Maybe it's just the area I live in, maybe it's the zeitgeist of gamers these days, or maybe it's the change in focus the game itself has taken, but whatever it is, I'm sick of it.
Every time I sit down to play a D&D game in my hometown (College Station, TX) I am surrounded by wizards with 28 Intelligence who apply sudden maximize to an empowered spell to obliterate an encounter 3 levels higher than they are in one round. Either that or the Fighter/Barbarian/Exotic Weapon Masters who attack 5 times per round, critically hits 25% of the time, and deal an average of 85 points of damage per hit when using Power Attack. And let us not forget the Bards with +25 to Bluff and +47 to Diplomacy (at 10th level) who manage to convince an adult red dragon to give them some of his treasure. This isn't a game anymore, it's some puerile pissing contest!
Now I play a variety of D&D games. RPGA sanctioned games like Legacy of the Green Regent and Living Greyhawk are quite popular. I also like to run Dungeon modules as one shots from time to time. Occassionally I'll convert one of my old 1st or 2nd edition modules to 3.5 for my group to play as well. But it doesn't matter what the campaign is, what the character creation rules are, or how many players sit at the table. It inevitably turns into a big game of Players Vs. DM where the only sense of accomplishment comes from beating the DM's monsters senseless in 2 rounds this time instead of 3 or ridding an entire dungeon of monsters without taking a hit. Fighters have 25 Strength and 4 Charisma. 6th level Clerics turn liches into dust with the flash of a symbol. Rogues have +15 to initiative and successfully Hide by "taking 1" on their Hide check.
I am tired. I hardly know a single player anymore who values a good story over a good battle or one who has crafted a detailed family history for their character. It doesn't seem like it's a game as much anymore as it is a bragging contest to see who can create the cheesiest character.
Does anyone out there empathize with me? Is the role-player truly dead or is my experience simply relegated to my circle of players? I wish I could just sit down and have a merry evening discovering lost bits of lore and fantastic items in a dungeon laden with traps and surprises. Am I just playing the wrong system? Maybe so. After all, D&D has become so focused on miniatures and maps that it does seem to be going the way of the wargame. I just feel so nostalgic for the days of intrigue, discovery and adventure.
I'd have to say it's your players. I've known "roleplayers" who wouldn't know a good story if it bit them in the rear, and "powergamers" who are the most talented storytellers and actors I've ever had the pleasure to know.
It's not the system, it's the players. IMHO.
-Amber S.
Dude I hear you when it comes to that crap. Only they go one step farther by only wanting to play mid-level stuff and evil. Man its fustraiting when you try to make them the heros and they kill the damn king amd escape. Uhhhhh. I feel your pain.
Man its fustraiting when you try to make them the heros and they kill the damn king amd escape. Uhhhhh. I feel your pain.
As the DM, you have more than enough power to set the level of the game right where YOU want it.
Don't want them to have that awesome Thunder Force of Destruction Great Cleaving +10 Battle Axe of Nuclear Doom? Break it. Don't want them to have their Cloak of +50 Hide Skill? Steal it. Don't want them to kill every single one of your monsters in one room in less than 60 seconds? Hamstring the characters.
And if those subtle hints don't work, set fire to their dice.
I don't see how you can prevent them from attacking the king, though. Other than by refusing to DM for them.
And for that matter, you probably shouldn't DM for them. A DM who holds his players' idea of fun in contempt is just asking for trouble. As are they by having a DM who thinks they're juvenile idiots.
There is only one right way to play D&D: the fun way. Obviously the players in this case are playing it the right way, because they are having fun. The DM is playing it wrong, because he's not. That's not to say he has to change and play it his players' way; it means he has to find people who enjoy his style of play and respond to it. Then he'll have fun and also be playing it the right way.
Sometimes I like high-powered games where I just go around smiting things. If a DM thinks that's the wrong or not-fun way to play and is going to look down on me for that, why is he even DMing for me?
-Amber S.
I hear you AirWalkrr.
My group's DM has a word for such players ... which I shouldn't repeat here.
See if you can get one of the crunkins to DM while you sit back and play a character. You might actually be able to accomplish more by example than from the DM's chair.
28 Intelligence? I can't imagine how that is remotely possible without tearing the cover off the Players' Handbook. (But once it's off, you have something to whack unruly players over the head with).
(But once it's off, you have something to whack unruly players over the head with).
LOL. . . I completely understand that situation. I moved around alot growing up, but everywhere I went, there were gamers ready to accept me into their fold. Some groups were great, and some were like AirWalk's.
Troy's sugesstion is a really good one. Being a player and leading by example is a pretty good way to fix the problem. Personally, I think Munchkin syndrome is powered by insecurity, and I'll bet they just need someone to let them know it's okay to really get into it through good roleplaying. Plus, not to stereotype, but alot of those guys you're hanging with MAY have some issues being social, They're so wrapped up and introverted, displaying rules knowledge to "win" is the only way they can feel feel comfortable or accepted in the group. D&D is a much wider world, and I'll bet they' love it if you could show them what it could be.
On the other hand, I also think that people are attracted to D&D for a variety of reasons, and not all of them are healthy. If you find yourself frustrated and you feel like it isn't going to change no matter waht you do, you should just leave. It's not worth it. I had to drop a group that I started up with 7 years ago (when I first moved to Indianapolis). I went over a year without playing, and made alot of friends outside of D&D. However, I've found two other groups since, one of which I've been with now for 3 years (they are fantastic, by the way!), and I still get together with my high school group once in a while.
According to some D&D blurb I read, there are 4 million players of D&D in this country. As Medesha said, there are real role-players out there somewhere. Besides gaming sotres, websites, and other traditional avenues, you could always try to network with people outside of the game, and see if they have an interest. Newbies hang on your every word, and learn they game the way you play it.
Anyway, that's alot of writing, and it's very late. :)
Good luck, man.
- Chris
Personally, I think you're the one with the problem. If you have a problem with someone maximizing the potential of their character and minimizing the risk to it out of some archaic notion of 'proper' roleplaying, then I'd say it's high time you quit D&D and took up theatre.
My 2 cents:
I think you may need to grow some bigger juevos and recall rule #1 as a DM - YOU are master of your world, not the rules.
I have 12 players and can never personally inspect every die roll; my trust is handled resposibly by most of them, but one or two generate some suspicion from time to time by having long runs of 25+ modified rolls, for skill checks, to hits, etc. MY biggest annoyance is, with one of them, as soon as I declare 'hit' or ' miss', he can instantly calculate the AC of the opponent and predict the raw die roll needed for everyone to hit, from that point on!
There are times when I'll simply declare 'miss' and watch him protest, saying "That should hit - why didn't it hit?"...and then reply, "There are variables at work that you have no perception of, nor am I obligated to reveal them to you - your character is not omnicient."
...which is a nice, game-mechanics way of saying, "You missed because I wished you to."
