built for a specific genre and style are better for that genre and style than generic systems, though.

warmachine
2008-04-18, 01:52 PM
But what about things that actually involve combat and just plainly not well-supported (like always using a shield as a Fighter and not being craptastic)?
That, not being able to create a sword-and-shield Fighter that isn't craptastic, is a design weakness because that's a type that's supposed to be in D&D. Failure over basic fighter types is a design flaw, inability to design anything is not.

Also, what makes you think I mean Food Mages don't fit in GURPS? I didn't even mention GURPS.

Rutee
2008-04-18, 01:57 PM
Myth 5: Not being able to create any character I can imagine is a design weakness
It's not a weakness because it's a deliberate design philosophy. D&D is a high magic, combat-oriented, action adventure and that's all it's meant to be. If a class is no good in combat or helping others in combat, it shouldn't be in the game. That you can't create an all-knowing librarian or creator of bountiful food that can't fit into D&D gameplay is merely preventing disappointment. D&D is simply not aimed at games where non-combat/support characters might be fun to play. If you want other types of characters, you want another kind of campaign world and style and RPG system that's supposed to handle it.

Actually, it is a system weakness, depending on the character concept. Most of mine have strong combat elements. They just also have other aspects, and are still high fantasy of primarily low technological level, albeit not medieval European style ones, yet still require far too much work to properly transplant. Further, the system /claims/ to support concepts it doesn't (The Bard as a great speaker and strong party face in social encounters, for instance; Sure, it has the skills it needs to /do/ it.. but the systems those skills operates on are flatly awful) , which is another weakness. There's also the part that DnD (In 3.X at least) behaves as if it can handle every and all game concepts under the sun, which by definition gives you leave to snipe DnD for its inability to do so. After all, it pretty much said it could. That generates the expectation of it. I'll agree that it's pretty much a combat wombat and dungeon crawling game first, and everything else second, but that doesn't mean it claims to be.

Hadrian_Emrys
2008-04-18, 02:01 PM
So Improvising Pragmatists eat babies, and Systematic Idealists stop them? :smallbiggrin:

Yum, and yes. Spoilsports.

Fawsto
2008-04-18, 02:20 PM
Cool. I'd like to see all players and DMs realize such things. My gamegroup allways label me powergamer just because I want that my character works well... It annoys me.











Doing nothing this evening? Take a look at the thread linked to my sig and post your opinions. It is the first step to a bigger project and I need some critics on it. Thank ya. :smallbiggrin:

Deepblue706
2008-04-18, 02:47 PM
That, not being able to create a sword-and-shield Fighter that isn't craptastic, is a design weakness because that's a type that's supposed to be in D&D. Failure over basic fighter types is a design flaw, inability to design anything is not.

Also, what makes you think I mean Food Mages don't fit in GURPS? I didn't even mention GURPS.

I was saying that the Food Mage works there to draw a parallel between what GURPS can do and what can be useful in combat. I don't actually desire D&D to make anything, but a more generic system is more able to provide grounds for freedom for character creation. Having to level up and multiclass to get the abilities you want is a slow, tedious, and unnecessary process. Being able to make a Sentient Toaster isn't something I want out of D&D, but being able to make things like the Food Mage is. And, judging by how so many people agree that ignoring the fluff to multiclass for abilities alone is justified, I would guess that people really just want another method, one with fewer restrictions on what a character can and cannot have at any given time.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-18, 09:51 PM
That argument above is why I don't play GURPS. It tends to draw in the sorts of people who like to point out how superior it is to D&D and that any system other than GURPS is stupid
Way to generalize, dude. That isn't what anybody in this thread was saying. And for the record, I don't play GURPS either. Tried it, didn't like it.


D&D is a high magic, combat-oriented, action adventure and that's all it's meant to be.
It should be fairly obvious from these forums that D&D isn't "all it's meant to be". At least the first three-and-a-half editions weren't; the jury is still out on the fourth :smallsmile: That D&D doesn't support a "food mage" is a design decision, for indeed such aren't really the staples of heroic fantasy anyway. That in D&D, certain high-magic or combat-oriented classes (such as the fighter, the truenamer, and the-one-we're-not-allowed-to-discuss-in-the-forums-anymore) aren't "all they're meant to be" is a design failure.

