| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
 Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 08:27:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
It's not system bound.. It just so happens that earlier editions, which were built around enforcing/encouraging totally different mindets of roleplay, sadly are not conducive in promoting the kind of roleplay that supports Faerun
Yes, there was a different mindset, but the old Gygaxian ideas were not always right for the realms either. I prefer the older editions, but there is a rigidness in the system that I don't find satisfactory and that I feel is at odds with the Realms. |
 |
|
|
Ergdusch
Master of Realmslore
Germany
1720 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 14:23:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
The problem with free-form IMO is that many players cannot be bothered with reading even just a few dozen pages of background for the characters they have now...how should it work with free-form?
If any 5 of us people would get together to play things would be different, but remember, we are the minority... unfortunately
I totally agree with you here, Mace! I will try it with my next Fr campaign but I doubt it will work. Somehow players feel the need to be "guided" into adventure, it seems. |
"Das Gras weht im Wind, wenn der Wind weht." |
|
|
|
Ergdusch
Master of Realmslore
Germany
1720 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 14:33:19
|
I have to say one more thing:
about the mass of information and options in all those FR books - I see them as options to use, and as such not neccessarily as borders or obsticals in the game.
However, I also believe that all those new feats/skills/prestige class ect. that appear in every new source book are more confusing to the PCs and the DM alike ratehr than adding flavour to the game. that's why I banded them for my player characters. I use only the FRCS, MoF and the PHB. If they like an idea that they find in another book, especially a prestige or sub class I tell them to "roleplay" towards that type of prestige class i.e. rather than just "skilling/feating" towards it.
Just a few thoughts,
Ergdusch |
"Das Gras weht im Wind, wenn der Wind weht." |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 20:49:42
|
The old Gygaxian concepts are way too often seen as hard rules when they were never supposed to be. Most peoples' primary concern is alignment. Read the Elric Saga, where Gygax got inspired for alignment and the multiverse to see just how truly fluid alignment can be.
The main hero is pretty much Chaotic Evil (or CN with Evil tendencies), and still has emotions, loves, and goals. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jun 2006 : 21:11:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
The old Gygaxian concepts are way too often seen as hard rules when they were never supposed to be. Most peoples' primary concern is alignment. Read the Elric Saga, where Gygax got inspired for alignment and the multiverse to see just how truly fluid alignment can be.
If it was one thing Gary Gygax was not it was soft on the meaning of the rules. If you read some of his comments you see that he was pretty dogmatic, which is natural as he wrote the rules.
The alignment subjekt i agree with you on, even if I don't think you can put Elric within the alignment concepts that easily. |
|
|
|
gss_000
Acolyte
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 03:52:59
|
I really don't see why there is any conflict between rules and roleplaying. They are two separate things and having strength in one does not mean you can't be strong in the other. This notion is gaining ground on the D&D forums as the Stormwind Fallacy, named after the original poster of the ideal, Tempus Stormwind. If interested, go to: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9165883&postcount=338 where it is put out very nicely.
And here is my 2 cp: I've been playing since 1983. I've collected all three editions and DMed games almost as long. The arguments people have against 3rd ed today I've been hearing since the beginnin, especially "If I wanted to roleplay I wouldn't play D&D".
I just don't understand the argument (not to say it is invalid, just I don't understand it). I love to roleplay. I love making interesting characters, but I love the simplified combat rules of the latest edition and I am more than willing to say that it is my favorite rule system out there, but that is purely an opinion.
If one gets right down to it, at he core there are no more rules than in 1st and 2nd ed. In the end, all anyone needs is the three core books that have been at th heart of every edition. DMs then can allow or disallow anything else you want, as people have said they do in their own games. As the DM I control the setting and the rules to be used in the game, not the other way around.
Unlike other editions, characters made from those three books can hold their own against others made from the expansions and if something is broken and a majority of reasonable players are willing to call it like it is. A plethora of rules does not mean I still won't roleplay. I make choices that fit the character I want to play and the rules just enhance my abilities because they reinforce my decisions. For me, the feats and pclasses, while all are not appropriate to each setting, give flavor and disguish my character from another at the table.