Your solution: begin to declare successes/failures based on your plot needs and DISREGARD some of your super-characters' modifiers, or simply "counter-modify" some of their rolls based on other variables (weather, light, circumstances, time, etc.) - just remember that, as DM, no character can run your game for you simply by having a +25 modifier; if your plot will be moved forward and made more exciting for all by having a certain trap NOT be found and disarmed by your super-rogue, simply GUARANTEE that he won't!
Another option would be to take advantage of your players maxing out skills by having the plot demand that they roll checks for OTHER skills - as in, those that they ignored in favor of the 'popular' skills they maxed out. Have a haughty NPC noble refuse to deal with the party unless one of them can demonstrate their class by creating a piece of artwork (craft)...or perhaps charm a local artist (gather info.) to make one on their behalf(bluff, diplomacy), secretly(diplomacy, intimidate, bluff, disguise)...etc, etc...
Your players might protest, but if they can't deal with the ultimate rule (All arguments end with the DM ruling), they don't need to be playing.
Of course, the easier option would be:
- If they can beat encounters 3 CRs higher than they normally would with these maxed skills, simply increase the encounter CRs by SIX...
As always, I think it's a little of everything. You as a DM want 'role'players (or at least players who will RP sometimes) and your players want to 'roll'play. I like the point about having fun - could very well be that the players just want to hack things, it's how the enjoy things - you can either ask them if they'd like to try a more balanced style, adjust your expectations, or find a new bunch.
However, if the examples weren't exaggerated, then I think a new 'by-the-book' campaign is in order too. No rolling until they have all 18's - use point-buy, and then in the game stick to the DMG wealth levels. That should solve the majority of the god-like PC's. As for killing the King, if the no longer have Thor's Hammer to help them escape, getting cut to ribbons by the royal guard + royal wizard might (might!) bring about a change in tactics.
Good luck
Here here Berkal.
The other thing to remember when dealing with rampant Twinkism is that you have the same options with the enemies and traps they run into and that you se the CR. D&D/Dungeon Magazine acknowledges that there are some encounters characters should just run from twinks almost never think of this as an option. Also min-max characters always have an intrinsic Achilles heel, even if it doesn't show up in stats. Exploit their weaknesses just like they do the monsters in the game.
Then there is also the kid-caught-smoking-by-his-dad option. Give them nothing but combat. All combat all the time every game until they get sick of it. And then play a game as Berkal suggests right out of the core books (point buy, average treasure levels, etc...). Anything not in the core three books books that someone wants to use but you are unsure of take to the leading twink and ask: "What would you do with this were you to make up a character?" When he/she responds with five or six horrible combinations disallow the first three (or the worst) and go from there.
GGG
Argh! Been there, man! In fact I still am somewhat, but it's now under control. And that's what it comes down to: taking control. It's your right and your job as the DM to keep the game under your control and maintain balance. You'll find that simply playing by the rules is the best way to do this. From your description, your group most definitely is not.
Go back through the Core Rule books and take a good look at what the game designers have suggested for you to maintain a fair, balanced game. Start by rigidly following the character by wealth table in the DMG and using the point-buy system for character generation as well. I suggest 32 points to start out since you will be weening your players from their previous methods, but later try to get it down to 28 points. ANd most importantly, DO NOT MIX GAME SUPPLEMENTS! Stick with one set of books and do not EVER allow others to be used. If you just want a straight up Core Rules game (my reccomendation), only allow books published by WoTC (the 3 core books, Complete books, etc.). If you want to use the Quintessential books published by Mongoose then only use those with the core rules books. Your guys like Green Ronin products? Then just use those. You get the idea. My own game was at its worst when my players were bringing in every book stamped with a d20. You've got find one line of books that everyone likes and just stick to those.
The other thing you should experiment with is a few very different adventure types. Those that award the PCs for their roleplaying as opposed to their "roll" playing. Don't deprive them of hacking things to bits entirely, but give them a chance to see how fun the other way can be as well. Of course, this really relies on your own ability to role-play. You need to provide very interesting and fun (and funny!) NPCs for them to interact with - and WANT to interact with.
If none of these work... Well, maybe you just need a new group or have a skewed concept of the game. Whatever the case, good luck! I'd love to hear what you decide to do and if it worked.
These are really good sugesstions!
Unfortuantely, I'm too lazy to use them. I only have so many hours of game prep, and I don't have a perfect understanding of the rules anyway (even after 20 years of gaming). Mainly this is because I'm too busy coming up with NPCs, Plots, Campaign elements, and other devices that build the story/setting.
If I could only add one sugesstion among all the good ones that have been offered on this post. . . it would be this:
Talk to your players.
Let them know how you feel. This is a game, and it's supposed to be fun for everybody (as Medesha said). If your players perceive your discomfort and react poorly anyway, then they don't respect you, and obviously don't care about your enjoyment.
D&D isn't a game of chess, where it's PCs vs. DMs in a battle of who knows the rules and who can exploit each others weaknesses in a one-upping contest.
When you make a character and pretend to be something you're not, you've opened yourself up to possibilities about who you are, and who you WANT to be. This can make you very vulnerable. The more you buy into it, the more vulnerable you become. Fortunately, this is also true of everyone else you're playing with. Hopefully, uou find yourself in a group of gamers who aren't trying to rip out your exposed jugular. . .
Now, If a bunch of guys want to hang around their houses wearing their Pjs and reading every core book from every published gaming system for hours on end, just so they can min/max during their game, that's great.
Just don't expect me to stick around.
There are times when I'll simply declare 'miss' and watch him protest, saying "That should hit - why didn't it hit?"...and then reply, "There are variables at work that you have no perception of, nor am I obligated to reveal them to you - your character is not omnicient."
...which is a nice, game-mechanics way of saying, "You missed because I wished you to."
Honestly, if I found out my DM was doing this regularly, I'd probably quit. If you're going to take over my character for me, why am I even playing? If a DM wants to make "a story" over a game, then he should be writing novels.
A game requires the involvement of all participants. Taking power away from your characters (not limiting it but taking it away) hamstringing them, forcing them to take certain options, railroading them - it turns the game into something only the DM is playing. Everyone else is just along for the ride.
Some players enjoy that, and if everyone is having fun, you're playing it the right way. But I don't find that fun at all.
The fact that my DM gives me responsibility makes for some of the most powerful and moving campaigns I've ever had the joy to play.
-Amber S.
|
- If they can beat encounters 3 CRs higher than they normally would with these maxed skills, simply increase the encounter CRs by SIX...
THAT'S the Chicago way!
I've been on both sides of the screen and seen this type of powergaming going on. And, yeah, nothing makes me want to toss the dice back in the bag and get out quicker. A lot of the suggestions that are being given here are really good, you just have to find the ones that strikes the right balance for your group. Personally, I don't mind a little bit of railroading or shoe-horning if it keeps things on track. Much like in life, sometimes the choices just get taken away. But Amber is right, if it starts happening too much, you're just there to be a dice roller and not a player.