Cybren
2008-04-18, 10:21 PM
So, with mature players, sensible house rules, and communication, the system works fine.

Gosh, I'd imagine that'd also work wonders for D&D.

I don't think anyone said it didn't? But GURPS is played with different intrinsic assumptions than D&D. By its nature it has to be flexible enough to be played a variety of different ways. More or less, there's no 'wrong way' to play GURPS

That argument above is why I don't play GURPS. It tends to draw in the sorts of people who like to point out how superior it is to D&D and that any system other than GURPS is stupid, whereas D&D players seem to readily accept the fact that the system we use is stupid and wonder why anyone would bother wasting the time to point it out.

I also don't like the 'generic' bit. The unique systems of different games is part of the appeal. I saw far too many of my off-the wall systems absorbed into the behemoth that was GURPS and had everything that was special about them destroyed... Eg: Cyberpunk 2020

Yeah, I play GURPS and I am getting sick and tired of people bringing it up every other thread.

Deepblue706
2008-04-18, 10:43 PM
That argument above is why I don't play GURPS. It tends to draw in the sorts of people who like to point out how superior it is to D&D and that any system other than GURPS is stupid, whereas D&D players seem to readily accept the fact that the system we use is stupid and wonder why anyone would bother wasting the time to point it out.


Huh?

All I'm saying is that GURPS supports a wide variety of character concepts. I hope you're not claiming that I'm trying to convince everyone that GURPS is the almighty and D&D is just a piece of trash (even though I do prefer GURPS), because my intent is just to point out a lot of people use PrCs without using the fluff, and just because they want new mechanical abilities. Maybe D&D's good enough for you as is - and that's absolutely fine by me - but I think if D&D were to allow players to grab abilities based on what concept they had in mind, and not by what the closest-matching class happens to get, it would probably appease a lot of people.

[edit]

It occurs to me I'm dragging this off-topic, I'm going to refrain from participating any further in this discussion.

JaxGaret
2008-04-18, 11:39 PM
Just wanted to say that this thread has inspired me to give GURPS a try.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-19, 08:56 AM
Just wanted to say that this thread has inspired me to give GURPS a try.

Me too, actually. Not so coincientally, with JaxGaret, as he is one of my oldest friends and in my gaming group.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-04-19, 12:49 PM
First off Powergaming is Munchkin lite. I'm not a big fan of eather of them.
A powergamer to me is first and formost not a good rp'er. there the ones who typicaly take an ability only to make there character more effective and throw two lines of "reasoning" to why they took it. Where as a fluffy character would have more reasoning by it.

Althogh as a GM I am willing to bend rules to make a character more fluffy. On the other hand though i have to disagree with most people in this thread about PRC's, I'm not a big fan of them. I tend to as a player not use them, As a gm I ususaly restrict them. That can be blamed however on people who take prcs and abuse Fluff based abilites. good example is Arcane devotee in FR, with Kossueth(sp?). I had a player once get made at me for asking him to rebuild his character because he completly over shadowed his compatriots with that PrC and a few feets from some splat books.

Ususaly when I run games PrCs are earned with in game RPing. If a character wants to be a Bear warrior. Then the character needs to make it a point in game that he/she is trying to become that rather then well i like the bear stuff so ya ill take bear warrior, with out any ingame acknowledgement about bears or warriors is rediculous. Power games where find ways to get into PrCs with or with out fluff.. True RPer's will try to find PrC's that fit there fluff.


As for the Op:

What style games do you run/play in? are you into the gritty style play, high magic, kick down the door, intrugue, etc? I just want to see where your coming from.

Unfortunatly im used to playing with people who build there characters mechanicaly or take a Cliche type char and change it to there own rather from the ground up. But I think thats becuase we like more underpowerd games, and Static world games, rather then the hero's of destiny, drag you along style games.

