Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mathius 07-09-06, 07:15 PM	Hey all! Anyways I just got of DMing a session with my regular DND mates and it was a real cracker. Fun for all, lots of jeopardy, PC heroism, cool stuff etc etc...but what really pleased me was the amount of roleplaying that went on (for once I might add) and I cant help feeling a tad smug as I feel my pre-campaign limitations may well have had an effect on this. First some background: (it's an FR campaign) The PC's are: Firen: The aristocratic spy from Unther (Human Rogue 2) Ellana: The fiery tempered She-Elf from the High Forest (Elf Fighter 2) Chase: The grumpy Helmite from Waterdeep (Human Cleric 2) Fragmentina: The troubled spellcaster from Athkatla (Human Wizard 2) Without going into too much detail about my groups history they are all abunch of good lads but they have a tendancy too powergame which, though not in itself bad, does tend to detract from the roleplay side a bit. When I said at the outset I would be limiting character creation/advancement to the PH only there was grumpling and moaning but it was my campaign and they had to deal with it. So they settled down with their shiny level one chars and what happened, instant Roleplay! I was so surprised and after the 3rd session I asked the longest DND player why the sudden change to roleplay from powerplay and he basically said this: Well everyone knows how to play a core class as they have been so integral to DND for so long now. Everyone knows what a Barbarian's like, everyone knows what a Paladin's like so everyone can act their player out easily and react to other player's to. I mean what the hell is an 10th level Oozemaster going to do in a certain situation...He's an OOZE!! He'd hit the nail on the head and this is the purpose of my thread. When you get clogged up in the umpteen supplement books and millions of opportunities to tweek the rules and make pun-pun like killer characters you lose sight of what DND was originally supposed to be all about. Now you powergamers out there I am not having a go, in fact I have great fun powergaming from time to time. It just seems when you don't have to worry about anything other than the original classes you have more time to RP you Char. So just a little tip for you DM's who want more RP. KEEP IT CORE! Try it once you may like what happens :D P.S. Nice one Firen, bonus XP for you!
Encard 07-09-06, 07:34 PM	Eh... You know, your player's argument sounds, to me, like saying, "I know how to run stereotypical core characters, so it's a lot easier RPing them than something I haven't seen before!" Sure, that *might* get you more RP... but it'll get you generic RP. Maybe for some people it'll legitimately help them come up with an interesting character, but I can't see this being the majority reaction. Now, core only might help RP among new players, but I'd honestly hope that more experienced players will be able to come up with what a character they want to play wou,d y'know... play like. Personally, though, I don't even like core-only for new players - I find that getitng them to come up with the sort of character they want to play and then helping them design it - whatever that takes - works better. In any case, most PrC aren't wierd. Honestly, how hard is it to work out a generic assassin character's personality? An archmage's? Radiant servant of Pelor's? Thief-acrobat's? Scout's? Knight's? Most newer base classes and PrCs are not particularly strange. Yeah, oozemaster and a few others are... but the players who choose those will usually have some idea of how they want to play the character, so it balances out. EDIT: Oh, and I'd be careful about saying what D&D was originally supposed to be about. You might not get so much agreement. My opinion is that it's supposed to be a handy-dandy mix of roleplaying and character building - if I wanted something with less mechanics, I'd play a rules-lite/diceless game. *shrug*
Milo HoBo 07-09-06, 07:48 PM	By core, do you mean psionics as well? Anyways, non-core and roleplaying are not hard to mix. I'm playing with a group right now that contains nothing core except races. Halfling Blue Mage- that's me, nice but not as powerful as wizard. Halfling Warlock- not powergaming material at all. Halfling Swashbuckler- also not powergaming material Human Knight- I'm sure you've read the threads on this one. We stick to roleplaying because that's what we have fun doing and exploring new concepts to roleplay is easier when the mechanics lend themselves to it. For example my Blue Mage is an adrenalin junkie, which is alot easier with a Blue Mage than a sorcerer or a wizard. I have a back story and everything for this guy, such as how he learned his first spell and why he knows so much about monsters and everything. New mechanics can help roleplaying as long as you let it. To borrow an old phrase, "Money (new mechanics) is a great tool, but a horrible master."
Verelor 07-09-06, 07:50 PM	I can't say I agree with you. Variety is one of the spices of life.