Lastly, I've had great experience bringing new players into the game and older players back into it who left because of things like THACO, confusions in when you roll high and when you roll low, classes of the same level not on equal footing wih each other, etc. The learning curve is a lot lower than it used to be from my experience.
*sigh* Sorry for the rant. I've just seen this discussion in several places and it's been hitting a nerve. In no way is this directed toward people, just the idea. Since a lot of this is based on my experience, your mileage, as they say, may vary.
PS Oh, yeah. One more thing: D&D is and has always been based off a miniatures wargame. Chainmail came first and D&D were fantasy rules added onto wargame where each miniature represented a group of troops, not just one person (hence hit points represented a groups effectiveness, not how healthy one person was). TSR, the original makers of D&D, stands for Tactical Studies Rules |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 05:43:40
|
It's the format of 3E. Simplification and standardization leads to something along the lines of mass production. And in general, no matter how many combinations you combine a bunch of spare parts in, an original made specially tailored to your tastes always has more artistic merit.
3E has, without any pretense, made it quite clear that their game design is based around a few mindsets, such as:
- Any NPC/monster/etc. mentioned should have stats so that the PCs can try to kill it.
- If lore has nothing to do with a direct, typical gaming session, there's no reason in mentioning it.
- Players should be able to do whatever they want.
I'm not extrapolating these points or making them up - we've heard them all in one version or another from the designers at the WotC boards.
I don't think that when Ed was designing the Realms, he felt a particularly strong urge to confine his campaign setting to any of the above styles of production. And that's why the Realms is different in previous editions. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 05:44:47
|
quote:
If it was one thing Gary Gygax was not it was soft on the meaning of the rules. If you read some of his comments you see that he was pretty dogmatic, which is natural as he wrote the rules.
The alignment subjekt i agree with you on, even if I don't think you can put Elric within the alignment concepts that easily.
Yeah, remember, Gygax was the one who actually wrote the Dragon article that determined "shades" of alignment on a grid. :) |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Swordsage
Learned Scribe
149 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 06:29:48
|
I think the 3E rules do far more justice to character concepts than 1E or 2E ever did. Just compare the development of Elminster in the "Making of the Mage" novel and consider which ruleset is "truest" to that individual.
The Swordsage
|
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 07:24:23
|
Though I prefer the older editions, my problems with the system goes trough all editions. I came to Ad&d from other roleplaying systems and converted because of the game worlds and the monsters, I was never that happy with the rules to begin with.
The whole xp, level, class, alignment thing has always given me a mechanical feel that bothered me. when you added feats, prestige classes etc the feeling increased, but my main problem with 3ed is more of a presentation and focus thing than the rules.
So of course you can roleplay in all editions, but d&d rules have always been focused on conflicts and rewards which have never fitted my campaigns to well. In my experience systems that develop the characters along different routs also leads players to act differently, I am then mainly thinking of skill based systems. But it is as I said a matter of taste and individual preferences. |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 07:58:08
|
quote:
I think the 3E rules do far more justice to character concepts than 1E or 2E ever did. Just compare the development of Elminster in the "Making of the Mage" novel and consider which ruleset is "truest" to that individual.
Considering Ed is the one who statted Elminster as a pure Wizard... I'd say that the 1E/2E rules are more appropriate. It's been made very, very apparent that El does not use his pre-magical skills (at least as far as class-specific skills are related). In the Heroes' Lorebook, it DID give the levels he had in previous class, and what levels that he got to, and that he didn't USE those abilities any more. But the option was given.
Also, 3E doesn't have El as a Psionic Wild Talent, as he did in 2E, or with the Spellfire ability.
