I agree, except that I don't know that it even needs to be with "books". An entire book might be really good except for that one spell/prestige class/magic item/feat/what have you. ANYTHING outside of what I allow (not just books) need to go through me. I don't have the time to read an entire book and find out if it is good or bad, but I can take a look at one thing at a time and try and work out the pros and cons of said item.
This is what I do. I don't allow "all things which are in Complete books" or "all things printed in Dragon", but if you find a nice thing there, I allow it. At least for now.
Similarly, I do get peeved if someone starts abusing things from Core rules...so I might forbid some core spells or feats.But part of this is philosophical discussion "what is a game" etc. and what role does pre-set rules agreed by everyone play in enjoyment of the game, and this is where people have different opinions. For me rules are strictly a tool of storytelling, and thus reasonably modifiable. However, they and random elements like dice also do provide that focus and direction to the storytelling and thus are good things to have in moderation (someone might argue that using dice is limiting the liberty of the players and thus less fun).
My group plays the SCAP with all splatbooks possible and it´s really hard for me as GM to keep track of all those prestige classes, feats and spells.
But the biggest mistake was to let the players buy everything possible from the Magic items compendium when they created new characters at higher levels.
So now every player already posesses the ultimate equipment for his given level (if he can pay it of course) and it clearly is hard to hand out better equipment as loot. So as they looted a +2 flaming frost greatsword the only reaction was: "We got better, let´s sell it".
(Problem with this situation is of course, that we decided to do it that way when i was a player and at that time i was enthrilled by the posibility to equip my characters with everything i can. So now as a GM it´s difficult to undo the damage)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Sorry, but now I'm confused. If you want a feat that is not justified by your original character concept, and you feel you need a backstory to explain how your character acquired the feat, then to me it sounds like the mechanics are your primary motivation (with a secondary desire to explain everything story-wise) - otherwise, you would be just as happy to play the character without that feat, and find one that fit better with your character concept.Take for instance my current Character. I want to take a Feat that doesn't really fit with the concept I have in mind, so I have to come up with a backstory to justify taking that Feat. This is just me, my DM only knows the bare basics of the Character I am making.
I can see where you're coming from here, but I did also say that while the Back Story/Concept of the Character is the most important aspect for me I do also want to maximise to survivability potential for the character as well. I don't want to play this cool concept and have them die straight away (which has happened). Thus I want to take a Feat which doesn't impact on the overall concept of the character, but it doesn't quite match the class choice I've made. Thus I have to fit it into the Character's Back Story. Alot of my friends don't even make their own characters and care nothing for the Back Story of their Character. I think it says something that I do care and that I want to make that Character work on all levels of play.
I can see where you're coming from here, but I did also say that while the Back Story/Concept of the Character is the most important aspect for me I do also want to maximise to survivability potential for the character as well. I don't want to play this cool concept and have them die straight away (which has happened). Thus I want to take a Feat which doesn't impact on the overall concept of the character, but it doesn't quite match the class choice I've made. Thus I have to fit it into the Character's Back Story. Alot of my friends don't even make their own characters and care nothing for the Back Story of their Character. I think it says something that I do care and that I want to make that Character work on all levels of play.Sorry, but now I'm confused. If you want a feat that is not justified by your original character concept, and you feel you need a backstory to explain how your character acquired the feat, then to me it sounds like the mechanics are your primary motivation (with a secondary desire to explain everything story-wise) - otherwise, you would be just as happy to play the character without that feat, and find one that fit better with your character concept.Take for instance my current Character. I want to take a Feat that doesn't really fit with the concept I have in mind, so I have to come up with a backstory to justify taking that Feat. This is just me, my DM only knows the bare basics of the Character I am making.
Yes, it says you care about the role in RPG, not just roll. It also makes me think that your DM's campaign is tilted more towards roll. Simple characters are easily replaced. Is your character outlook unique in your group?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Is your character outlook unique in your group?
Yes.
The Players either don't make their own characters and get someone else to, or want to try to maximise their build (sometimes using web based concepts).I am guilty in some respects of wanting to maximise my character (who isn't) but I still think that the primary focus should be about making a Character that you enjoy playing and feel a connection to. Maximising the build does come second but it is still very important in terms of survivability for a cahracter that I have invested a lot of effort into creating.
Is your character outlook unique in your group?Yes.
The Players either don't make their own characters and get someone else to, or want to try to maximise their build (sometimes using web based concepts).I am guilty in some respects of wanting to maximise my character (who isn't) but I still think that the primary focus should be about making a Character that you enjoy playing and feel a connection to. Maximising the build does come second but it is still very important in terms of survivability for a cahracter that I have invested a lot of effort into creating.