28 Intelligence? I can't imagine how that is remotely possible without tearing the cover off the Players' Handbook.
Come on, Troy. You're kidding, right? 28 is low.
16 to start; 5 from "level ups"; +6 headband if intellect; +5 inherent from wishes or a tome. There's 32 right there - without going outside the core rules, and without having an 18 to start the game.
***
I'm always amused by the people who believe "powergaming" (or min/max if you prefer that term) are the diametric opposite of "roleplayers." One doesn't preclude the other; nothing prevents that 28 Int wizard from having a super-cool backstory explaining his past, nor does it prevent the player from effectively roleplaying the character.
Honestly, if I found out my DM was doing this regularly, I'd probably quit. If you're going to take over my character for me, why am I even playing? If a DM wants to make "a story" over a game, then he should be writing novels.
A game requires the involvement of all participants. Taking power away from your characters (not limiting it but taking it away) hamstringing them, forcing them to take certain options, railroading them - it turns the game into something only the DM is playing. Everyone else is just along for the ride.
Some players enjoy that, and if everyone is having fun, you're playing...
Amber, none of those things happen regularly at all; if you read the thread, I'll be willing to wager you can't find a single instance where my fudging any roll was noticeable:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/dnd/campaignJournals/anAdventurePathEv ilVariant20042005
I'm not a 14yr old who pads his ego by killing off parties; I've been DMing for the past 22 years with entertainment of the group as my prime directive - and if that involves muting the dominance of an uber-character with maxed skills or preventing one from turning my evening's planned adventures into a three rounds of "Kill it/loot it/next room, please", then it's all for the greater good..!
I consider one of the more important DM skills to be the knowledge of which rolls to fudge (pro or con) and when; abuse of that power is easy, of course...but that's what separates the good DMs from the average, right?
And I've seen what happens when that power is abused, trust me.
M
I'm always amused by the people who believe "powergaming" (or min/max if you prefer that term) are the diametric opposite of "roleplayers." One doesn't preclude the other; nothing prevents that 28 Int wizard from having a super-cool backstory explaining his past, nor does it prevent the player from effectively roleplaying the character.
Exactly. Obviously this guy's group has problems, but it's problems with the players, not the power of their characters. Bad groups and bad games do exist, but can we not bash the powergamers while we brainstorm solutions?
-Amber S.
Amber, none of those things happen regularly at all; if you read the thread, I'll be willing to wager you can't find a single instance where my fudging any roll was noticeable...I'm not a 14yr old who pads his ego by killing off parties; I've been DMing for the past 22 years
I never said you were. For the record, my "pedigree" is only a 15-year bout of DMing. Heh, only.
with entertainment of the group as my prime directive
This is the key phrase. All I'm saying is I wouldn't find a fudging DM entertaining. To each his or her own.
- and if that involves muting the dominance of an uber-character with maxed skills or preventing one from turning my evening's planned adventures into a three rounds of "Kill it/loot it/next room, please", then it's all for the greater good..!
If that's what your player finds fun, aren't you always going to butt heads over it? Sometimes players really enjoy kill it/loot it/next room please, and thwarting that might not be for the "greater good".
Let's face it, you know your party better than anyone else. You know how to make sure everyone has a good time. All I'M saying is that what works for one party doesn't always work for another. "The fun way" is different for everyone, and if the DM is constantly fudging rolls to keep the game "on track", constantly vetoing his player's choices and powers, and constantly getting headaches - maybe he's playing with the wrong group.
I consider one of the more important DM skills to be the knowledge of which rolls to fudge (pro or con) and when; abuse of that power is easy, of course...but that's what separates the good DMs from the average, right?
And I've seen what happens when that power is abused, trust me.
Oh, I believe you. I've seen a lot of abuse and bad games in my life. Perhaps I've had one too many DMs who - I kid you not - attacked the party with invisible monsters every time they strayed from the adventure path, and it's made me antsy.
But I don't believe the DM is "in charge" of the game. The rules are in charge of the game. As a DM, my job is to interpret and track the rules for the players and keep the world consistent around them. Other people, like you, may play a different way, and that's cool IF everyone is having fun.
If the DM isn't having fun, something is wrong. If the players are frothing at the mouth because the DM keeps punishing them for min/maxing, something is wrong.
The only point I really want to make is that liking kill it/loot it/move on does NOT make someone a bad person. DMs (and players) who hold other people's playing (and DMing style) in contempt have no business DMing for/playing with those people. It's hurtful and aggravating.
-Amber S.
Amber, none of those things happen regularly at all; if you read the thread, I'll be willing to wager you can't find a single instance where my fudging any roll was noticeable:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/dnd/campaignJournals/anAdventurePathEv ilVariant20042005
I'm not a 14yr old who pads his ego by killing off parties; I've been DMing for the past 22 years with entertainment of the group as my prime directive - and if that involves muting the dominance of an uber-character with maxed skills or preventing one from turning my evening's planned adventures into a three rounds of "Kill it/loot it/next room, please", then it's all for the greater good..!
So.... let me see if I understand correctly. What you're saying, bascially, is, "because I haven't been caught cheating yet by one of my players, it's OK."
How is this any different at all from a player who fudges his (or her) rolls?
Bah! I just lost a large post responding to myself. I'll see what I can do to convey the same thoughts... I was looking to soften the impact of my previous post - which comes off sounding a lot harsher than I had intended.
I don't think the DM fudging his rolls in response to a player cheating is a good answer. If everybody has agreed up front that the DM will, on rare ocassion, fudge a roll to further the story, that's fine. I'm glad you and your group are all having fun. Fudging in retaliation of a player's cheating, though, only potentially robs everybody of a good game experience.
I've had a cheater in my games before, and I absolutely pondered fudging rolls so that everything went against her. I'm glad I didn't, though - I would have cheapened my game, and also made myself no "better" than her. Instead, I did two things to resolve it. First, I talked to her. For a long time. I made it known that I knew she was fudging, and that it wasn't going to be tolerated. We talked about the why's and about what to do to help her along.
The other thing I did was to request that everybody (including me) roll all their dice out in the open. I never once "outted" her to the rest of the group - I saw no need to publicly humiliate her, though I did need to nip the problem in the bud. I suspect others in the group knew she was cheating, and I also think they're smart enough to connect that to the rolling out in the open.
***
The issue in this thread isn't "powergaming vs roleplaying" - because there's no such thing. They're not diametrically opposed forces that desire to pull your game apart. I could go into detail about some of my characters - they're numbers and background and such. Or I could present some characters from other games I've played that were strong mechanically and really awesome from a story point of view. But that doesn't answer the problem of this thread.
Instead, it's an issue of players and a DM having different expectations on a game. That's going to lead to somebody not having fun, and that's not cool. This is a game, and like every other game the people playing it should all have fun.
So.... let me see if I understand correctly. What you're saying, bascially, is, "because I haven't been caught cheating yet by one of my players, it's OK."