The fact that El, in his more original incarnations, did NOT have anything other than a basic statblock, was truly the best for him - because Ed has come up with many, many surprises about El and his powers/background that would invalidate each updating of his "stats" every time a new mystery was unveiled. And with how strict 3E is (THIS many feats at THIS level, THIS many Skillpoints to get into THIS PrC), it would make it more difficult to stat him "as he should be."
Look at the RAS NPCs for this example; stupid wealth limits.
So, in all, 3E's focus on over-standardization and over-statting only limits the Realmsian NPCs. 2E's ruleset was more "hands off" - here's the very basics, the DM can add whatever he wants, WHEN he wants, and ONLY the DM can do it. It made for a better story. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Ergdusch
Master of Realmslore
Germany
1720 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 09:12:00
|
I would assume that all those stats (especially the wealth limit) present a very good guidance for unexperienced DMs and players to keep the game ballanced and in control and thereby fun.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Ergdusch
|
"Das Gras weht im Wind, wenn der Wind weht." |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 09:23:12
|
Technically, ALL rules and stats are guidelines. But if you grow up on an edition in which you're basically given everything statted out, it's hard to learn that there are other avenues open. Sure, the core books tell you, "Oh, you don't HAVE to do all of this.." but then ALL of the subsequent manuals, NPCs, stats, etc., ALL conform to those rules.
It doesn't take long before people start just getting lazy and less creative if that's the only thing you've ever played.
There are us older RPers out there to help guide the new players.. But as the years go on, more and more new people to the game aren't going to be able to find such "mentors".. And eventually, the entire generation of people who KNEW what it was to roleplay will be gone.
And no, I do not feel I'm exaggerating. Look at what the media/gaming industry is calling roleplaying these days, as far as video and console games go. The entire art of RPGs is being lost, I think, or at least becoming something I don't want to be a part of. :( |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 11:53:51
|
Hmm... I tend to agree with gss_000, you do not need rules to roleplay. I was very reluctant to play in 3.x, being very much oldschool myself. The sitaution in my gaming group 'forced' it on me...well voluntarily. After playing on PC TOEE I realized that the tactical options would lighten my headach considerably. So the logical step for me was to swtich to 3.x. Has the roleplaying diminished because of me changing at first the combat system and now on Sunday the final step to to a complete rules change? I seriously do not know, but I don't think it will.
Why should it? Certainly, combat will last longer, now all rolls will be high instead of high, low and whatnot. But in midst of an adventure where the interaction with NPCs is bound to be scant, unless it takes place in a city.
The rules don't make a roleplaying game, never have never will. Take White Wolf's WOD, everything there is focused on roleplaying, certainly, but damn does the system suck; I prefer a system that can handle anything with a distinct style, and elegance. 3.x does that. Plus when I think of a game that is at least in spirit in the same vein it would be ye olde Star Wars system. And hell do I have some terrific role-playing memories of that. So I think it will work out fine.
As for the more action oriented PC-games etc. We are in midst of the Nintendo generation, most kids nowadays have an attention span that ranks in the negatives. Those who like to read are a comparatively small group and thus the gaming industry is it is to survive needs to focus on a new market.
Us old hands are not dying out but do we buy everything that is released like we did when we were younger? No way, I need my money for food, electricity etc. So the industry has to focus on those whose attentionspan rivals that of a hampster (no offense Wooly!).
BUT all in all the 3.x is a very solid system and if you have a good foundation (system and world) you can, if you want, have a great roleplaying experience.
Us old dogs need to learn new tricks, took me 6 bloody years |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 17:53:34
|
| Personally, I don't care who uses which rules. To me, 3E has been a bonus because with it I have been able to get new players to my group and get a regular campaign going (for 4 years now compared to 4 weeks). It's easier to learn, much less complicated and very much balanced (I shudder at the memories of when a certain player in 2E was always wayyyy overpowered compared to the others). If 1E or 2E is your cup of tea, that's fine with me. You just won't find me playing with you is all :) (as a matter of speaking, not arrogance or anything) Anyways, that's what worked for me. Guess I'll go make myself a cup of Vanilla Herbal Tea ;) |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 21:05:10
|
quote:
Us old dogs need to learn new tricks, took me 6 bloody years
Well, I'm only 21, and only started playing AD&D at the tail end of 2E...