You're battling on several fronts. If your group doesn't find the character aspects appealing why would your DM put time into expanding beyond the core. Or the dreaded catch-22. Your group doesn't explore the character concepts because of the DM's restrictions. Either way you're the odd person out. Tough position.
Does your DM put much effort into the campaign, or is it bland? A good DM can still do a good job with core. IF they want to.
You're not alone though. I've had DMs that totally ignored the work I put into character elements. Animal companions killed off (too complicating), homes/keeps destroyed ('PCs don't have homes'), backstory totally ignored. I've had other DMs that have inspired and excited.
It may not be the book selection or # of options that are the problem.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
You're battling on several fronts. If your group doesn't find the character aspects appealing why would your DM put time into expanding beyond the core. Or the dreaded catch-22. Your group doesn't explore the character concepts because of the DM's restrictions. Either way you're the odd person out. Tough position.
Does your DM put much effort into the campaign, or is it bland? A good DM can still do a good job with core. IF they want to.
You're not alone though. I've had DMs that totally ignored the work I put into character elements. Animal companions killed off (too complicating), homes/keeps destroyed ('PCs don't have homes'), backstory totally ignored. I've had other DMs that have inspired and excited.
It may not be the book selection or # of options that are the problem.
He does take time with the Story and puts effort into it, but he is also very rules lawyery as well. He is also a very "my way is the right way and if you disagree with me then you are an idiot" kind of person. He doesn't mind dishing out PC deaths and doesn't pull any punches, which is fine with me (one exception is every player's first character death gets a free "save", which is nice).
He can be open to some new things, but I have practically had to get down on my knees and beg to be able to use them and even then he has been extremely reluctant and there are just some things that are totally off limits for no apparent reason.
|
|
I can see where you're coming from here, but I did also say that while the Back Story/Concept of the Character is the most important aspect for me I do also want to maximise to survivability potential for the character as well. I don't want to play this cool concept and have them die straight away (which has happened). Thus I want to take a Feat which doesn't impact on the overall concept of the character, but it doesn't quite match the class choice I've made. Thus I have to fit it into the Character's Back Story. Alot of my friends don't even make their own characters and care nothing for the Back Story of their Character. I think it says something that I do care and that I want to make that Character work on all levels of play.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify. You are approaching it from an interesting angle - you work very hard on Character, so you don't want your character getting wiped out randomly. It is a neat sort of amalgamation of Storytelling but tempered by Metagaming in order to ensure you can tell the story the way you want. Do I have that right?
I've done similar things, but usually it is a core concept of the character from the start. My tough, destined Mongrelfolk Cleric has both Con 20, Improved Toughness, and all of the Destiny feats from Races of Destiny. It's his shtick that now matter how the chips fall, you can rest assured he will be left standing (if only at 1 hp).
I've probably made more characters that are the opposite - intentionally not very survivable for the sake of Character. Like my Scout/Human Paragon (Order of the Bow/Monk soon) with 35 hp at 7th level.
You're battling on several fronts. If your group doesn't find the character aspects appealing why would your DM put time into expanding beyond the core. Or the dreaded catch-22. Your group doesn't explore the character concepts because of the DM's restrictions. Either way you're the odd person out. Tough position.
Does your DM put much effort into the campaign, or is it bland? A good DM can still do a good job with core. IF they want to.
You're not alone though. I've had DMs that totally ignored the work I put into character elements. Animal companions killed off (too complicating), homes/keeps destroyed ('PCs don't have homes'), backstory totally ignored. I've had other DMs that have inspired and excited.
It may not be the book selection or # of options that are the problem.
He does take time with the Story and puts effort into it, but he is also very rules lawyery as well. He is also a very "my way is the right way and if you disagree with me then you are an idiot" kind of person. He doesn't mind dishing out PC deaths and doesn't pull any punches, which is fine with me (one exception is every player's first character death gets a free "save", which is nice).
He can be open to some new things, but I have practically had to get down on my knees and beg to be able to use them and even then he has been extremely reluctant and there are just some things that are totally off limits for no apparent reason.
Tough, and mostly 'unfixable'. Sounds eerily similar to experiences I've had. We alternate GMs and systems as a result.