Seeker95 07-09-06, 10:05 PM	My last campaign was Core-only. Only one of the seven players multi-classed. All seven really got into character each session. Some with stereotypes. Some with anti-types. Some with type-unrelated. In not-Core-only campaigns, I find the answer to "what is your long term goal for your character" to be answered with Classes and Prestige Classes, and usually some stats. In Core-only campaigns, I find the answer to the same question to generally be more like those we find in real life. Some want to acquire wealth to retire to a minor fiefdom of their own. Some seek to become head of the XYZ guild. Some intend to "meet their end" in a blaze of glory. NEVER does the long term goal include class, level and stat references.
thasis 07-09-06, 10:14 PM	I say only-core works well with people who are normally powergamers to help break the trend, but me? I have my powergamer side yes, but I'm an avid roleplayer. My whole life is pretty much one roleplay. I get into my characters so much that I sometimes start to talk like them out of game without even reconizing it. I like my Prc, but I like my "necromancer who's past was ridden with undead and nightmares of his parents death, who despite his evil nature has a side of good and compassion that comes out when he's with his adventuring group".
Lord Gwydion 07-09-06, 10:23 PM	Well, I don't agree that sticking to Core Only will guarantee good roleplaying, or that using optional material hinders it. Good roleplayers tend to be good roleplayers no matter what system they use. I will agree, however, with the idea that rules-light systems (which is a relative term) can sometimes force a reluctant player to roleplay things that aren't on the character sheet, simply because there isn't as much on the sheet. I noticed this when I was having a conversation with the guys in my group. I was talking about the old Star Frontiers games I used to play, and how creative my childhood group got with our characters, and how well we roleplayed them, even though there wasn't much on the sheets compared to 3E D&D characters. Older editions of D&D were like this as well. I realized that this is not because simple systems are inherrently better than rules heavy systems, but because players don't want to get bored. If they've got lots of skills, feats, classes & PrCs, abilities, templates, etc. to use to build a character, they can use those mechanical choices to help define their character. "Ergo the Magnificent is a master of transformative magic, so he has Race W, Base Class X, Feat Y and PrC Z" If they're playing a simpler ruleset, they have fewer of these mechanical choices to help define their character. So what do they do? They just decide "I'm going to play Ergo the Magnificent as if he's a master of transformative magic." And it's mostly just flavor, not mechanical stuff, but the players might get into it a bit more because they have to show through their roleplaying alone how Ergo could be a master of transformation magic when mechanically he's no better or worse at it than any other Wizard.
angryman 07-10-06, 10:09 AM	I made you all play pirates last game, Lord Gwydion. :D haha, that was fun. yar!
Kyron_Sleai 07-10-06, 10:32 AM	OUT OF ALL THE BOOKS FOR D&D YOU HAVE TO LIKE ONE OF THE NEW PRESTIGE CLASSES OR JUST A NEW CLASS OR RACE!!!!!!!!! :mad: :confused: :weep: :(
Seeker95 07-10-06, 11:08 AM	Anybody so upset that they need to borrow my valium prescription?
hmmmm 07-10-06, 11:23 AM	I like PrC though, however I don't use them all the time.
questionc 07-10-06, 12:09 PM	I think that going core helps with creativity. However, my players never seemed to think that way. And to be honest... saying to my players "I know this isn't what you want, but it's for your own good" just feels wrong. The players get some say in how the game goes too. I compromised with "You can use one thing that isn't in the PH". Gives the people basically what they want, without turning the game into a research project for builds. If they're playing a simpler ruleset, they have fewer of these mechanical choices to help define their character. So what do they do? They just decide "I'm going to play Ergo the Magnificent as if he's a master of transformative magic." And it's mostly just flavor, not mechanical stuff, but the players might get into it a bit more because they have to show through their roleplaying alone how Ergo could be a master of transformation magic when mechanically he's no better or worse at it than any other Wizard. Two things.... first off, character concepts like "I am a Master of Transformation magic" aren't really very good from a storytelling perspective. The main stumbling block for characters is not having a reasonable motivation. "I want to see the homeland I was exiled from", "I need to pay off the randsom for my daughter", or "Prophecy has fated me to die for my people, I must prepare my soul for it" are what's needed. Very few if any supplemental books help those kinds of character concepts. Second off... there is a lot of potential with the core rules. You can do a lot without supplements. The last game I had, there was a player who wanted to make a character that relied on Mind-Affecting enchantments. He wanted to feel different from standard sorcerers. His original plan was Sorcerer going into some PrC built around mentally dominating others. He got shot down because the PrC was blantly evil and... frankly cliche. He wasn't a big fan of the class himself, but was sort of tied to it because it was the only Enchanting-related PrC he could find. We used the standard sorcerer. We traded out Spellcraft and Knowledge arcana for Diplomacy and access to most Clerical mind-affecting spells. I assured that his characters "fate" would have something to do with his enchanting powers. The player had what he wanted. He was clearly better at enchanting than your standard sorcerer. He knew that his enchanting powers would be important. He didn't have to build his backstory around justifying wonky PrC flavour.
