| Author |
 Topic  |
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
 Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 01:45:57
|
quote:
When I started playing some 20 years ago I GMed immediately and I had no clue, so basically I ran my sister and a couple of friends thru one dungeon after another...there was no role-playing. To get into the roleplaying thingy I had to play with more experienced people... THAT is always the thing
I learned to roleplay from writing and reading books, mostly, and then just using logic and the game books. :) I never even actually roleplayed until 3 years into having learned how to play the game in the first place, due to how scarce groups were at the time.
I remember the first time we played, it was with the original Dragonlance set. And I accidentally killed the black dragon.
Oops. |
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 |
Edited by - GothicDan on 25 Jul 2006 01:48:21 |
 |
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 01:55:53
|
Well, if you wanna get to a specific point with a fighter you will have to plan how to do it, which I think is great.
The dwarf in my group for example is a follower of Clangeddin. During one adventure where he was basically only tagging along since the player was absent, he saved the day by going berserk and using two battle axes, like his god, to bash the nasties. Afterwards I basically gave him the 2-handed-combat proficieny which usually only a ranger gets. This was 2nd edition mind you. He later on basically ignored all tactics (like waiting for the wizard to fireball the monsters) and charged, screaming "Clangeddin!" and hacking everything in his path. Enter 3.5, I figured that this character was destined to be a Battlerager, since we retrofitted the characters so to speak I assigned him 1 level of Barbarian since that was the requirement for the PrC, then 6 levels Fighter, cuz that is what he really was/is... you could call it a "build", but in fact for the previous situation, storywise, it was the best solution.
The single classes were very easy to handle, the multiclasses were a little more difficult. The scrivener (7/7 mage/priest) wanted to change and he wanted to become a warwizard. I required him to take at least 1 priest level so the backstory would not have to be changed. Since we also have another priest in the group, he decided to put all his other levels into Wizard. Also a build so to speak...
Same goes for the ftr6/clr7 of eilistraee, she became a ftr2/cleric7 basically no real change there, but also a build...
Admittedly, since I knew the rules best I helped and suggested stuff...fact is, if you want to achieve a certain PrC you have to plan, especially if you deal with well-established characters who are being retrofitted.
I'd never allow any multiclassing without a good reason, an in-character reason. Then again, I could never see the battlerager dwarf deciding to also add wizard.
Sure you could go with Ftr2 just to gain the feats, but knowing my players well enough they would probably see it as a diminishing of their real class's abilities, after all a wiz2/ftr2 may of course survive more punishment but he will have to wait another 3 levels to get to his fireball instead of merely 1 level. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 02:02:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
I'd never allow any multiclassing without a good reason, an in-character reason.
Yes, that's important for me as well.  I've seen a lot of "builds" that make little to no sense from a roleplaying perspective. Or "builds" where actual roleplaying isn't even mentioned.
|
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 02:10:56
|
That's the problem when you get the magic-crowd and the nintendo crowd to do roleplaying. Quick leveling, collecting items and story so thin that Twiggy would most defnitely have appeared fat...well or StarWars would be equal to Hamlet in terms of story.
Gods, I feel old when I think of how things were in ye goode olde days...
ROFL I had a couple of younger players ask me recently what RuneQuest is... and I only started playing in the mid 80s!!! |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Kajehase
Great Reader
Sweden
2104 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 04:43:04
|
So...what is RuneQuest?  |
There is a rumour going around that I have found god. I think is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.
Terry Pratchett |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 20:05:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Good for them. Why do they plan out their level progression?
Why not? (Bad form to answer a Q with a Q, I know.)
That is, why not make the effort to build a character that works well with the group and also functions well individually (beyond having a character that's just plain-old fun to play, which is of course the point of the game)?
Why not have some goal(s) for the character (everything from character traits to far-reaching, long term goals to what the player wants his/her character to "do" in play) then pick skills, classes, PrCs, etc... that fit around that concept?
One wouldn't expect a Battlerager to opt for the Diplomacy Skill over the Climb Skill, right?