Contributor
|
Following on a lot of this discussion, I personally am a bit of a min-maxer, and I like options. But hear me out: my favorite thing in the world is to come up with an interesting concept that is not your typical powergamer build and make it work. Fortunately, the DM I alternate with is exactly the same, so we both are pretty reasonable about allowin balanced material to make a concept work.
On a similar note, another player in our group almost did back-flips of joy when we allowed the Swashbuckler class, which most powergamers will tell you is not as good as the base fighter. But it allowed him to make the character he wanted without having to explain why he was trained in heavy armour etc.
I like to allow people to build the cool character they envision, and have them actually have the ability to back up their coolness with usefulness and competence.
That said, we look closely at every new thing we bring in, and if it is unbalanced, we find a way to balance it before letting it into the game. It's all about give and take and working together to make everyone satisfied with the outcome.
I'm DMing for a group of 8, and I don't think one player has a non-splatbook aspect to their race and/or class choice. The closest thing is the newbie aquatic elf druid. Yup, a newbie with a druid. Her husband plays a halfling swashbuckler/rogue/invisible blade/master thrower/whisperknife. We have a human duskblade/swashbuckler/fortune's friend, a half-elf beguiler, a raptoran evoker, a human ranger/scout archer, goliath monk, and a half-drow bard/swashbuckler.
People like choices. And even if you can use the core plus a dozen splatbooks, you can still make a human fighter if that's what you're into. But just because you like playing human fighters, that shouldn't prevent someone else from playing an illumian spellthief/warmage or a whisper gnome ninja/favored soul or a warforged swashbuckler/archivist if that's what they want to play.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Thanks for taking the time to clarify. You are approaching it from an interesting angle - you work very hard on Character, so you don't want your character getting wiped out randomly. It is a neat sort of amalgamation of Storytelling but tempered by Metagaming in order to ensure you can tell the story the way you want. Do I have that right?
That's pretty much spot on.
I put a lot of time and effort into trying to create a cool Character (not a broken powergaming Character) and it sucks to have them killed 15 minutes after I arrive at the game.The main three ways I approach Character Creation are:
1. Find a picture I like and create a Character concept and Back Story based off that picture. 55%
2. Find a Class combination that I think may work well together and try to build a Character around that. 35%
3. Have a Back Story for a Character and create the concept around that. 10%
Most of my concepts just end up running around my head or get written down but never played, but genarally they will be maximised for my enjoyment of the Character rather than any inherrant need to Powergame (although as I said, there is a little Powergamer in all of us and I do like to see my Characters survive enough that I take that into consideration. I am a bit of an Ability Score Min-Maxer; must go with the name Craig, I like the way RS thinks and Swashbuckler is one of my favourite Classes).
EDIT: Feel free to have a look at my 5 PbP Characters under my profile for some examples of Concepts I like to toy with. =)
|
I think the core problem is fairly simple.
Providing more options is great for a publisher. You get to crank out more books and make more money. But actually keeping the game balanced and interesting is difficult when you're constantly adding new crunchy material. Especially so when you have many different authors with different ideas of what the game should play like. Yes I know that's what editors are for.
Of course WoTC's 3.5 and current and past business model during the 3.5 era is; Add something. Add something to fix or counter something you just added. Rinse and repeat until the game is so convoluted and clunky that people will beg for the next edition.
It's Magic the walletsnatching in book form. Really, compare them.
As an aside, and this is my own personal opinion, I know I should keep my snout shut here. I still believe to this day that Wizards deliberately damaged the 3.5 rules set with the end releases to push people towards 4E. Perhaps not on purpose, the level of care and editing may have just gone to zero once the new edition was being worked on.
So the conclusion basically is you absolutely have to ban certain books and have your players run everything by the DM. It's game table level editing that wasn't provided before the product reached you.
|
|
As an aside, and this is my own personal opinion, I know I should keep my snout shut here. I still believe to this day that Wizards deliberately damaged the 3.5 rules set with the end releases to push people towards 4E. Perhaps not on purpose, the level of care and editing may have just gone to zero once the new edition was being worked on.
With how rushed the 4e felt, I don't think that they were deliberately trying to make crap. In the initial announcements of 4e it really felt to me almost like WotC was as surprised as us that it was coming. (Probably not really true, but that was how it felt to me.)
I don't know what the balance should be from a financial standpoint -- make fewer items well so they sell better or make more items with poorer quality to sell more.
It is difficult to keep up with everything. Especially for those of us with jobs and family and so on.
I am a fan of more options which is why I prefer point buy systems. I do not have to worry about power creep but there is still opportunity for abuse. Of course it is easier to spot abusive abilities from one source rather than 50 new splat books.