How is this any different at all from a player who fudges his (or her) rolls?
Actually, the difference is quite clear; a die roll represents the random resolution of a game variable. A DM is within his rights to never use dice at all and resolve every variable, but this is an extreme example and would be little more than interactive storytelling (as mentioned earlier by Amber).
Technically, the players could do this also, but there is obvious bias in the anticipated results (I hit...yeah, that's fourteen in a row...but this one wasn't a crit!)
If you want to define a modified or disregarded die roll as cheating, then I'll be the first to tell you that I've cheated many times to prevent the party from getting killed off outright, to keep a colorful, dominant player character from being disintegrated and to keep the game moving forward in a productive, entertaining and thrill-enducing manner.
M
with entertainment of the group as my prime directiveThis is the key phrase. All I'm saying is I wouldn't find a fudging DM entertaining. To each his or her own.
The issue to me isn't the power of being able to fudge numbers - the issue would be WHY...selfish or productive reasons...
Sometimes players really enjoy kill it/loot it/next room please...
I agree; been there, done that, read the book. I cater to the group's style.
I also agree that a DM that vetoes everything that the players do and overrides all their powers is effectively negating the characters and the players, resulting in a table full of people who are listening to the DM tell a story.
Anecdote: I actually STOLE another DM's group once because he was doing this exact thing to a group of newbie players; his girlfriend was a 4th level druid with four animal companions - to defend her from the other 8 players, who were all 1st level because every session consisted of them conspiring to kill the druid, attacking her, and then having the DM ensure their failure (without rolling ANY dice, I add), death, and thus restart the cycle by rerolling new characters!
Were these people having fun? Of course not.
When my friend told me of this game, I HAD to go see for myself; I joined the group and witnessed the horror of all these poor sould being introduced to D&D the wrong way - I whispered to my friend, "These people need to see the game the way it SHOULD be played." We quietly agreed to meet ay my place next session.
To end the story, after that first session at my place the next week, they were all thanking me for taking over.
I think our opinions are divergent in method but convergent on intent; I'm all for bending the rules for the sake of drama and story tension, while you're more of an administrator to the material. I'm sure that most DMs out there are a varied mix of both and would fall to either side of us as well as in between.
M
Marc (and anybody else interested) - to keep this thread on topic, I've started another thread intended to discuss the pros and cons of fudging/altering/whatever-word-you-like die rolls. I'd really prefer to keep this thread on helping the original poster resolve the conflict in his game, rather than hijacking it into another topic all together.
Marc: Yeah, I hear you on that. I'm guilty of "poaching" games now and then. Usually I'm very subtle about it, but one one was so bad that I actually got up and left with a "anyone who wants to play something good follow me" dictum. (They followed!)
I agree that we're converging on divergence...or whatever you said that sounded smart. ;-) To answer your question about motives, allow me to provide an anecdote...
I play a solo character in a very RP-heavy game with a very consistent DM. He doesn't fudge rules for the sake of the story, even though the nature of the game makes it all about the story.
Early on in the game, my character (a young guild thief) fell in love with her guild boss. The very next session, a rival organization tried to replace her boss/lover with a doppleganger.
Well, I must have made eight Will saves in a row. The doppleganger could not read my mind for love or money. The poor thing was reduced to trying to get me drunk. I rolled a 20 on a Sense Motive check and quickly figured out something was not right. A tense session later and I'd killed the 'ganger and saved my lover.
I know my DM was tempted to fudge the DC on that Will save. Who wouldn't be tempted? Here is the perfect setup and the dice are "ruining" it. But he didn't, he played it straight, and it was one of the most memorable sessions we had.
The story does not end there. Some time later my thief, still in love and now with dreams of retirement and motherhood in her confused little mind, broke into a vampire's tower (she didn't know he was a vampire at the time). During her explorations and thieving, she came across a horrifying sight - the lord of the tower, revealed as a hideous undead monster, about to devour a human infant.
Did I pray to the god of dice! The vampire raised the baby up - I raised my crossbow - and rolled an Initiative of 8. Bye bye baby.
The horror of that moment is permanently etched on my brain. Not merely because it was horrifying, but because I KNOW the DM was fair with me. I had the chance to save the baby - it was all down to me, my decisions, and the dice. The DM's history of allowing my character to drive the story and not his own goals was unimpeachable, as the doppleganger incident illustrated. He wouldn't change the rules against me, and he wouldn't do it for me either. I'd watched the vampire for several rounds before becoming certain of his intent. If I'd acted sooner, it might have gone differently. If only...if only...
You see what I'm saying? The knowledge that there is no predetermined outcome makes for a really visceral game. If I'd suspected even once that my DM was fudging, it would be easy to write it off as "oh, there was no chance of me saving the kid anyway. It was part of the story." But when there is no "story", the game can become more intense than the players can imagine.
But, not to blow my own horn, that requires a certain calibre of player. And I like mixing up the intenseive roleplaying games with hack-n'-slash. And...if I had a point here, I've lost it.
-Amber S.
Marc: Yeah, I hear you on that. I'm guilty of "poaching" games now and then. Usually I'm very subtle about it, but one one was so bad that I actually got up and left with a "anyone who wants to play something good follow me" dictum. (They followed...
Apologies for getting off topic, Airwalker.
I'm going to weigh in with Amber here. In the past my groups have had a major history of 'fudged' rolls (both when I was playing and when I was DMing) and while it definitely served its purpose - keeping everybody alive/playing/following the general idea of the campaign - that's only one way to play, and after a while we all started to feel like something was missing. It wasn't until we stopped fudging rolls that we realized what it was - the sense of DANGER! Once you've fudged enough rolls to keep everyone happy and involved, the players start to realize that they can never die (because the DM doesn't want them to have to sit out) and, even if they try not to let it affect the way the play, it still begins manifesting itself. Combat is less nerve-wracking. Emergencies are less urgent. The fudging method has its place, but if you haven't tried playing it straight, I highly encourage it.
As for min-maxing, I've never really gone in for that (in theory because I'm a 'roleplayer' first, but really because I just don't want to spend the time necessary to learn how) but I think that it's only really a problem if ONE member of the party is min-maxed. Nothing's more annoying than being relegated to 'sidekick' just because another player beefed up his character. At the same time, however, if EVERYBODY's at the same (albeit insanely high) level o' goodness... what's the problem? Just up the encounter levels or, as Amber said, find yourself a new group.
Finally, in terms of characters playing straight-up hack n' slash as opposed to roleplaying... I feel your pain. One of my long-time gaming companions went through a phase where he didn't even bother describing his actions in combat - just made a chopping gesture every round. While that's a little much, sometimes the best campaigns are the ones where your carefully constructed plot is blown to hell by the PC's wailing on somebody crucial or running away from the fight you'd set up for them. I almost think being a DM is more fun in that situation - flying by the seat of your pants, reacting to character actions rather than them plodding through whatever you've set up... there's something to be said for games where even the DM is surprised at the outcome. If you're really attached to whatever you had set up - change some names and recycle it later when the PCs aren't feeling quite so inventive! :)
Alright, that's my two cents (plus about three bucks) - I'm going to get back to this whole 'job' thing.