Roderick_BR
2008-04-19, 01:52 PM
Myth 1: Building a powerful character means that person intends to break your game.
I don't completely agree. Thing is, it doesn't intend to break the game, but it CAN break, even if by accident. That's the reason some people prefer to avoid it.
"Being good at what you do" doesn't meant "and also do everyone else's job too."
If well played, a powerful character can be fun for the player AND the rest of the group. The trick is to moderate what everyone plays. Games should be for everyone, not for one. If you just want to be the most powerful character around, go play a video game.

Myth 2: If I force my players to "role-play" into their prestige classes it will make the game balanced, or have better continuity, or .....
First, no DM should "force" anyone into anything. What they do is agree on what's going on in the game. If a DM asks the player why the heck he will enter a certain prestige class, or if the place that trains him will even accept his entrance, then the player should come up with at least a barely good explaination. If the game is a "free mode" where anyone can be anything, like an illiterate barbarian deciding to spend 5 minutes reading a spell book, and getting one level in wizard, I don't see why you couldn't allow any prestige class to be taken.
If the DM just want to force people to play the game his way, then yes, that's bad DMing.

Myth 3: Prestige class fluff is important.
Doesn't agree fully too. It's a matter of players and DM's agreeing on what is important. Or else you'll have a barbarian, one known for mischiefs and street troubles, suddenly becoming a knight of the middle circle, when no one there would accept a trouble maker among them. Pretty much the same as the previous entry.

Myth 4: I don't use such and such a book because its "overpowered."
Completely agree with you here.

I dunno.... these "myths" looks more like attempts to make overpowered characters look good, and roleplaying not important.

Talya
2008-04-19, 02:09 PM
Stating your opinions on issues is not the same thing as debunking myths.

This.

At best there are exceptions to the points in the OP. Mostly, they're 100% wrong.

Myth 1: Building a powerful character means that person intends to break your game.
-I'd agree with you to an extent. However, a DM has the ultimate say on what he considers broken or overpowered. Deciding he doesn't like something never makes him a bad DM. Arguing with him on the matter makes you a useless player who should be kicked from the table. A DM can (and should) allow, disallow, change, or adhere to the letter of anything the choose on a whim. It's their game.

Myth 2: If I force my players to "role-play" into their prestige classes it will make the game balanced, or have better continuity, or .....
-To a degree I think this is right. However, it's good DMing to make you explain yourself to his satisfaction. If he doesn't think you'd have had a chance to learn a certain PrC, see so-called "Myth 1."

Myth 3: Prestige class fluff is important.
-Truth: Whatever fluff the DM decides is important, is important. End of story. Whether that fluff fits or makes sense or is fun makes him a good or bad DM. Whether you argue with him or not makes you a good or bad player.

Myth 4: I don't use such and such a book because its "overpowered."
-See "myth 1."

Truth 1: You should trust your players.
- and let them sell you a bridge in brooklyn? Yeah...right.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-04-19, 03:01 PM
{Scrubbed}

Rutee
2008-04-19, 03:28 PM
Truth 1: You should trust your players.
- and let them sell you a bridge in brooklyn? Yeah...right.
If you can't trust your players because they'll abuse it, your group has issues right off the bat.

Bleen
2008-04-19, 03:34 PM
The only myth in this thread is the notion that there is a singular "right" way to play DnD.

Find a group and DM who plays like you do, and don't try to force your ideas on a DM who plays differently than you. If you feel something genuinely wrong is going on on the DM's end, like favoritism, or you feel they can improve their overall style in some way (E.G., avoiding excessive and blatant railroading), then yeah, you should probably talk to your DM politely about that kind of stuff. But if they want a certain power level, or don't allow/like certain material, then that's their right, and if you feel they're grossly 'wrong' to a point of being unable to reconcile, then it might just be a matter on incompatible play styles, and you should never be obligated to play a game when you aren't having fun.

Talya
2008-04-19, 03:50 PM
If you can't trust your players because they'll abuse it, your group has issues right off the bat.

Maybe we should just get them to roll a d20 on their kitchen table and post the results in my PbP game then, rather than using something a little more transparent...