I am a fan of more options which is why I prefer point buy systems. I do not have to worry about power creep but there is still opportunity for abuse. Of course it is easier to spot abusive abilities from one source rather than 50 new splat books.
While this is true, most point by systems can be needlessly complicated and suffer from painfully slow character advancement.
|
|
With how rushed the 4e felt, I don't think that they were deliberately trying to make crap. In the initial announcements of 4e it really felt to me almost like WotC was as surprised as us that it was coming. (Probably not really true, but that was how it felt to me.)
I don't know what the balance should be from a financial standpoint -- make fewer items well so they sell better or make more items with poorer quality to sell more.
It is difficult to keep up with everything. Especially for those of us with jobs and family and so on.
I tend to agree with you. The more that I think on it the more I don't really think it was on purpose. So I'll just chalk it up to limited resources and maybe experimenting with an ongoing line in released products is a bad idea. Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnum, and Book of Nine swords, I'm looking at you.
I know what you mean. If you don't have time to review everything just do it on a case by case basis. If nobody in your group ever brings it up then it doesn't matter so much that it's there.
While this is true, most point by systems can be needlessly complicated and suffer from painfully slow character advancement.
As opposed to 3.5 D&D, which suffers from painfully fast character advancement. ;-)
While this is true, most point by systems can be needlessly complicated and suffer from painfully slow character advancement.As opposed to 3.5 D&D, which suffers from painfully fast character advancement. ;-)
Essentially. But, was 3.5 really faster then Ad&d 2nd?
|
|
While this is true, most point by systems can be needlessly complicated and suffer from painfully slow character advancement.As opposed to 3.5 D&D, which suffers from painfully fast character advancement. ;-)
Have you seen the new Pathfinder exp tables? No more fast advancement. Which is a good thing really.
In our last campaign, Rise of the Runelords, I was advancing so fast I began to forget what I had and could do. 15 levels in 6 months.That's something they did fix nicely. My concern is now if they slowed progression down doesn't that mean you're in a certain level longer but obtaining more treasure as you have to adventure more to advance? Unless you slow treasure accumulation down won't you eventually have more toys than your level would suggest? Also slowing advancement still doesn't fix the high level play problem. It just takes longer to get to it.
That's off topic though isn't it?
|
|
Essentially. But, was 3.5 really faster then Ad&d 2nd?While this is true, most point by systems can be needlessly complicated and suffer from painfully slow character advancement.As opposed to 3.5 D&D, which suffers from painfully fast character advancement. ;-)
If you don't use treasure for exp rules then yes 3.5 is much faster.
While this is true, most point by systems can be needlessly complicated and suffer from painfully slow character advancement.As opposed to 3.5 D&D, which suffers from painfully fast character advancement. ;-)Have you seen the new Pathfinder exp tables? No more fast advancement. Which is a good thing really.
In our last campaign, Rise of the Runelords, I was advancing so fast I began to forget what I had and could do. 15 levels in 6 months.That's something they did fix nicely. My concern is now if they slowed progression down doesn't that mean you're in a certain level longer but obtaining more treasure as you have to adventure more to advance? Unless you slow treasure accumulation down won't you eventually have more toys than your level would suggest? Also slowing advancement still doesn't fix the high level play problem. It just takes longer to get to it.
That's off topic though isn't it?
I made this mistake too.
Advancement on the "Fast" chart of the PathfinderRPG only looks slower. If you go later in the book, and you check out the "per encounter" experience points, you will see that in PathfinderRPG, higher level characters will actually advance slightly faster (again only on the "Fast" chart) then their D&D 3.5 counterparts.
|
|
I made this mistake too.Advancement on the "Fast" chart of the PathfinderRPG only looks slower. If you go later in the book, and you check out the "per encounter" experience points, you will see that in PathfinderRPG, higher level characters will actually advance slightly faster (again only on the "Fast" chart) then their D&D 3.5 counterparts.
Oh I know about fast on the table. I pulled the 3.5 table and the PF one up on my monitor a couple days ago and put them right next to each other.
Hell I'm at work and doing nothing (obviously) I think I'll graph them.
I think I just made perhaps an assumption that Medium would be the default mode. I mean that's what we're going to use. It means I get to enjoy two APS and some side modules with the same character.
While this is true, most point by systems can be needlessly complicated and suffer from painfully slow character advancement.
Huh? Most point buy systems I am familiar with give very broad guidelines for advancement essentially leaving it up to the GM.
