D&D getting out of hand.

[Gimp]

D20 3.5 gives players more options, but opens up problems without controls.

 

If the GM wants to let people play any mix of class/race/whatever, then they can expect players to push their envelop.

 

The rules are only tools to make life easier. Without some kind of constraints, those tools can create monsters a campaign doesn't work with.

 

The rules saying you can do something, and the GM saying that 'something' fits in the campaign they've created, are very different things. If it breaks the campaign, don't allow it. If a player doesn't like that, let them run the game.

[madcobaia]

While I don't play, mainly due to lack of anyone to play with (anyone in Ogden, UT? Anyone? No? Oh well), I do like collecting the rulebooks. I have noticed that ever since WotC took over, the game seems to have lost an intagible... something. It seems more like a modern movie, with fancy explosions and special effects rather than something solid. The DM would have a good deal of influence on that though. I think I'll still call my favorite TSR's Planescape. DiTerlizzi's art and the general concept always made me smile.

[Rastl]

From what I'm seeing lately (PHB II, etc.) WotC is pushing books with very little new content and lots of fluff. In order to sell books. Since you only really need the core three books to play they have to keep trying to find ways to keep you buying.

 

That being said, I'm seeing lots of options in the new books that really don't appeal to me as a player. If I can only get enjoyment from playing some really odd five-way hybrid character with obscure abilities, then I think there's something wrong with either the game I'm in or myself as a player.

[dargrin]

From what I'm seeing lately (PHB II, etc.) WotC is pushing books with very little new content and lots of fluff. In order to sell books. Since you only really need the core three books to play they have to keep trying to find ways to keep you buying.

 

That being said, I'm seeing lots of options in the new books that really don't appeal to me as a player. If I can only get enjoyment from playing some really odd five-way hybrid character with obscure abilities, then I think there's something wrong with either the game I'm in or myself as a player.

 

I thing that you hit the nail on the head. So I am old school AD&D player and there are few races to choose from. With the 3.5 system why would you be a basic Human Fighter? Doesn't seem like anyone would.

[Qwyksilver]

I'm still ticked at how the half orcs get screwed in the PHB. Darkvision and +2 STR, -2 INT AND -2 CHA. I hate that they arbitrarily determine that Str is so much more important than Int or Cha. It only is if the DM places an emphasis on heavy combat campaigns. And with every other race getting mad racial skill bonuses and immunities, the poor half orc gets the shaft.

[twjolson]

The rules saying you can do something, and the GM saying that 'something' fits in the campaign they've created, are very different things.

 

That's exactly the point. If a DM allows just any old race/character into the campaign, he likely has no vision. It'd be like a movie director not caring who was cast as the lead role in a movie. But the good thing about all these options, racial, class or whatever, is that you get alot more campiagn possibilities. What kind of campaign would result from an undead one, I don't know, but it'd be interesting to see.

[Naughty Tentacle Monster]

They already borked the game when they introduced ninjas.

 

DM: "You see a huge pit ahead of you, mortally impossible to bound."

 

Ninja player: "I'm a ninja."

 

DM: "Yes, well, crap. There goes my story..."

 

-NTM

[axegrrl]

I was in a game that the DM wanted to be low-magic.

 

The way he pulled it off was to make it low-treasure.

 

Challenge ratings assume the characters having particular amounts of gear at various levels.

 

The DM didn't adjust the CRs to reflect his low-treasure campaign.

 

So, low treasure = high mortality = not much fun with standard rules.

 

It would be interesting to find out if Iron Heroes fixes those problems. Then again, I'm not horribly fond of low-magic settings.

[Star Drifter]

This is why I switched to D20 Modern. It's still WotC, but it's the D20 system with its sanity still intact.

 

Plus, I didn't want to waste another $90 on 3.5, juggle books and charts to update old info from the 3.0 splats, and go through all of this stuff. And as cool as Deadlands is, no one wants to play that.

 

Anyway... yeah. I like the idea of lots of options, so long as they're viewed as explicitly optional. If a DM is running a game with fairies and princesses and unicorns, the ghoul is not going to work.

[Outkast Samurai]

I've been running D&D campaigns for years with our current campaign going on over two. The only book that I really use is the core players handbook. The group I play with is into it more for the story than anything else. Now mind you I still get the "how much experience do we get?" questions every now and then but not as often as some in the past. During the last game I was describing the stats for a magical hammer they had been given.