JaxGaret
2008-04-19, 03:52 PM
Maybe we should just get them to roll a d20 on their kitchen table and post the results in my PbP game then, rather than using something a little more transparent...

PbP is very different from tabletop gaming with people you know.

Rutee
2008-04-19, 03:55 PM
Yeah, I'd honestly say if you can't do that because of player/GM trust, you've got problems as a group. It's not like rolling on the forums is any less abusable (Roll, if you don't like it, quickly delete the post, resend it). There /are/ other good reasons to roll on the forums though, notably that computer rollers are closer to random then dice.

Hadrian_Emrys
2008-04-19, 04:06 PM
Why can't your players to roll at home and post the result? :smallconfused:

Rutee
2008-04-19, 04:11 PM
Because Talya thinks they'll cheat given the opportunity. Hope that wasn't sarcasm >.>

Talya
2008-04-19, 04:13 PM
PbP is very different from tabletop gaming with people you know.

All the people I RPG with are a bare minimum of 800 miles away. (either openRPG or PbP.)

And I believe the majority of people will cheat given the opportunity. (As a long-time card player -- traditional cards, not CCGs -- it's hard to think otherwise.)

Rutee
2008-04-19, 04:22 PM
You can cheat the Forum Roller pretty easily, if you have the good sense to write your post in notepad or something first, though. And you /should/ write your post in Notepad thanks to Data Vampires anyway. That's why I'm confused on why you think it's less likely otherwise.

Talya
2008-04-19, 04:25 PM
You can cheat the Forum Roller pretty easily, if you have the good sense to write your post in notepad or something first, though. And you /should/ write your post in Notepad thanks to Data Vampires anyway. That's why I'm confused on why you think it's less likely otherwise.

I don't use the forum roller. (I have no games running here.)

A friend of mine has an online dice-roller page that logs all rolls. People post their rolls with the roll ID. A few of us use it for a number of games. If we suspect someone is massaging the results, we can check the logs. ;) Not that we've ever had to, the mere fact that the log is transparent and everyone can see everyone who rolls anything (as well as notes on what the roll is for) encourage honesty.

Rutee
2008-04-19, 04:26 PM
Or just get honest players.

Talya
2008-04-19, 04:31 PM
Or just get honest players.

Of course. With only a tiny fraction of the world's population being "honest," and a smaller fraction of those being gamers, and most human beings in every category being socially intolerable, that shouldn't be too hard. Just put an ad somewhere for honest gamers who rather intelligent and socially competent. Should be easy!

EvilElitest
2008-04-19, 04:34 PM
Or just get honest players.

we have a way of testing that now
from
EE

Rutee
2008-04-19, 04:39 PM
Of course. With only a tiny fraction of the world's population being "honest," and a smaller fraction of those being gamers, and most human beings in every category being socially intolerable, that shouldn't be too hard. Just put an ad somewhere for honest gamers who rather intelligent and socially competent. Should be easy!

It's funny because the game I'm pondering starting has almost all its players gathered online, and I already trust them as is. What benefit is there to be had in dishonesty? Yay, I won a fictional construct that wasn't being played for the sake of victory?

AKA_Bait
2008-04-19, 04:41 PM
The only myth in this thread is the notion that there is a singular "right" way to play DnD.


This man is correct.


PbP is very different from tabletop gaming with people you know.

Very true. In a PbP game, mostly, you don't know anyone. In a table top game with people you know... you know who you can trust and not. Which at least means you can compensate for it in other ways.

For the record, JaxGaret here plays in my tabletop game and is one of the people I do trust not to break the game.


Or just get honest players.

Why would you need those? Perhaps I'm more broad minded than most, but so long as the DM is aware of the fact that a player fudges rolls they can compensate. So long as no one else at the table minds, I don't actualy see it as a huge problem.

Rutee
2008-04-19, 05:06 PM
Why would you need those? Perhaps I'm more broad minded than most, but so long as the DM is aware of the fact that a player fudges rolls they can compensate. So long as no one else at the table minds, I don't actualy see it as a huge problem.
Well, if Talya's problem is dishonesty, the other obvious cure besides cheat prevention is honesty..