Why not modify those character build plans as play progresses to shore up weaknesses in the character or in the group?
You might as well ask, "Why play D&D?"
J. Grenemyer |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
Edited by - Sanishiver on 25 Jul 2006 20:07:28 |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 20:16:27
|
@GothicDan Whether Multi-Classing or Dual Classing, it was still possible within the limits of the 2E rules to do. It seems to me like you're trying to pick nits on this, which I suppose is fine.
But that doesn't change the fact that the players in my campaign learned to build good characters early on with the rules they had.
It's also a fact that players in any edition of any game have always tried hard to get the most out of the rules that they could, in order to make the kinds of characters they wanted (which for D&D could have been out of bounds Uber characters with all 18s and a firm desire to get that trusty +5 Vorpal Sword by level 2, or there'd be hell for the DM to pay, or something a little more 'balanced').
It seems to me like there's this illusionary concept being bandied about that 2E didn't encourage powergaming or cater to it. This needs to be dispelled, straight away.
J. Grenemyer |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 21:16:56
|
It's not a matter of what they tried to do, but how successful they were in doing so. That's sort of the point of the rules - to help moderate the players' attempts to abuse them and their DM/GM. I'm not sure how I'm nitpicking - you said that it was 'easy enough to multiclass,' and I think it's REALLY obvious (NOT nitpicking) that it was not, and for dual-classing, it was even harder, especially if you ever took into account actually trying to take a third class.
How the heck could players get all 18s or a vorpal sword +5, anyway? The former is pretty much impossible (especially since there were no quick stat increases like there are in 3E), and the latter only with DM's permission.
quote:
It seems to me like there's this illusionary concept being bandied about that 2E didn't encourage powergaming or cater to it. This needs to be dispelled, straight away.
Not if we felt that it is genuinely true. We could just as easily say the reverse, and follow it by such a sweeping, authoritarian statement, but it doesn't make our point of view any more valid.
I'm not trying to nitpick - I'm trying to genuinely compare and contrast, and trying to understand where you're getting some of the conceptions about 2E from that you are (which I think was part of your point, too, only with 3E). We've pointed out specific cases of 3E's ruleset that we have had problems with, yet all it seems you've given us about 2E in comparison are vague statements, not actual facts or experiences.
Just trying to have a nice, factual, give-and-take discussion. :) |
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 |
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 21:21:02
|
<Off Topic...are we both slacking at work right now?
J. -about to run out of quota time- Grenemyer> |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 21:22:14
|
| And.. I'll let Faraer handle his reply to you, as much as I'd like to jump in. But that may be considered bad form. ;) |
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 - 25 Jul 2006 : 21:28:16
|
quote:
<Off Topic...are we both slacking at work right now?
J. -about to run out of quota time- Grenemyer>
I get to slack for about another month, here. Then it's back to school for me.
(Can't freaking wait.) |
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 - 25 Jul 2006 : 21:37:08
|
I had a blast basically powergaming and roleplaying in the original D&D. You can powergame with every game, D&D always made it easy, compared to say Harnmaster or GURPS. It's always the GM who controls the power-level. The rules give options, nothing more. A multiclass dmi-human character back in the day was way more versatile and in the end more powerful than a single class human. Sure the single-class wizard was maybe 2 levels higher than his elven fighter/mage counterpart, but the fighter mage's chances for survival were way higher. And if it wasn't a fighter/mage, take the scrivener priest class as a very distinct example on what a modified, human multiclass character could do. Yes, he split his xp, but specialty priests leveled very quick, plus he got only the d8 hit-die from the cleric-class. By 5th level priest and wizard this person could cast bless on his party, heal the fighter, and blast the orcs to smithereens with his fireball.
OK, so the wizard lvl 7 could do a little more, but if you take into account that a spell like dimensional folding, the cleric's sophisticated equivalent of teleport, was only a level 4 spell, this guy has way more bang for his buck than the single class wizard.
If a GM allows power-builds and what not, that is HIS problem, NOT the game system's.