I've always prefered rolling to point buy for characters. Not only can your concept change (alright! 14, 14, 14, 12, 10, 4! I'm makin a monk!), but all heroes have at least one weakness, so to speak. Rolling forces you to make tough decisions about what goes where, and also makes the game more realistic. No one in RL has the ability to tailor their genetics at birth.
I've always prefered rolling to point buy for characters. Not only can your concept change (alright! 14, 14, 14, 12, 10, 4! I'm makin a monk!), but all heroes have at least one weakness, so to speak. Rolling forces you to make tough decisions about what goes where, and also makes the game more realistic. No one in RL has the ability to tailor their genetics at birth.
Actually, I have seen rolled characters come up without any weakness and/or grossly more powerful then the other PCs.
While this can happen with Build systems, what normally happens (if the GM and the players are on the ball) is that the player is forced to make trade-offs.
I've always prefered rolling to point buy for characters. Not only can your concept change (alright! 14, 14, 14, 12, 10, 4! I'm makin a monk!), but all heroes have at least one weakness, so to speak. Rolling forces you to make tough decisions about what goes where, and also makes the game more realistic. No one in RL has the ability to tailor their genetics at birth.Actually, I have seen rolled characters come up without any weakness and/or grossly more powerful then the other PCs.
While this can happen with Build systems, what normally happens (if the GM and the players are on the ball) is that the player is forced to make trade-offs.
Also there is a difference between the player tailoring the stats and the character tailoring their "natural" abilities.
|
|
No one in RL has the ability to tailor their genetics at birth.
A bit off topic, but why are you looking it that way? I see it as though you are choosing to play the character that ended up with those stats.
Truthfully there are benefits to both and people can have whatever preferences they want. But a) this isn't "RL" and b) do whatever works best with the group you are in.
(And FWIW, in "RL" if you want to have more Strength, you work out. If you want more Intelligence, you study. And so on. In that regard, you do get to tailor your abilities -- assuming no one adventures at birth.)
I've always prefered rolling to point buy for characters. Not only can your concept change (alright! 14, 14, 14, 12, 10, 4! I'm makin a monk!), but all heroes have at least one weakness, so to speak. Rolling forces you to make tough decisions about what goes where, and also makes the game more realistic. No one in RL has the ability to tailor their genetics at birth.
I've only had to use point buy if I didn't trust my players. I prefer rolling because you can get some great character ideas from the random rolls. Although I DON'T like manditory "3d6, in order" campaigns, especially since they're usually run by people who think every class is broken except for their favorite class, and just want to DM a party of themselves who will jump through the hoops of their scripts--I mean "adventures." But that's just me.
I once played in a GESTALT campaign that had such a limited choice of classes that there was a fighter//rogue, a fighter//scout, a swashbuckler//rogue, and my crazy character, a cleric//bard. And the only reason I didn't play a fighter//scout was because I was playing a scout in the other DMs game. Then the DM nerfed the spell lists of the bard and cleric. It was less than fun. I ended up quitting that game, and now I only see 1 of the 4 people I used to play with. Luckily I had another couple groups, but it's still sad when a DM's insistence of shackling a player's choices causes people to lose friends and gaming opportunities.
I honestly consider myself a pretty casual GM and player. As a player, I love to make up unique characters built upon certain ideas and the like. I figure out what class levels I need to be able to do in the game what I see the character in my head doing; not necessarily in a broken way, just properly represented on the gaming table. So for me, the more option, the better.
As a GM, I love throwing strange and unique foes at my players from time to time(Shadow Caster/Totemist, just for flavor), and in turn I think it's neat when the players present a character completely out of left-field I would've never thought of.
There are NO books I ban from my games. If something is straight up broken, I talk to the player about it, and fortunately I've been lucky enough to have players willing to "tone it down a bit" for the sake of the game. While I understand the view that many of you have expressed, not having the time to play-test every possible scenario for the sake of balance, at some point you just have to say "screw balance. Let's just play a game and have fun." I even sometimes toss my players freebies and allow them to have an extra +lvl adjustment at character creation just to see what they come up with. I've become pretty adept at adjusting CR's on the fly, and awarding xp accordingly. I simply ask the players to make the character they really want to play and in turn I'll give them a place to play it at. I value the fun of just gaming together over worrying about number-crunching.
I've played 3x since it debuted, and all the worrying and finger-pointing about number balance isn't worth it in the end. The Dice Police arent going to kick in your door and confiscate your books. Just enjoy the company of friends whom you're with, roll some dice, and have fun!