-James
I agree with the sentiment expressed here. Published D&D always included power-gaming aspects, but they were never played-up as much as they are in recent years. If you don't believe me, go look at the products from older editions. They all include magic items, spells, etc, but there was not this focus on endless new "kewl powerz" and making a super-character with levels in like eight classes. Heck, Dragon magazine even includes "Power Play" sidebars that read like cheesy Magic: the Gathering card combos and never fail to make me feel that the material has degenerated significantly by playing to this mindset so much. It all seems so dry and mechanical to me. Shallow. No imagination.
I'm glad you brought this up. I was wondering what other DM's thought about all the new goodies. However, I think you just need to re-look at the solution to your dillema.
There are many facets to this topic. It's something I've run into with other RPG's in the past as well, so it's not just D&D.
However, here's my possible solution(s):
1.) Set a cap for skill bonuses. (say, +15 max on any skill)
2.) Don't forget max skill ranks in any given skill are already built-in to some degree.
3.) Eliminate "Synergy" bonuses for skills all together if you have to.
4.) Set higher subtraction modifiers for DC's. (Use a 25 DC instead of a 15, for instance.)
5.) Remember that Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate are things that might NEVER work on a Red Dragon, regardless of their bonus in the skill. After all, you role-play the dragon, not the PC.
6.) Stir it up. Don't let players think they know everything about the AC of a monster. Chaos monsters work great for this, as they might have random AC's and abilities each round... ;-)
7.) Keep the adventure and encounters at or near the level of the players. If they have a 30AC, make monsters that have a 30AC or higher.
8.) Know their weaknesses, and exploit them. If you know the party has an overall really low spot, use spot rolls all the time. If one of them has a really high spot, make it so spot is relative to wherever that PC is, and not where the others are, or make a monster with sick bonuses to hide and move silent.
It's all about finding the proper balance for the game. Too easy and they get bored, too hard and they get frustrated.
Anti-magic fields and anti-magic clothing, by the way, are an excellent way to level the playing field... ;-)
Oh, and don't forget, skill checks of any kind during combat usually take up a full round of actions. (or longer)
Touch and Flat-footed AC's are also great field leveling choices. Feats are almost always countered or balanced by another feat, same as skills.
Spell resistance and immunity are a wonderful thing for your monsters, as are damage reduction against any given kind of weapon type.
You can always create a creature they just can't beat. Plain and simple.
Example: My party is fighting a 16th level vampire/werewolf lord lycanthrope that can only be hurt by a few things: Silver/15, Sunlight/15, and Heal spells/10. Nothing else harms it. Period. Holy Water and Garlic anger it greatly but don't do enough damage to cause permanent harm to it with it's round-by-round regeneration. (It regenerates hp at 15/round.) It's immune to fire, acid, electric, cold, sonic, and the rest. It's got improved evasion, hide in plain sight, and a pile of other feats, same as your Epic players.
Oh, and it's in an underground lair where they're fighting it, it can us a standard action to sunder any non-magic weapon at medium range, and most heal spells are touch range. It also has access to a good deal of Vile Darkness and Evocation spells.
Good luck.
:-)
- Warcry
I agree with the sentiment expressed here. Published D&D always included power-gaming aspects, but they were never played-up as much as they are in recent years. If you don't believe me, go look at the products from older editions. They all include magic items, spells, etc, but there was not this focus on endless new "kewl powerz" and making a super-character with levels in like eight classes. Heck, Dragon magazine even includes "Power Play" sidebars that read like cheesy Magic: the Gathering card combos and never fail to make me feel that the material has degenerated significantly by playing to this mindset so much. It all seems so dry and mechanical to me. Shallow. No imagination.
I think the change has been because of the younger generations' having been raised on the video-game method of, 'play - gain power - play - fight bigger foe - play - gain skill - play - fight bigger foe - play - gain power...etc.'
I think that the concept of "power-ups" have creeped into the game mechanics, for better or worse; how it's utilized is up to the players and DM.
M
Yamo, what the game designers have tried to do is give us an infinite amount of options. I kind of felt the same way you do at one point, but that's worn off after really getting into the mechanics side of the game like taking a clock apart to see how it works. If anything, there's even more substance to the game than before. Things are wide open for DMs and players to really go nuts with their imaginations.
As far as the rest of the posts in this thread go, I find that the best advice to Airwalkrr's original dilemma is this:
1- Talk to your players. You can probably fix the problem collectively so that everyone is happy and feels that they contributed. If you have to come up with some house rules in the process, so be it.
2- Maintain game balance at all times. Those ability stats listed in the original post are semi-realistic for high-level PCs, but completely out of whack for anything below 16th-level (maybe even higher). Use the point-buy system so that everyone is playing the same game. Keep track of the character by wealth table to make sure items that will upset balance don't fall into the PCs hands until they should.
3- If you can't find a solution and are still frustrated, find another group, turn the role of DM over to someone else, or find another hobby. D&D is supposed to be fun.
Ya know, I totally understand where you're coming from, but it's a players right and totally with in the rules. So, really it's the rules.
I'm look...I was where you were when these rules came out. Now, I have a couple minor, very minor, house rules. You can't go denying characters because they take feats or skills that best benefit themselves.
What your saying is basically you don't want to allow a human barbarian to take exotic weapon and power attack feat with spiked chain. WHY? Is there something there that says they can't? No. You're basically telling them not to play that character.
I have played SO MANY and run SO MANY games that it all boils down to one person. The DM. Set your story, set your guide lines, set house rules, etc. You're only going to get trouble if that's what you bring to the table.
Bottom line. 3/3.5 rules have forced DM's to be better faster thinking DM's.
Some people have mentioned that roleplayering and powergamering are not mutually exclusive. I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean playing with a role-playing powergamer is any more fun than playing with a roll-playing powergamer. I offer the following analogy to explain my points. (Disclaimer: parents, you might want to cover your children's eyes if you haven't taught them about the "facts of life" yet.)
When you begin your career as a 1st level character and spend your entire career hunting down the lich that destroyed your party's home kingdom before you were born, the encounter should be intense, exciting, challenging, and take at least a moderate level of work and clever thinking. However if the party manages to disintegrate the lich in one round because the spellcaster has augmented his DC to 39, the whole campaign becomes a downer. I know this is a bad analogy for gamers (no offense), but it's a lot like sex. If you climax in 6 seconds, it isn't really much fun (and you're likely to anger your partner). There isn't much point to that kind of sex, and there isn't much point to that kind of D&D encounter. Sure, you get a momentary power trip, but things like that are so much better when they are savored.