Otto the Bugbear 07-10-06, 12:42 PM	Well everyone knows how to play a core class as they have been so integral to DND for so long now. Everyone knows what a Barbarian's like, everyone knows what a Paladin's like so everyone can act their player out easily and react to other player's to. I mean what the hell is an 10th level Oozemaster going to do in a certain situation...He's an OOZE!! Here's the biggest problem with that statement... Tell me, what's a fighter like? What's a rogue like? What's a wizard like? What's a cleric like? The answer to these questions are so varied and so complex, that simplifying the rule set has nothing to do with this. Fighter is such a generic term that it's going to be hard to nail down what a fighter is like. You want a better resource for encouraging role play? Grab one of the many questionaires, like the one in my sig "The 100 most important things to know about your character." I even assign bonus exp based on how many and how well questions get answered. Given this, I'm sure anyone can see that fighter_001A53 could be immensly different from fighter_074V75, from fighter_933R12, from fighter_438N02, etc. I'll grant that some players or DMs will be better served by sticking to core, but it's certainly not a blanket statement. Cheers Otto :)
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 07-10-06, 12:52 PM	The title of this thread is disingenuous. You Don't NEED a lot of things in life. Most people could probably sleep and live in 15x15 rooms. You can have a happy and productive life without Computers or Television. The same applies for D&D. You don't need non-core material to have a lot of fun. And, there's nothing wrong with being content. However, it is silly to say that it is more fun with core-only than non-core. That might be true for some people, but certainly not all. You can have many books and allow varied characters and roleplay to the fullest and still have the fun of the game be the priority.
Mathius 07-10-06, 02:30 PM	Thanks for all the input guys, couple of things to say upon reviewing my original post. I'll try and answer the points made so far in turn as well as I can in the spirit of my original post: Encard: You're right I shouldn't have mentioned the 'what dnd is all about bit' without the IMHO disclaimer. Also you may be right about this being a minority reaction, I don't know this is just my group's example but I hope it would work for more than just us. Milo: My problem was that my group weren't the RP type, your group sounds like it didnt have that problem so it wasnt necessary to do anything more to encourage RP. Also I didnt allow psyonics but my group dislikes psyonics anyway down to the last man. Seeker: Yes when the guys talked about what they wanted their char's to be they were talking more about helping free occupied Unther (Firen)and joining the Harpers (Frag) rather than getting Whirlwind attack which is a big change to what I am used to. Thasis: I think you have got the idea of my post in your first line. It helped a group who usually powergame to become a much more RP based. Gwydion: Similar to above. It helped them RP when they normally powergame. Kyron: Whoa...ok...I didnt say I hated them just that in this instance it helped with the RP. Questionc: I think this is what I was trying to do. Rather than give them an easy, pre-formatted set of rules and stats to fill their goals of their character they had to put a lot more thought into things like 'how should my character act in order to show he's a sneaky assasin type rogue?'. He couldn't just put Assassin 1 on his char sheet (and he didn't have to be evil either). Otto: Sorry wasn't meant to be a blanket statement, just something for a DM with my problem to try and thanks for the questionaire that should help even more! Bill: You're right. It wasnt a good title really it should have been more like 'An idea/suggestion to help DM's who's groups struggle with RP' Well thanks guys and also I burnt my pizza answering your comments so I guess the pizza god dislikes my idea; and I MUST obey him or else I will starve!
