Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Timlagor 03-10-07, 12:34 PM	The definition of "fun" will experience table variation. *gasp*:eek: Quick! Someone make a thread so that we can hash out what fun is! Down with table variation! All tables will have the same fun!:P So here it is. Please present your ideas on how we can eliminate this shocking and more terrible of table variation! If you came here looking for a serious discussion: :P
King Kashue 03-10-07, 02:46 PM	The Ten Commandments of Table Standardized Fun 1. All characters shall be required to play one of the four iconic roles. No finesse fighters, no battle clerics, certainly no melee casters (and I shouldn't even have to mention no bards). 2. All characters shall be required to select feats that are clearly optimal and don't require explaining, since that causes less intelligent players to feel bad when they don't understand things. 3. All players shall be required to play introverted characters with poor social skills, then when the DM skips NPC interaction in order to get to combat, it will actually be good role-playing. 4. The following character types will be grounds for designating the player as "not a team player": Rogues without maxed out search, open locks, or disable traps and combat abilities nearly equal to a fighter; Wizards who cannot both simultaneously buff the BDF and blow up the bad guys; Clerics who cannot simultaneous buff, heal, and without maxed turning capabilities; Bards. 5. No spitting on the sidewalk. 6. No character shall attempt to resolve a plot problem or encounter in any manner other than the one most obviously suggested by the module. Attempting to diplomicize with NPCs who may or may not be hostile, but who can reasonably be attacked shall be considered depriving the party of gold and AR access, and shall be defined as "not being a team player" (even having a high diplomacy in general shall be viewed as potentially self-centered, and thus grounds for not being a team player). 7. No cleric shall cast a damage dealing spell until they can cast blade barrier. Holy Smite never works, and watching you spend a 4th level spell to do 8 points of damage makes everyone else at the table pity you. Since feeling sorry for you is not fun, it thus must be forbidden to prevent table variations. 8. Players shall be required to actually learn the gorram rules for their character. If you build a character around a concept that you clearly don't know the rules for, you will be required to play a Barbarian. You will be issued a d20 and a d12, and that will be all the dice you are allowed to every have again. Further, you may no longer say anything other than "I rage" and sentences beginning "I power attack for..." (consider it generous that you will be allowed to determine your own power attack number). 9. No, that's not how that spell/item/ability/feat works, everyone at the table agrees with the DM, shut the hell up... 10. If everyone at the table agrees, the DM shall be allowed to pass out the ARs at the beginning of the session, summarize the plot, and then the table shall spend the next four hours drinking pints.
Timlagor 03-10-07, 03:17 PM	Definitely a good starting point :) I think the Barbarian should be allowed to charge but shouldn't be allowed to choose their power attack until they have proved they can handle charging and raging. Are you sure Rogues should be allowed at all? Wizards can slow things down: Arcanists may only be Warmages!
Jay_Ibero_911 03-10-07, 06:07 PM	10. If everyone at the table agrees, the DM shall be allowed to pass out the ARs at the beginning of the session, summarize the plot, and then the table shall spend the next four hours drinking pints. Maybe I've just been playing at overpowered tables lately...but there have been a lot of times where this one actually sounds like a good idea....
bhale187 03-10-07, 07:47 PM	[b]10. If everyone at the table agrees, the DM shall be allowed to pass out the ARs at the beginning of the session, summarize the plot, and then the table shall spend the next four hours drinking pints. Saved the best for last
Potato Weasel 03-10-07, 09:06 PM	I dunno, I would think barbarians would be -required- to charge, if anything hostile is in charge range. Even if threatened. Hmm, would a fifth player be allowed to double up? is it required that a fifth player sit at the edge of the table, play a character with a different sex than his own, and never be offered yummy snacks?