EvilElitest
2008-04-19, 05:07 PM
It's funny because the game I'm pondering starting has almost all its players gathered online, and I already trust them as is. What benefit is there to be had in dishonesty? Yay, I won a fictional construct that wasn't being played for the sake of victory?

Isn't the point of the dishonesty is to get people to think that you are honest
from
EE

Kurald Galain
2008-04-19, 05:13 PM
Of course. With only a tiny fraction of the world's population being "honest," and a smaller fraction of those being gamers, and most human beings in every category being socially intolerable, that shouldn't be too hard.

Wow, and here I was thinking that I was a cynic...

I do find most people tolerable, many even likable, and gamers almost exclusively so. While I wouldn't rank most people's honesty on the level that I could lend them a couple hundred bucks and expect seeing it back (fool me twice, shame on me), I do rank most people's honesty above cheating in a zero-stake storytelling game. Seriously, it's not that hard to get a functional group together.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-19, 05:15 PM
Well, if Talya's problem is dishonesty, the other obvious cure besides cheat prevention is honesty..

Not as easy a cure as you might suspect. You can't just make a dishonest person honest. At least, not at my age. You can work around it or expel them from your group in my experience.

EvilElitest
2008-04-19, 05:16 PM
Well, if Talya's problem is dishonesty, the other obvious cure besides cheat prevention is honesty..

wow, please never run internal affairs.
from
EE

Valairn
2008-04-19, 05:18 PM
This.

At best there are exceptions to the points in the OP. Mostly, they're 100% wrong.

Myth 1: Building a powerful character means that person intends to break your game.
-I'd agree with you to an extent. However, a DM has the ultimate say on what he considers broken or overpowered. Deciding he doesn't like something never makes him a bad DM. Arguing with him on the matter makes you a useless player who should be kicked from the table. A DM can (and should) allow, disallow, change, or adhere to the letter of anything the choose on a whim. It's their game.

Myth 2: If I force my players to "role-play" into their prestige classes it will make the game balanced, or have better continuity, or .....
-To a degree I think this is right. However, it's good DMing to make you explain yourself to his satisfaction. If he doesn't think you'd have had a chance to learn a certain PrC, see so-called "Myth 1."

Myth 3: Prestige class fluff is important.
-Truth: Whatever fluff the DM decides is important, is important. End of story. Whether that fluff fits or makes sense or is fun makes him a good or bad DM. Whether you argue with him or not makes you a good or bad player.

Myth 4: I don't use such and such a book because its "overpowered."
-See "myth 1."

Truth 1: You should trust your players.
- and let them sell you a bridge in brooklyn? Yeah...right.

Obviously the goal of DnD is to just do whatever the DM says without any discussion or opinions of your own. /sarcasm

It hardly makes you a useless player to (god forbid) want to play the character class you enjoy. Arguing senselessly is a bad idea, but then again I never said you should argue with the DM, did I?

And its not the DM's game, its the group's game. The DM is just a part of that, he does get certain privileges that come with playing the storyteller, but that's it, he's not special, he doesn't get to tell the group how to have fun. A good DM should work with his players to create a game they will enjoy playing rather than a game just he will enjoy.

And yes you should trust your players, just because you are particularly jaded about humanity doesn't mean the rest of us have to be.


The only myth in this thread is the notion that there is a singular "right" way to play DnD.

That's a pretty big assumption about my post. In addition its pretty clear that you didn't read any of the rest of the post, since if you had the discussion would tell you, I think nothing of the sort.

Rutee
2008-04-19, 05:20 PM
Not as easy a cure as you might suspect. You can't just make a dishonest person honest. At least, not at my age. You can work around it or expel them from your group in my experience.

Yeah, but it's not that uncommon a trait to begin with. I mean, as Kurald pointed out.. these are zero stake games. If they're being told for the sake of story, cheating isn't all that important. Combine a lack of incentive with honesty in any degree and you don't have all that much to worry about unless you have chronic cheaters who cheat or are dishonest for its own sake.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-19, 05:22 PM
That's a pretty big assumption about my post. In addition its pretty clear that you didn't read any of the rest of the post, since if you had the discussion would tell you, I think nothing of the sort.