Kyron_Sleai 07-10-06, 05:29 PM	yeah sorry its just... i care deeply about :weep: :weep: all the assasins and mindbenders and dwarven defenders out there... :weep: :weep: ive got something in my eye i gotta go... :weep: :weep: :weep: oh and tell the pizza god i want EXTRA cheese this time :) ;)
Lord Gwydion 07-10-06, 08:27 PM	Two things.... first off, character concepts like "I am a Master of Transformation magic" aren't really very good from a storytelling perspective. The main stumbling block for characters is not having a reasonable motivation. "I want to see the homeland I was exiled from", "I need to pay off the randsom for my daughter", or "Prophecy has fated me to die for my people, I must prepare my soul for it" are what's needed. Very few if any supplemental books help those kinds of character concepts. I agree with you, but one step at a time. As Malthius says, his group were heavy on the powergaming, light on the RP. Without the mechanical crutches to define their character as "I fill role A" they will roleplay themselves as filling role A even without the mechanics. That's step one. Step two then would be to develop deeper beliefs and personality beyond just their role in an adventuring party. Step three would then to actually find clever ways to bring their beliefs and personalities into every adventure, rather than just the ones that focus on hooks dependent on their backstory/personality. Step four would then be doing all of the above with all optional rules on the table mechanically. You can't just expect an instant transformation from star of the 5th grade school play to star of the Royal Shakespeare Company overnight. Give them time to work at it.
Lord Gwydion 07-10-06, 08:27 PM	Oh, and Angryman, yeah, that pirate game was fun!
Vaelan 07-11-06, 05:59 AM	When you get clogged up in the umpteen supplement books and millions of opportunities to tweek the rules and make pun-pun like killer characters you lose sight of what DND was originally supposed to be all about. The problem is that your players were focusing on the game rather than the characters. You took emphasis away from the game by restricting them to Core, but you could have just as easily done so by talking with them and having them evaluate that which they are focusing upon and that which they wish to focus upon. I rate your solution as a 7/10. Functional but inelegant.
Seeker95 07-11-06, 07:45 AM	you could have just as easily done so by [...]I doubt it. Powergaming is a mindset. (Not necessarily a bad one, but in this case, it didn't blend with the DM's intent.) Mindsets are hard to overcome. It takes thousands of dollars and hours of therapy (the equivalent of "talk with them") for many people to change their mindset. This DM had a whole room full. I believe your proposed solution (talk with them) could have worked, but I disagree that it would have been just as easy. Restricting the ruleset is very easy. Talking with people, telling them you disapprove of what they are doing, getting them to listen, and having them change is about the hardest approach you could take. (However, when it works, it is the best solution.)
Edymnion 07-11-06, 12:40 PM	Halfling Warlock- not powergaming material at all.You have never seen anyone even try to abuse the Warlock, have you? At high levels, you might as well just stop throwing combat encounters at a party with a Warlock in it. Between Word of Change and Utterdark Eldritch Blast, anything without sky-high spell resistance is going to simply dissappear. "I use Word of Change, is it a frog yet?" "I use Word of Change, is it a frog yet?" "I hit it with an utterdark blast to drop it's save a few points. Now I use Word of Change, is it a frog yet?" Repeate while the rest of the party provides meat shields and distractions.
Araciel 07-11-06, 12:45 PM	Eh... You know, your player's argument sounds, to me, like saying, "I know how to run stereotypical core characters, so it's a lot easier RPing them than something I haven't seen before!" Sure, that *might* get you more RP... but it'll get you generic RP. Maybe for some people it'll legitimately help them come up with an interesting character, but I can't see this being the majority reaction. i don't know i think using only the PHB you should be able to make quite a few..and when i say quite a few, i mean hundreds and thousands of different, interesting characters. for people to not use their imagination and instead use a PRC/core class combination to define who their character is sounds boring to me
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 07-11-06, 12:50 PM	I think there are several examples of defining yourself as a Prc that can make yourself interesting. For example, Bladesinger, Dervish, Archmage, War Hulk, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, Blackguard, Alienist, ect. it all depends on how the player roleplays :)
Araciel 07-11-06, 12:58 PM	sorry guess i was unclear...i'm not saying PRCs aren't good ways to define a character...but with a combination of the base classes and imagination you can probably, in a story/roleplaying way, make any of those characters anyway without the need of the PRC at all