Plus, after playing a session or two with Harnmaster I don't really want the ultra realistic... |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
GothicDan
Master of Realmslore
USA
1103 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2006 : 21:47:18
|
In 2E, I had a multi-classed Mage/Thief who was significantly lower level than the rest of the party because of the mutli-classing restrictions. Anything after 5th level, and the power curve was very steep. Multi-classed characters just died out. So, I don't see how one could consider that power gaming, since it's effectively the same thing in 3E as the Gestalt option - only you DON'T have to split your XP.
Ultimately, the DM is the judicator of all things. But we're not discussing DM styles, here, we're talking about the innate characteristics of the system. If it was true that no system was any better than any other, than we wouldn't have people playing a whole bunch of systems.
I guess the key is to look at each and every system, and look at the merits and faults that each one offers, and then for your PERSONAL game style, decide which contributes the most to it.
With that said, there's little else with which I could actually add to this thread. I don't like 3E's versatility - period. I am a minimalist, for the most part, as far as games go. It's a purely personal opinion. So adding MORE options, more rules, more crunch, takes away from the idea that the DM has control.
And now, I'll leave.
Sanishiver: No need to respond to my last response to you, unless you want to. Have a good day. |
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 |
Edited by - GothicDan on 25 Jul 2006 21:51:47 |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jul 2006 : 04:36:39
|
I do think that power gaming has existed in every edition of the game. Unearthed Arcana was the "Pandora's Box" of 1st edition gaming, and I think that the "Complete" line and the advent of the kits in them was the begining of the issue in 2nd edition (which is not to say that those books didn't have some valuable information in them). The first time I read about kits, it was in the Time of the Dragon boxed set, and the whole idea was that at 1st level, some characters culturally knew certain things, but you didn't get any feats for free, you had to pay them back as you progressed . . . the idea morphed a lot with each successive iteration of the "Complete" series. I'm also not saying that its limited to 2nd edition . . . the "Complete" 3.5 books have certainly allowed for some power creep. I'm just saying that 2nd edition wans't a perfect system, 3.5 is a more logical system, and its easier to teach new players, so as a system, I personally see it as being better.
In some ways I think we sometimes get our wires crossed between 3.5 core rules and what should have been done in the 3rd/3.5 FR books. If you want to argue that we should have had rules in "Magic of Faerun" to simulate the item creation notes in Volo's Guide to All Things Magical, I wouldn't disagree with you. If you want to say that the gods themselves didn't need stats and that we could have better seen the space in "Faiths and Pantheons" used to turn 2nd edition specialty priests into PrCs (which, BTW, is how I picture a properly structured PrC . . . as something that shows specialized training in a given field), I'm with you there too. Heck, I posted not too long ago tthat I would have rather seen a Spellfire Weilder template than a PrC. But, dispite all of that, I think we have gotten a lot of good material in 3rd/3.5 as well. I also think that we sometimes forget that we did have a few years, from time to time, in 2nd edition, where the products that came out for FR were pretty weak, or of limited use. Heck, the years that the Horde boxed set came out, the boxed set and its modules took up a lot of the FR product for the year, and the same thing happened the very next year with the Maztica products. It ebbs and flows. I'll not ask anyone to buy a product that they don't think they will like, but don't assume because a few in a row don't appeal to you that the line is never going to appeal to you again. And, as I said, 2nd edition had these ebbs and flows as well.
As far as people using the term "build" for characters, thats a hard one to pin on WOTC. What has happened is that while we were sleeping, a whole generation of roleplayers got their first taste of fantasy level/class based gaming from games like Diablo and Everquest, where the sum total of the "roleplaying" in the game usually has to do with customizing, or "building" your character. Hopefully such people, when they get around others interested in D&D in general and FR in particular will catch on how much fun actually ROLEPLAYING your character is rather than just rolling dice to kill things.
As far as planning out character progression in other editions, you could definately do it. You could plan out weapon specializations, weapon style specializatioins, dual class options, and even what magic items you hoped you would get, based both on what you wanted and what you thought your DM might give you, or you could talk them into.