The fact that you retracted it later doesn't mean it isn't still the title of the thread...

Edit for Ninjaing:


Yeah, but it's not that uncommon a trait to begin with. I mean, as Kurald pointed out.. these are zero stake games. If they're being told for the sake of story, cheating isn't all that important. Combine a lack of incentive with honesty in any degree and you don't have all that much to worry about unless you have chronic cheaters who cheat or are dishonest for its own sake.

Some people just enjoy 'winning' the challenge of die rolls. I don't want to get into the sociology of this here. Because it is a zero stake game, at least in my view, the DM's job is just to make sure that everyone has fun. Sometimes that means finding a balance between those who view it as a 'control=win' situation and everyone else.

Citizen Jenkins
2008-04-19, 05:23 PM
Or just get honest players.
Wow, I want to live where you live. My games are usually composed of 1-2 good friends who I've RP-ed with before, 2 of their friends who may or may not have RP-ed before, someone's girlfriend, and someone we met in a bar/class/cafeteria. I can't think of many campaigns that haven't had at least some new people and most of the time they're the majority of the players at the table. Lots of times I meet awesome new people but a good DM always needs to keep watch on new and unknown players who, through accident or mischief, can really mess up a campaign.

Then sometimes I'm the new guy because I've had to move due to college/work/arson and I don't know anybody. Maybe I'm trying out PbP and I'm playing with a bunch of strangers on the internet for the first time. Maybe I'm running one at a con. Again, the majority are probably really good people but all it takes is one bad apple with Druidzilla and the campaign falls apart.

Worst, though, is when the dice fudger is not only a friend but a good roleplayer. None of us are perfect roleplayers, we've all got some faults and good DM needs to be aware of these and prepare for them. I know one guy who I roleplayed with for 2 years, he was a great guy and a blast to play with but whenever the situation got critical he'd give the dice a little bump if the DM wasn't looking. We've all got faults, be it a bump of the dice or a bit of a rules lawyer in the back of our mind or a propensity to optimize just a little too much, but I'm not so blessed with friends and good roleplayers that I can kick someone out of a campaign just for a little problem that a little DM oversight could correct.

And that also goes for guys I don't know. Somebody can be an awesome fellow and a joy at the table but I'll never get to know him if I'm cutting people out of a campaign for bumping the dice.

EvilElitest
2008-04-19, 05:25 PM
Yeah, but it's not that uncommon a trait to begin with. I mean, as Kurald pointed out.. these are zero stake games. If they're being told for the sake of story, cheating isn't all that important. Combine a lack of incentive with honesty in any degree and you don't have all that much to worry about unless you have chronic cheaters who cheat or are dishonest for its own sake.

1. Honesty does not prevent dishonesty
2. Competition Even through you can't win D&D, when people play to be escapist, being as awsome as possible is tempting
3. Or just because people don't like losing or being hindered in any ways. Like powergammers
from
EE

Hadrian_Emrys
2008-04-19, 05:30 PM
I guess this is where I'm spoiled. I've only every played games with people I've met irl (with the exception of 1). So, there's a pre-existing relationship there that goes beyond the game. Even if there wasn't though, I tend to let the group work it out amongst themselves if someone is "cheating" in a way that kills the fun of the game. I run games that are meant to be hell on both the the numbers in the game and the minds of the players, if a roll is fudged in order to lasave a PC life at a dramatic moment... *shrug* Hell, I pull punches all the time and they are STILL unsettled by my games, they just feel heroic despite their cowering.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-19, 05:35 PM
We've all got faults, be it a bump of the dice or a bit of a rules lawyer in the back of our mind or a propensity to optimize just a little too much, but I'm not so blessed with friends and good roleplayers that I can kick someone out of a campaign just for a little problem that a little DM oversight could correct.


This is pretty much what I'm talking about. Frequently, our players are our real life friends. With friends one always adjustments for things they like or don't in what you are doing. D&D (or any RPG) is no exception.