That's all I'm trying to say: savor the experience. Enjoy the challenge of playing a less-than-optimized character. There's nothing impressive about a wizard with 36 Intelligence who successfully disintegrates his enemies 95% of the time. You EXPECT him to succeed. However the wizard who deceives his enemies and cleverly uses a combination of spells to disable them is commendable. While one character would need the deck stacked against him to have a reasonable chance of defeat, the other is truly heroic because he is overcoming the odds.
I don't think powergamers are bad people. I just think they are missing the point. They are using the game for cheap thrills when they could be having an epic experience. And that's not to say I think my way of playing the game is the "right way." If a group of powergamers play with a powergaming DM and all have a good time that's perfectly fine. But not everyone enjoys that kind of game while everyone should be able to enjoy a good story. If someone asks you about your "I killed the tarrasque" t-shirt, are you really going to be happy telling them "I just cast vengeful gaze of god" instead of regaling them with a tale of action, adventure and intrigue?
I've never run a "power game" and only played in one "once". By once, I mean that I quit the game after one gaming session when the DM started me off at 17th level just so I could keep pace with the rest of the players.
From the onset, I limit XP awards, when I run a published adventure all the treasure awards are cut to 10% of published amount (and the PC's still get a lot). Right now, my players are 4th level and there is one magic weapon in the party and 4 masterwork weapons. Each PC has about 500-1200 gp in disposable wealth, which is a lot, but leaves the players hungry.
I just converted to 3rd edition last year and I'm still getting used to the system, but I already know that I plan not to use 90% of the magic items listed in the DMG.
I've also never DMed a party past 12th level. After that, the players get "encouraged" to retire their PC--maybe settle down, build an estate, become an elder statesman semi-NPC and if they want continuity--have their children become the new PC's. I make it very clear that if they want to continue "adventuring" at that high level, their PC's life expectancy will be very low. In most of my campaigns, by that level, the PC's have made so many enemies, political and personal, that if they're not super-careful, they will be assassinated or ambushed by some pretty nasty creatures--that's not me getting vengeful, that's just the NPC's in my campaign world not putting up with crap from PC's and having a long memory.
Remember that PC's with a long string of victories against bad guys are going to make lots and lots of long-term enemies, who may band together to do them in. My NPC's and factions are not static, they function in the background like any other organization, they learn--they get wise--they find a way to get payback.
Any of you who have pissed off a local cop in your town may find that the whole Police department now has it out for you--players know that in my campaign if they take out the high Priest of Hextor in Town XYZ, they will find that the whole Church of Hextor will probably make it their personal quest to see the whole party roasted on a spit.
I find that this is the best way to limit "power" gaming. Power goes both ways.
Powergaming tends to stem from three sources. Each one requires a different treatment.
1. Insecurity: No, this is not a rant about RPGers and lack of social skills. This is about how your players feel in your game. Some DMs think its OK to Sunder your favorite sword, steal your spellbook or components, toss in near-immune-to everything monsters or slap on horribly overpowered templates onto monsters(like tossing Half-dragon onto a kobold and trying to call that a CR 3 fight appropriate for 1st level characters instead of an almost certain TPK). Basically, play fair and let them know that you are not one of those DMs who will kill them out of hand using broken rules or cheaterface spells.
2. Keepin' up with the Jones: Yes, some of your players are unwilling PGers. Usually one guy comes along and finds some uber-combo. Then, to challenge this guy, you toss in some powerful monsters and almost kill the other PCs. Maybe this one guy just outshines everyone and the other players start to feel left out. Whatever the reason, if you tone down that one guy, the other players will follow suit.
3. Love of the Min/Max: This is the toughest one. Some players are just better at looking at the numbers and potential tactics and coming up with more viable characters. Its a fact of life. Rather than using any heavy-handed tactics like denying stuff or tailoring encounters to screw over that guy(like throwing lots of Fire resistant/immune monsters at the Fire Wizard), you need to sit hum down and tell him that your campaign is going to have lots of variety, and his character is going to need to do a lot of things well or else he might feel left out. Min/maxed characters tend to be so tightly focused that they are useless in more than one situation. The Death Magic mage is going to feel a little silly when a treasure is kept from him for lack of a Fly spell or a diverted river washes away an important magic item because he didn'thave any wall spells to close a breach.
I've never run a "power game" and only played in one "once"~
~Right now, my players are 4th level and there is one magic weapon in the party and 4 masterwork weapons. Each PC has about 500-1200 gp in disposable wealth, which is a lot, but leaves the players hungry.
~I've also never DMed a party past 12th level. After that, the players get "encouraged" to retire their PC--maybe settle down, build an estate, become an elder statesman semi-NPC and if they want continuity--have their children become the new PC's.~
You and I run games in the same spirit, fw2k's; we limit power gaming by ending a character's career before it ever gets to that point...
The reasoning: when a character reaches a certain level of power, they are going to achieve their "career goals", be it lordship over a keep, temple, city, kingdom, etc. - or perhaps wealth beyond their dreams, or even dominion over a bandit clan; regardless, once this point is reached, further endangering themselves is no longer worth the risk.We all know that the higher level you get, the more likely you are to have a "save or die" encounter...most reasonable characters will retire before then, or risk death at the hands of a powerful monster, threatened NPC, or even the local power structure (King, Lord, Council, etc.) who fears they usurp their authority.
I see no logic in an adventuring party with more power and wealth than the very armies of any Kingdom they walk in; they would eventually be turned on by all of society, simply for being potential despots.
M
Marc,
I agree--once the PC's "feel" like their characters can't be beaten easily and they "feel" like their characters have achieved something (like lord status, High Priest) or whatever--I've had very few players resist the offer to retire the character and start over--especially when their new character is tied into their old campaign somehow (the child of a PC, some other connection).
I then usually turn the old PC into a patron---and sometimes even allow old players to unretire their PC for a special game session---like when enough players can't make the regular game.
In those cases, I might offer that the players unretire their favorite "retired" PC for a special one time game--and I usually run them through some high level Dungeon adventure that I've modified so it can be finished in 5-6 hours.
I think players find it a lot easier to swallow to have one of their favorite killer PC's retired when they realize that the PC is still going to play some sort of role in the campaign.
Im somewhere between my 4th and 5th year of official D&D (before that we tried to understand 2nd edition or just made our own d20 games out of boredom).
I admit I was totally into the powergaming, it felt just incredible to be so godly, its like how god feels when he's holding a gun.
One excellent example was my gnoll waker of the beast/dragon disciple (3rd edition, not 3.5) and some other horrible things and somehow (i cant remember) with epic levels and every available magic item and everything I was able to legally get his strength into the 90s O.o (i was going for 100+ but the campaign ended) he killed the gods in 2 rounds usually, maybe 3 at most.
If I was to remake him I would have to have him go waker of the beast then probably warhulk o.O.