Hariman 03-11-07, 12:07 AM	Grrrrr. I've seen bard mutts do better than a LOT of other classes/players. And having a bard as a 5th or 6th character (especially with inspirational boost) is one of the greatest ways to increase damage. Turning isn't worth much when most of the undead have turn resistance boosters and, well, turn resistance. Divine feats can help. Adding a -1 to the APL calculations for 4 player parties would help. No chaining together two APL +2 or APL +3 encounters. You're just asking to TPK the less optimized tables/builds. (Like Arcane Tricksters)
ShinAkuma2 03-11-07, 12:25 AM	Grrrrr. I've seen bard mutts do better than a LOT of other classes/players. And having a bard as a 5th or 6th character (especially with inspirational boost) is one of the greatest ways to increase damage. Table variation! That reduces potential fun! Get 'im, Skeeter!
copper_wyrmling 03-11-07, 01:01 AM	Wizards can slow things down: Arcanists may only be Warmages! But then they couldn't buff the fighter! What would the poor BDFs do? Maybe all arcanists should be sorcerers with a predetermined spell selection?* If it doesn't contain any of those icky module-breaking spells, then module authors could stop worrying about them. And sorcerers don't have wizardly knowledge skills, so no table would have to worry about the PCs figuring out the key to the ancient ritual of doom and the names of the protagonists before the first combat (bypassing combats = table variation = bad!) Of course, sorcerers have Charisma. This possibly conflicts with (3), unless it is required that all sorcerers be dark, brooding loners with a mesmerizing presence who never actually say anything. But eh, that could work. *Proposed Required Sorcerer Spell Selection: L10 Example L5: Mass Fly L4: Dimension Door, Orb of Force L3: Fireball, Haste, Dispel Magic L2: Glitterdust, False Life, Scorching Ray, Invisibility L1: Grease, Magic Missile, Ray of Enfeeblement, Mage Armor, Enlarge Person Does that look about right?
magebeast 03-11-07, 12:46 PM	L5: Mass Fly L4: Dimension Door, Orb of Force L3: Fireball, Haste, Dispel Magic L2: Glitterdust, False Life, Scorching Ray, Invisibility L1: Grease, Magic Missile, Ray of Enfeeblement, Mage Armor, Enlarge Person Does that look about right? Sorry, this requires the DM to re-figure to the to hit and damage numbers on his monsters. Unacceptable.
Timlagor 03-11-07, 12:48 PM	not bad.. so long as they aren't allowed Empower as that might let them do too much damage and take away fun from the fighter.. and waste time multiplying. They should also have to be half elves. *Bonks* Hariman on the heard: you're really not getting into the spirit of the game.
Alpha_Nerd 03-11-07, 01:06 PM	Grappling is out of the question. It takes too much time because every time someone starts a grapple we have to crack open the books.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-11-07, 01:08 PM	Grappling is out of the question. It takes too much time because every time someone starts a grapple we have to crack open the books. On that note, Monks are to be absolutely forbidden, unless they have more levels in other stuff then Monk, and they must have barbarian levels too.
copper_wyrmling 03-11-07, 02:54 PM	Sorry, this requires the DM to re-figure to the to hit and damage numbers on his monsters. Unacceptable. Excellent point! On the other hand, Grease induces rules arguments, production of FAQ entries, and requires the GM to figure out the monsters' Balance ranks. We could replace them with Lesser Orb of Acid and Lesser Orb of Cold, perhaps? I've deliberately left out swift-action spells, because multiple actions / turn lead to one player dominating combat time at the expense of others. Oh yeah, for that reason, summoners are right out. I guess Feather Fall might be acceptable...
gomeztoo 03-11-07, 03:59 PM	They should also have to be half elves. Nonono! Half-elves have a bonus on Diplomacy. Afore you know it they be tempted to use it. All PCs need be human, except rogues, which should be halflings, and barbarians, which should be half-orcs. We *might* allow a dwarven fighter. But only if he uses a waraxe. But no elves. You could as well allow bards! And all arcane casters should be evocation specialists. No need to spend skills on knowledge skills. All need to be spend on Concentration, Appraise, and Spellcraft. If you wish to spend the other skills, spend them on useless Craft skills. Use is to earn money after a scenario, and call it roleplaying (so you can totally skip that during play - wastes time!).