Rutee
2008-04-19, 06:51 PM
Wow, I want to live where you live. My games are usually composed of 1-2 good friends who I've RP-ed with before, 2 of their friends who may or may not have RP-ed before, someone's girlfriend, and someone we met in a bar/class/cafeteria. I can't think of many campaigns that haven't had at least some new people and most of the time they're the majority of the players at the table. Lots of times I meet awesome new people but a good DM always needs to keep watch on new and unknown players who, through accident or mischief, can really mess up a campaign.

It's not about where I live, really. I just don't start games unless I know the people in question anyway, and it requires a strong measure of trust before I even bother inviting you, in general. You being generic.


Some people just enjoy 'winning' the challenge of die rolls. I don't want to get into the sociology of this here. Because it is a zero stake game, at least in my view, the DM's job is just to make sure that everyone has fun. Sometimes that means finding a balance between those who view it as a 'control=win' situation and everyone else.
I'll agree with that, sure. I just don't invite Control=Win types as a GM in the first place though. It's not worth the effort :P

EvilElitest
2008-04-19, 07:02 PM
It's not about where I live, really. I just don't start games unless I know the people in question anyway, and it requires a strong measure of trust before I even bother inviting you, in general. You being generic.

That isn't a foolproof system by any means



I'll agree with that, sure. I just don't invite Control=Win types as a GM in the first place though. It's not worth the effort :P

you can't be perfect however
from
EE

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-19, 07:49 PM
Bottom line Rutee. We all just want you to know that by trusting your players you are ruining your life, and D&D for everyone in the world.

And we will not stop badgering you about it until you admit that starting from the assumption that it isn't Rape as long as the DM did it is the only acceptable starting place for anything.

Because after all, all humans are lying decitful manipulative bastards who are only out to screw up everyone else's D&D game by going on powertrips.

Except DMs. They are all that is right and pure in the universe and if they want to ban every character design you've ever thought of while throwing around RFED every five seconds. They are absolutely right to do so, and it is even expected of them.

/sarcasm

Seriously, arguing that the DM=God position is the best possible position based on the fact that all people are lying untrustworthy control freaks is the funniest argument I have yet seen.

Talya
2008-04-19, 08:10 PM
"Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid."

Talya
2008-04-19, 08:12 PM
Seriously, arguing that the DM=God position is the best possible position based on the fact that all people are lying untrustworthy control freaks is the funniest argument I have yet seen.


No, the DM isn't god. That'd be a demotion for the DM. The DM is above the Gods.

That's separate from the fact that people are generally untrustworthy, especially when it comes to little stuff like this. Cheat on your spouse, you're a jerk. Cheat at a harmless game, you're just having fun that didn't hurt anyone.

Roderick_BR
2008-04-19, 08:35 PM
"Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid."
It means you can always trust dishonest people to do stupid things? :smalltongue:

EvilElitest
2008-04-19, 08:40 PM
Bottom line Rutee. We all just want you to know that by trusting your players you are ruining your life, and D&D for everyone in the world.

And we will not stop badgering you about it until you admit that starting from the assumption that it isn't Rape as long as the DM did it is the only acceptable starting place for anything.

Because after all, all humans are lying decitful manipulative bastards who are only out to screw up everyone else's D&D game by going on powertrips.

Except DMs. They are all that is right and pure in the universe and if they want to ban every character design you've ever thought of while throwing around RFED every five seconds. They are absolutely right to do so, and it is even expected of them.

/sarcasm

Seriously, arguing that the DM=God position is the best possible position based on the fact that all people are lying untrustworthy control freaks is the funniest argument I have yet seen.

I just want Rutee to never head an internal affairs group with that assumption

Really through, honestly doesn't counter dishonesty
from
EE

Sleet
2008-04-19, 08:46 PM
Truth 1: You should trust your players.
- and let them sell you a bridge in brooklyn? Yeah...right.

I have to confess I just don't grok this. My players are my friends. If I didn't trust them, they wouldn't be my friends.

I get that not everyone games the way I do, but is it really that far outside the bounds of possibility that a group of friends wouldn't cheat each other?