But I guess it was a phase for us, I still have the pull of a powergamer in me that will probably never leave and still want to make bad-ass characters, but now I want to make something just a little less godly where now I want to actually feel a bit challenged, they are still powerful in their own right but are a wee bit more balanced IMO.
As I said, now with the 3.5 rules I go for something with a bit more flavor, like Im trying to make a Cao Pi character (dynasty warriors 5) that will probably be a kensai (fighter variant from one of the first 3.5 dragon magazines) or fighter then have him go with a kensai prestige class with a double bladed sword exotic weapon. Though he is still incredibly powerful with that weapon in his hand, he is still nothing compared to the old characters I use to make doing 200 some odd damage a round (a kobold half dragon war master war lord with an army and flying castle and blue dragon cohort mount that kills kurtulmak and hextor...ouch)
So all in all for my experiences, we mostly make balanced characters (if only we could find a dm to use them with) we now make min/maxed characters mainly as a novelty to show off the cool combos we found, though now and then the combo may be powerful but also just decent enough to be put into a normal game.
Role-playing vs. Roll-playing: The battle has been around as long as RPGs have. There are players that enjoy one, the other, or both. As a long-time Role-player, I like to believe that, once exposed to a more serious gaming experience, players will tend to shift their priorities and evolve into the true spirit of the game. (The true spirit of the game is, of course, mine!)
The answer to your dilemma, Airwalkrr, is this: Surround yourself with players that play D&D on the same level as you, and do not descend to a level that you feel is beneath you.
Of course, you have to play with them to know what type they are, so I suggest inviting new players for a short, one-nighter game session to see if they fit. (Perhaps an adventure from the pages of Dungeon?) If you cannot find players you like in your area, think about playing online with a program like OpenRPG, also nice for continuing to play with good players that move away.
Come on, Troy. You're kidding, right? 28 is low.
16 to start; 5 from "level ups"; +6 headband if intellect; +5 inherent from wishes or a tome. There's 32 right there - without going outside the core rules, and without having an 18 to start the game.
I must have missed that part about +6 headbands in my Player's Handbook.
The point about the Wish spell is well taken, though. It's good point.
However, I was also not aware we were talking about Level 20 characters (or Level 17 characters casting 9th level spells). We could be, mind you, I just didn't notice it. I was imagining a low-to-mid-level character with that intelligence, not an epic-level or near-epic character with miles of game play behind it.
If so, I'm sorry I missed that part or explanation.
I was under the impression we were talking about lower-level characters who make exotic assertions about their characters' powers just to artificially ramp up their scores.
Now, if the DM let a character have access to those things, (especially magic items or a rich uncle with a boatload of wish spells), outside of requisite gameplay, then the GM is creating his own problems.
The DMG is not a shopping list for players... it's a guide for the game master. It's a guide to ideas, a guide to adventure, a guide to what is possible.
But in a well-thought out campaign, not all things found in the DMG are possible. Just because it is in a DMG, doesn't mean it exists in your game. It could exist, then again, it might not.
That's why I'm leery of players who produce powerful magic items and say: "But it's in the DMG. I found it there." The first response by a GM to that should probably be: "What are you doing in the DMG?"
But that's a matter of style ... Every game is different ... I was only expressing sympathy with a GM who seemed frustrated by players who see their enjoyment of the game only in terms of character power.
The rules set is rich and has depth -- and certainly should be explored by players. But because the rules set is rich, it allows development of characters in ways other than simply driving up all the key numbers. And having players enjoy the game on many levels is a worthwhile goal of any GM.
Now, where it that duct tape? I gotta put the cover back on the Players Handbook.
However, I was also not aware we were talking about Level 20 characters (or Level 17 characters casting 9th level spells). We could be, mind you, I just didn't notice it. I was imagining a low-to-mid-level character with that intelligence, not an epic-level or near-epic character with miles of game play behind it.
Fair enough - we don't know what level we're talking about at all. Nor do we even know if any "odd" races or templates have been allowed within the game.
That's why I'm leery of players who produce powerful magic items and say: "But it's in the DMG. I found it there." The first response by a GM to that should probably be: "What are you doing in the DMG?"
Except there are places with the Player's Handbook where it specifically tells the player to go look at the DMG. Item Creation, in fact, is one such place. I don't have my books here (I'm at work), but I can get you page numbers later if you'd like (though I'm guessing it won't be necessary).
But that's a matter of style ... Every game is different ...
I completely agree with these statements.
I was only expressing sympathy with a GM who seemed frustrated by players who see their enjoyment of the game only in terms of character power.
Or is it a case of the DM perceiving it that way?
I enjoy the "numbers" aspect of D&D. I like to fiddle with skills, feats, spells, PrCs, whatever. Digging through the rules, seeing how stuff interacts and such brings me great enjoyment. Talking about my character's numerical abilities is fun for me. Now, I'm a highly analytical person. Heck - a large part of my job requires data analysis (I'm a computer programmer).
If one based their opinion of my gaming style only on my posts on various message boards, though... well, they'd be wrong. I love the story. I often make character decisions based upon in-game events, or work with a DM or another player to help justify a mechanical decision.
Blech - now we're running off-topic, I think.
The rules set is rich and has depth -- and certainly should be explored by players. But because the rules set is rich, it allows development of characters in ways other than simply driving up all the key numbers. And having players enjoy the game on many levels is a worthwhile goal of any GM.
As a DM, I work with players to allow them to make effective characters. I'm always willing to offer advice about decisions, make suggestions, etc. In the end, though, the decision lies with the player. I feel it's my job as DM to build the campaign around their decisions. Whether they make decisions that lead to uber-powerful characters or "normal" characters, that's fine. I can come up with a story and plot that challenges them either way.
Now, where it that duct tape? I gotta put the cover back on the Players Handbook.
Ah, duct tape. The cure for everything. :D
OK, this may sound harsh, but here goes....
As DM, you are the Grand Imperial Pooh-Bah of the campaign. If the players and you don't mesh, then it's not up to you to change the campaign for them. Frankly, most players don't pay enough for that.
I'm an old-school D&Der (since 1978), and I've noticed that the younger players (as a gross generalization) are more interested in character optimization than roleplaying. That's cool; some people like low-rider bicycles, too.
Not me. I'm in it for the story, for the experience, and for the moments when the players finish the task, or find something out, and it's all worth it.
The first paragraph of my House Rules document: "Character races, classes, feats, skills, and spells will initially be limited to the Player's Handbook. Additional prestige classes, feats, spells, etc, from the Dungeon Master’s Guide, Monster Manual, or other sources (including Complete Whatever books, other WotC sources, or even player-invented material) will be allowed only with explicit DM permission."
Every magic item valued over 2000 GP has a history and distinct abilities. There are very few +1 swords, and a whole lot of "ring of shielding - this ring grows into a small steel shield with a +1 enchantment, or reduces back to a ring as a free action, one action per round".