So there's nothing nostalgic about my opinions. Purely analytical. :)
People love to pretend that rules don't affect roleplay - but chaos theory says that a change in anything can cause a major change in the system as a whole.
All I have to do is look at the 3E players and know that there's certainly something different happening and it's causing a definite lack of roleplaying skills.
And yes, there are 3E players I know who agree with this, who have read the older material. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 21:24:30
|
And as for rule difficulties..? Uh...
Core 2E had way less rules. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 23:02:17
|
My initial reaction when I bought 3e one day before GenCon 2k (yep, I was kinda sorta lucky) was that it looks like a computer game...it still does, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing... regarding new 3.x players...I hardly know anyone who hasn't gamed for at least a decade... plus I don't go to cons very much because chance is you have ... um... newbies or whathaveyou playing and attending... soome are cool but many are not...
Nintendo kids... |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2006 : 23:09:27
|
I think, in large part, it's because societal entertainment is changing as a whole. In the days of 1E/2E, people were just as likely to start playing AD&D after coming from a world of Tolkien, Leiber, Moorcock, or the like, as they were from video games. Nowadays, the majority of kids are coming into D&D after playing video games, or reading fantasy novels that are entirely based around sword and sorcery.
So, 3E is appealing to this mindset. They don't realize that society is different, and that to encourage roleplaying, you HAVE to build it into the system, because the kids nowadays don't know any better - and you can't really blame them. They're just not being exposed to alternate forms of gameplay. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
gss_000
Acolyte
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 02:23:39
|
2nd ed and 1st ed were just as appealing to the mindset. It's nothing new, really. I think it's just based on experience and environment, two things that are independant of mechanics.
What D&D suffers from is that it is as synonymous with role playing as Magic s to CCG or Kleenex is to facial tissues or Xerox to photocopiers. The brand is almost taking for the product s a new player is likely to join it first. Now, good roleplaying I'd say is based on experience even though there are some new players who get it immediately. I've played and judged at many conventions over the years and I can't say that things have changed that much.
|
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 02:31:25
|
Well, I don't have as wide-spread experienced as you do, GSS... But I'm just analyzing things. Can't say that my opinion isn't biased, but I do try to consider those biases when I look over the data. :)
In my 11 years of playing, I've only come across 2 really hack-and-slash/bad roleplayers in 2E. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
gss_000
Acolyte
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 03:20:24
|
Oh, I'm not saying that your experience is bad or less valid, just that I have seen differently. It's the problem with just basing things on your experience. Until this thread, I would have sworn that there were no younger players who prefered 2d ed over 3rd ed base on just what I have seen.
It's cool that you've had that great an experience. I bet few have been as lucky. I know I haven't. |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 03:26:29
|
I HAVE been accused of being the "old man" of my friends. ;)
I've personally gamed in two 3E games, and watched another one, and out of all of those, I would say a little over half of them were 3E gamers only. And I would say that 75% of that half were pretty horrible.
Ninja-Pirate Warmage... Half-Golem Monk... Halfling Sorcerer Incantatrixes (JUST for the build)..
The worst 2E player I had the experience of gaming with was a guy in my first 2E game who made a CG Drow Ranger who wielded two Scimitars. The game had me (I was about 12 at the time - it took me awhile to find a gaming group), two older players (one guy in his late twenties/early thirties, and the other in his late 40s), and a 16 year old.
The guy's Drow died. So he made another - the exact same character. My DM got so angry that he said, "The next Drow who is made has to be a Priestess of Lolth."
When 3E came out, guess which player in the hobby store was raving over it? ;) |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 15:37:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
I HAVE been accused of being the "old man" of my friends. ;)
I've personally gamed in two 3E games, and watched another one, and out of all of those, I would say a little over half of them were 3E gamers only. And I would say that 75% of that half were pretty horrible.