Edit: This has been discussed to death in the posts between the one I quoted and this one. Let me just say that every day I find a new reason to count myself lucky to have the gaming group I have.

Talya
2008-04-19, 08:52 PM
I get that not everyone games the way I do, but is it really that far outside the bounds of possibility that a group of friends wouldn't cheat each other?



Not that I play any RPGs with any personal friends I also hang out with in real life, but if I did, I would be disappointed if they didn't try to cheat. I grew up playing card games, cheating at euchre is half the fun of the game.

Sleet
2008-04-19, 08:54 PM
Not that I play any RPGs with any personal friends I also hang out with in real life, but if I did, I would be disappointed if they didn't try to cheat.

Yet another reason to count myself lucky to have the gaming group I have. :smalleek:

Hadrian_Emrys
2008-04-19, 09:11 PM
Yet another reason to count myself lucky to have the gaming group I have. :smalleek:

Seconded. :smalleek:

EvilElitest
2008-04-19, 09:22 PM
Yet another reason to count myself lucky to have the gaming group I have. :smalleek:

Ok
1. Watching out for cheating players isn't just smart, it is very fun. Tricky devils. The amount of loopholes my players try to exploit (not powergame ones, plot holes) keeps me on my toes
2. If your contend in your group, they are most likely cheating you without you knowing it:smallwink:
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-04-19, 09:23 PM
Yet another reason to count myself lucky to have the gaming group I have. :smalleek:

Ok
1. Watching out for cheating players isn't just smart, it is very fun. Tricky devils. The amount of loopholes my players try to exploit (not powergame ones, plot holes) keeps me on my toes
2. If your contend in your group, they are most likely cheating you without you knowing it:smallwink:
from
EE

Sleet
2008-04-19, 09:49 PM
2. If your contend in your group, they are most likely cheating you without you knowing it:smallwink:

Well, you obviously know them better than I do. :smallwink:

EvilElitest
2008-04-19, 10:21 PM
Well, you obviously know them better than I do. :smallwink:

of course i would never be dishonest myself. Nope....
sadly, i'm actually not being sarcastic, i'm way to honest for my own good
from
EE

Valairn
2008-04-19, 11:42 PM
The fact that you retracted it later doesn't mean it isn't still the title of the thread...

You'll notice the question mark in the title of my post, which has been there from the beginning.

Bleen
2008-04-19, 11:53 PM
Clearly, I am responding exclusively to the OP after the thread has expanded to SIX PAGES and not the general content of the discussion. [/sarcasm] :smallannoyed:

HoopyFrood
2008-04-20, 12:05 AM
After reading through every post, I have come to some conclusions...

1. People like to have fun.
2. For the most part, D&D is fun.
3. Some practices players and DMs have in games cause problems which are not fun.
4. Reasonable people can get past these problems and continue to have fun.

Really, I think everyone who has posted so far can agree to these conclusions.
The myths that really need to get debunked don't have to do with the rules or how to play the games; it's that only stereotypical, white, nerdy, male, socially awkward, nearsighted, people who look as though they haven't seen the sun for at least a few months are the only people that play the game. (Unfortunately, I happen to fit this stereotype perfectly :smallcool: .)
I think we can all agree this myth can be debunked.

Lord_Kimboat
2008-04-20, 12:17 AM
Hear hear, HoopyFrood, well said.

My own experiences are mixed. I've DMed a lot and would like to trust the players - but would really like if they trusted me! Most will try to screw little advantages out just to push their character's abilities higher. It's not really cheese but it's heading in that direction. If they had a little trust that I wasn't going to kill off low powered characters it would be much better, but they don't and I have then up the challenge level of the encounters to try to make the game interesting.

One thing I've found though is that a players tend to like it when you throw some nice, easy encounters their way so that the PCs can prove that they are tough.

On the other hand, I've found that every so often you come across a real munchkin who just wants to have an overpowered character. They can be hard to identify and often have some really nasty tactics, like travelling near the weakest party members so that if you try to target them, the weaklings die as well making you look like a bully.