"It is a great hammer of Dwarven make.It has a +3 that...."

"Yes, but what's its name."

So yeah this one is more story driven than some of the ones I've run in the past. Is either one right? Nope. Is either one better? Not a chance. Other than your standard obnoxious player (and they come from both factions) I enjoy playing with anyone looking to have fun.

[Joe Kutz]

That is why I refuse to give WotC a single penny.

 

The only rules additions you needed could be found on the first page of each of the old TSR books "These are not rules, just guidelines. The most important thing is to have fun."

 

If I wanted a defined rule for everything that could be done, I would be playing a CRPG or MMORPG. Computers need rules - I have grey matter to figure it out for myself.

[lionmane]

Options are nice, but one can get carried away.

 

I remember the old days of running a game for my younger cousins, and the PCs they would try to put over on me.

"Can I be a Demon Lord?" "No."

'Can I be a Storm Giant?" "No."

"Can I be a vampire?" "No."

"Can I be a demigod?" "No."

 

[Gimp]

Guidelines are still the primary purpose of the D20 3.5 rules.

 

I see no reason to play off the wall character and racial types, and can be quite happy with a set of fantasy races that fit whatever the specific campaign needs. Most players are happy with that. I've never run a D&D character above level twelve, because I lost interest at that power level. That's just my preference.

 

For those who want to play, but don't want to be traditional, 3.5 gives more guidelines that help a GM keep things under control without having to do all the work themselves.

 

A GM that doesn't want a vampiric moose in their campaign can simply say, 'No.' If the player isn't happy, they can find another game. If they are playing Toon D&D, and a vampiric Bullwinkle fits, the GM doesn't have to work out all the parameters for the character to fit with the ghoulish Rocky.

 

All 3.5 does is let the GM have a bit more leverage if they decide to allow odd characters. They can say yes or no, and not have to go beyond that and decide every aspect of the off the wall class to let it fit with all the other off the wall classes the other players are being allowed to play. All the odd bits have theoretically been worked out in the new guidelines.

 

D20 is trying to be the preeminent generic roleplaying system. Making guidelines for any character type any group of players may want allows that. GURPS did it first, but the math involved has kept a lot of players from wanting to deal with it. D20 keeps it simpler. Not better than other systems, but consistent.

 

I like the flavor different systems can give a game, but I've met several players who only want to learn one basic system.

 

I've met old school D&D players that had characters over level 50. I even met one with a character well over level 150. The idea of someone wanting to play some of the options available under 3.5 is no stranger than playing those characters.

 

If a group wants to play something way out there, 3.5 lets them with less extra work and more protection for a fledgling GM. If the GM is willing, and they have fun, more power to them. If the GM lets the players run roughshod over the campaign with characters that don't fit, hopefully they'll learn and not let it happen the next time.

 

I've never been hugely fond of D&D, but I've had a lot of very fun campaigns using the various incarnations. 3.5 is my least favorite version, but it still works as a gaming system.

 

I've met more GM's that have found things they like in it than I have GM's that feel it's ruined the game. While that can be attributed in part to the fact that an experienced GM can simply take what they like and ignore what they don't, that's still a plus. The inexperienced players, including inexperienced GM's, have a larger safety net to keep their games from falling apart through lack of balance between character types.

 

3.5 is far from perfect, but it does give options and guidelines to help players try whatever they want without having to balance it all themselves.

 

All the options are simply more guidelines. Old school gamers had to create their own for alternate campaigns, but now they are more easily codified for all players.

 

Nothing makes players use all the extra books WotC puts out, but they are there for the players who want them.

 

Nothing makes a GM allow any of the options put out in those WotC books, or any of the other OGL products, but the use of what options fit can save a lot of effort and grief.

[Ryushiroi]

While I have my doubts on WotC's motives for most of what it does...

 

Well, okay, I have little doubt as to their motive (money, more money, and even more money)...

 

What scares me is the rumor going around my local game store...

 

That D&D 4.0 is coming out next year...

 

Now THAT would assuredly prove they are idiots...

[Naughty Tentacle Monster]

Now THAT would assuredly prove they are idiots...

 

 

Wouldn't suprise me, they're just following the GW buisness model. Whenever all of the Armies get codexes/army books that are current, they release a new edition six months later and invalidate them all. Lather, rinse, repeat. It works really well.

 

-NTM