As far as planning characters NOW, sure, I have done it. In one campaign I play a knight that is pledged to protect a prince whose kingdom was overrun, and I planned out what level I wanted to take Tactical Soldier at, because the class allows you to give your shield bonus to others, and allows you to be more flexible with flanking. As far as playing the character though, I have played him as a very stern knight who is questioning his prince's fitness to rule, despite liking him personally, one that is contantly admonishing him to be more careful about revealing his identity, and is wondering if he is the best knight for this job, and why he survived and his friends didn't. He also had what amounted to a nervous breakdown during one adventure when everything happened all at once. Its been very fun roleplaying him, but I don't think its any more invalid to plan a character progression than it is to plan out your education or career in real life. You may or may not end up following it depending on how life unfolds.
And finally, a note about skills that might be used to take the place of roleplaying. In my campaigns, I make anyone that is using skills such as bluff, intimidate, or diplomacy roleplay the encounter. If they roleplay really well, I give them a circumstance bons to their role, and if they don't really give a damn and are treading water until they get to roll the dice, they get a penalty (this has rarely happened). If they are gathering information, they have to tell me where they go to gather it, and who they talk to, and we often roleplay the highlights of the situation. If anything, the fact that they have to roleplay in order to get to roll the check in the first place encourages roleplaying, if you enforce this kind of situation.
I did feel bad one time, when the cleric of Helm in my campaign traveled to Silverymoon and was trying to recruit novice clerics for his new temple. Dispite giving a shining account of what he wanted to do, and all that he had done as an adventurer in the service of Helm, he rolled REALLY badly. He didn't get any help because the priest in Silverymoon though he was too detatched from the project (he had mentioned that he wanted to start it, but didn't want to be in a leadership position there). He went out, performed some deeds for the temple, and tried to convince the cleric again, and again, he rolled REALLY badly. I was starting to feel like the mechanics were damaging the storyline, but then, the druid/rogue of Meilikki decided to give back the suit of armor he had borrowed from the Altar of Sheilds in Tilverton, and went with the cleric to make his next pitch. The druid/rogue played up how heroic the cleric was, how inspirational he was, and how much Meriden's heroics had caused the church of Helm to be better regarded in the Dalelands. And the player of that character rolled really well. In the end, the situation made for some really good roleplaying, and even served to show off how close the party had become, and how well they worked as a group.
|
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2006 : 17:00:25
|
Like I have said before, 3.0/3.5 has allowed me to have regular campaigns going because the game is easier to play (outside of RP, which remains the same for the most part).
The PCs are in no way overpowered. I even allowed them to create characters with pretty darn high stats and still they got themselves killed a few times, a few close calls also. The CR format as opposed to simple individual xp awards from the monsters makes it much easier to create appropriate encounters, wether you want it to be easy, challenging, or overpowering.
I don't have to say how it affects me playing in the realms cause that's the only place I play in :P |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
Xysma
Master of Realmslore
USA
1089 Posts |
Posted - 01 Aug 2006 : 20:35:45
|
I almost had a TPK just last week with a band of cr 2 kobolds vs. three 5th level characters, at the beginning of the adventure. Once they drank nearly their entire reserve of healing potions, a CR4 Flameskull flew into the room, and almost killed them again. Then they promptly finished off the last healing potions in time for the rogue to fall 60 feet into a crevasse. While the duskblade climbed down to help him, a single skeletal equiceph (CR2) nearly killed the ranger4/druid1 and his hyena animal companion who had remained up top.
Of course, I am a notorious pc slayer, but I think the CRs are fairly accurate. |
War to slay, not to fight long and glorious.
Aermhar of the Tangletrees
Year of the Hooded Falcon
Xysma's Gallery
Guide to the Tomes and Tales of the Realms download from Candlekeep
Anthologies and Tales Overviews
Check out my custom action figures, hand-painted miniatures, gaming products, and other stuff on eBay.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Our experiences with 3.0 & 3.5 rules as Realms DMs