If some action, feat, or piece of gear isn't going to fit in the campaign, it's gone. That's why there are no spiked chains in my campaign. If you want a spiked chain, you can either go elsewhere, or build one and we'll go into the woods and you can prove to me that it's an effective melee weapon and not just a tree-catcher.
The NPCs are generally constructed to challenge the players, who have to give me copies of their character sheets, so I can challenge them (and so I can check their math when the inevitable questions arise).
Yeah, I'm being really harsh here. But I spend 2-3 hours planning and writing for every hour of game time. I own that campaign, if by nothing more than the time I've got vested in it. And no rules-lawyer munchkin is going to take it away by building a Hulking Hurler that can throw Cadillacs around (the old Caddys, back when they were like 3-4 tons).
If your players don't like it, they're certainly free to go find another DM or to even go create a world to their liking. Perhaps then they'll understand that it's not about defeating the DM, but about roleplaying.
Telas
OK, this may sound harsh, but here goes....
I didn't think that was harsh.
The DM does invest more time and effort in a game than do players, and it's only fair that you safeguard your investment.
As long as you are up-front about your expectations and limitations, players are free to decide if your game is for them or to pass.
My group of players' characters look like this: 12th level barbarian, 12th level fighter, 6th level fighter/ 6th level barbarian/1st level cleric, 11th level barbarian/ 1st level thief.
They must all have pretty low will saves. Ever tried even a simple Charm person? Or go ahead and use Dominate monster and make the fighter attack the barbarian...
Now I play a variety of D&D games. RPGA sanctioned games like Legacy of the Green Regent and Living Greyhawk are quite popular. I also like to run Dungeon modules as one shots from time to time. Occassionally I'll convert one of my old 1st or 2nd edition modules to 3.5 for my group to play as well. But it doesn't matter what the campaign is, what the character creation rules are, or how many players sit at the table. It inevitably turns into a big game of Players Vs. DM where...
I get the impression here that we are talking about one shot D&D games. I can certianly see how that can be a problem in terms of power gaming. I mean if I where to sit in on a one off game and was told to put together a 12th level character or some other fairly high level character you know I'm going to be pretty light on the back ground material. If the adventure we are going on is called The Dungeon of Doom (or Castle Maure) I'm not going to be putting my skills into gambling. My stats won't usually help me talk to things etc.
Its a different story some what if you start at 1st level and you don't know what the future holds. A character can't easily get around in the world without any social skills (except for Trapmasters players) and here the DM has a good opportunity to work with the players in creating some kind of a character back ground. My feeling is whatever is broken within the rules just gets so much worse when one starts doing one offs. In cases of one off matches I'd be really strict about what kind of items where allowed. Maybe even make a bunch of characters yourself and allow teh players to choose from among the options rather then allowing them to roll 10th level characters up from scratch.
I think you may need to grow some bigger juevos and recall rule #1 as a DM - YOU are master of your world, not the rules.Your solution: begin to declare successes/failures based on your plot needs and DISREGARD some of your super-characters' modifiers, or simply "counter-modify" some of their rolls based on other variables (weather, light, circumstances, time, etc.) - just remember that, as DM, no character can run your game for you simply by having a +25 modifier; if your plot will be moved forward and made more exciting for all by having a certain trap NOT be found and disarmed by your super-rogue, simply GUARANTEE that he won't!
Another option would be to take advantage of your players maxing out skills by having the plot demand that they roll checks for OTHER skills - as in, those that they ignored in favor of the 'popular' skills they maxed out. Have a haughty NPC noble refuse to deal with the party unless one of them can demonstrate their class by creating a piece of artwork (craft)...or perhaps charm a local artist (gather info.) to make one on their behalf(bluff, diplomacy), secretly(diplomacy, intimidate, bluff, disguise)...etc, etc...
Good suggestions... most of which I'm barely following because my group doesn't play 3rd ed, but I get the gist of it. ;)
Along those lines... We play a stripped down version because the group as a whole prefers role play to calculators. Occasionaly, however, one of the players will crack open the PHB like it's some newly discovered archeological find and announce... "Wow! Did you know we could do THIS??!!". At which point, our head DM will calmly look at the player and say, "Yes... and so can the bad guys... and I can add in all the other modifiers that the bad guys aren't currently using, too."
That usually ends the discussion.
When I'm DMing, if characters overuse something I find a way to make them stop. Some may say it's not being fair, but I tend to think of it as keeping the balance. And as far as storyline goes, it would make sense that if the PCs follow a predictable pattern for every encounter, word will get around and their adversaries will become prepared.
One example: In some resource somewhere (I don't remember where it came from, whether the Wizards Spell Compendium or an on-line reference) there's a spell called "Anvil Fall" which does exactly what it sounds like (as in old Road Runner cartoons). Ha-ha, funny, yeah... but it made it into gameplay (our head DM's choice, not mine) and became one player's standard attack, with very high damage because it wasn't meant for game use.
I didn't pull the spell because I don't like penalizing my players that way and binding their hands.
I just had the giant she cast the spell on catch it, throw it back at her, and inflict both the damage she rolled AND his strength adjustment.
She hasn't cast it since. ;)
i've played for almost 15 years now and i've seen almost every type of player attempt at min maxing. from the one guy who wanted to play a (second edition) Athasian (Darksun) half giant in the forgotten realms as a paladin (who got mad because i would not allow him to jump on a Fireball and absorb all the damage, then killed himself because i told him to read the spell as it detonates on impact), t the one who was unhappy because hi character had 1 stat below ten and thought his character was flawed and useless (he also has 1 12, 2 14's and 2 16's.)
people get this idea in their heads that low stats make a worthles character.
My point is that gamers ( & GM's) sometimes need to roll back the silliness clock, there are some things, such as getting a dragon to hand over some of it's treasure, that should/would never happen. Dragons are, by their nature greedy and covetious, does it make sence to let him give it up, they would most likely fry the entire goup once the suggestion was made. or hand over every poison, cursed item, and baneful items, wait til the party has left the cave than attack them where he can use his most powerful abilities.
DM's control the game, or the players do, either way its up to the person to make the game they want to play, if the characters have abilities, let them use them, but interject a little reality and keep track of monster/npc motivations and you will find that most player hacks into the game won't necessarily work.
Man its fustraiting when you try to make them the heros and they kill the damn king amd escape. Uhhhhh. I feel your pain.How about giving your king a higherlvl better equiped body guard Who shows up at the last minute to save the king , maybe a psionic warrior with the power to switch places with the king at the last minute. Then begin the beat down :)
As for roleplayers i have a few here in north texas and most they do like to creat a nice detailed background with family, history, and motives. But alas i still have the few that are "powergamers" but over all i control what gets released in my world. I also control what magic items are available to them.
Only when i become lax in my duties as a DM do they become unstoppable. Just remember the players cant get the item unless you let them , and i know many dm's that buckle because they are playing with friends and dont want to make anyone mad, But this is the dm's game too and the fun goes away fast if the players mow through a adventure that the Dm has worked long and hard on.