Ninja-Pirate Warmage... Half-Golem Monk... Halfling Sorcerer Incantatrixes (JUST for the build)..
The worst 2E player I had the experience of gaming with was a guy in my first 2E game who made a CG Drow Ranger who wielded two Scimitars. The game had me (I was about 12 at the time - it took me awhile to find a gaming group), two older players (one guy in his late twenties/early thirties, and the other in his late 40s), and a 16 year old.
The guy's Drow died. So he made another - the exact same character. My DM got so angry that he said, "The next Drow who is made has to be a Priestess of Lolth."
When 3E came out, guess which player in the hobby store was raving over it? ;)
Didn't they always say there's no wrong way to play the game??? I understand your point on the "builds" though....but that doesn't make them bad gamers...just bad roleplayers. |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
Chyron
Learned Scribe
Hong Kong
279 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 16:30:23
|
It is ironic in a way…
Back in 1st ed. I remember players complaining of the restrictions, not enough flexibility…a fighter was a fighter was a fighter…the biggest variety you could have was a demi-human multiclass with limited levels….or some expanded options in UA like the thief/acrobat.
Now people complain about 3rd ed. from the exact opposite perspective…too much flexibility…too many prestige class combinations…
I see merit in all 3 systems as well as deficiencies…
Sometimes I think I would be better off to go back to the old basic blue box…when elf was actually a class ha ha...
|
Just My Thoughts
Chyron :)
|
|
|
|
Skeptic
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1273 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 17:06:04
|
Ok, it's time to get back this thread to the point I asked in the OP.
What could be change in D&D 3.x to make it fit more the spirit of FR.
In my other thread (FR without D&D), I'm talking about a narrative approach to FR using another RPG.
Here, I want to keep the d20, levels, feats, PrC, skills, classes and the like.
My earlier examples were: Alignment like in HoH, Different clerics for different deities, etc.
I could now add more tailored magic items, i.e. remove the extra cost for multi-functional magic items and say that they represent the majority of items. When you create for a NPC a "Cloak of Elven Kind" (+5 hide, +2 dex, fire resistance 5) you can add to it some lore/history.
Portals could me made minor artifacts (to remove them from the hands of non-epic characters).
I think some spells should be added to the "common-PHB" list and some removed...
You get the idea ?
|
|
|
|
Ergdusch
Master of Realmslore
Germany
1720 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 21:03:56
|
As was said before: Lots of option are provided by the 3.x Ed. It's up to every DM/player what to use of the material given. Here are my choises:
I restrict the portal building feats. I create new and individual magic items for treasures and npcs. I keep the standard magic items but restrict the "market". I use the spells, feats, skills, PrC ect. of PHB, MoF and FRCS only. I provide lots of guidance in choices like feats or Multiclass/PrC when leveling up. I even created a new PrC for one of my players to better play his cleric of Moradin.
But most importantly: I try to let my players "feel" that their PCs are part of a bigger world with other unique, powerful and important characters around. But foremost I encourage my players to roleplay so they may create the FR spirit that they have in mind and have the most fun with through their one actions and acting.
Hope that is more what you where thinking of, Skeptic.
Ergdusch |
"Das Gras weht im Wind, wenn der Wind weht." |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2006 : 22:48:01
|
| Look at how magic items are made in Volo's Guide to All Things Magical. Try to convert that roughly to 3E. |
Planescape Fanatic
"Fiends and Undead are the peanut butter and jelly of evil." - Me
"That attitude should be stomped on, whenever and wherever it's encountered, because it makes people holding such views bad citizens, not just bad roleplayers (considering D&D was structured as a 'forced cooperation' game, and although successive editions are pointing it more and more towards a me-first, min-max game, the drift away from 'we all need each other to succeed' will at some point make it 'no longer' D&D)." - ED GREENWOOD |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
PHB variant for FR