King Kashue 03-11-07, 04:04 PM	On that note, Monks are to be absolutely forbidden, unless they have more levels in other stuff then Monk, and they must have barbarian levels too. Already forbidden by rule number 1 requiring playing one of the four iconics. There's no need to be redundant :D
GreatSiron 03-11-07, 04:15 PM	Is it just me or are these rules a guideline for "How to cause a TPK?" I mean it sounds like you are disallowing anyone with any ablitiy to devise tactics more complicated that "attack it head on." Not always the best idea. (Cadavar Collector) :)
King Kashue 03-11-07, 04:41 PM	Is it just me or are these rules a guideline for "How to cause a TPK?" I mean it sounds like you are disallowing anyone with any ablitiy to devise tactics more complicated that "attack it head on." Not always the best idea. (Cadavar Collector) :) Salient and cogent criticism... Perhaps we should all give the issue some deliberate thought and reevaluate our entirely serious suggestions in this thread that is not facetious in any way, so that we may better make actual changes based on our genuine proposals (which should be noted are not intended for any humourous value, but rather are entirely earnest) on how to change the game for the better...
GreatSiron 03-11-07, 04:50 PM	Salient and cogent criticism... Perhaps we should all give the issue some deliberate thought and reevaluate our entirely serious suggestions in this thread that is not facetious in any way, so that we may better make actual changes based on our genuine proposals (which should be noted are not intended for any humourous value, but rather are entirely earnest) on how to change the game for the better... Your making fun of me, aren't you?
Timlagor 03-11-07, 05:32 PM	Salient and cogent criticism... And we'll have less of that language thank you!
clannagh 03-11-07, 06:49 PM	Do not forget ban all non PHB weapons and all exotic weapon choices from the PHB except Dwarven Waraxes when used by dwarves because they are then martial. You should also nominate the loudest bossiest BDF fighter player as team leader and let him be in charge of running the combats. this allows the rest of the party to go outside for a smoke/coffee/beer/drug-of-preference while the Gm and team leader fight the combats. While you are at it ban any complex feat trees that require thinking including anything that involves combat expertise/trip/disarm or the dodge/mobility/spring attack tree. Allow druids under the sole condition they never wild shape or summon anything and use their spells to buff fighters with freedom of movement, bulls strength, bark skin and so on.
Lomiat 03-11-07, 07:09 PM	Hmm... Far too many rules options if the debate's still raging at this point. 1) Power Attack slows down the game. No Power Attacking. 2) Spellcasting slow down the game and is too powerful per spell level, plus the spells change with different books, requiring judges to stay up to date with the most recent, core rules from WotC. If we throw out spellcasting, we move toward a closer alignment with WotC's goal for the game, and that, my friends, is team play. Death to spellcasting! 3) Screw this. Everyone gets a greatsword and a shield. You want AC? You wear your shield. You want to be able to hit things? Boo hoo. Toss aside your shield and wield your greatsword. Everyone will have +10 to hit, for 2d6+8 points of damage, but as it slows down the game to roll the dice, let's just make it so that everyone hits a 21 AC for 15 points of damage. 4) Conveniently enough, all bad guys will have 21 AC and HPs easily divisible by 15. 5) Attacks of opportunity are confusing. Let's modify the rules so you only provoke if you leave the base of your opponent's mini. 6) At the end of the session, everyone must shake hands and say, "Good game," before the DM summarizes the plot and everyone heads to the bar for pints.
Sieylianna 03-11-07, 08:50 PM	No monsters can be immune to critical hits or magic. It's not fair that the PCs can't use their abilities fully. Ed
Jay_Ibero_911 03-11-07, 08:54 PM	The results of all mods shall be reduced to a single opposed roll. The dm will roll 1d4 vs. one player rolling 1d20, with the higher roll winning. If the dm rolls higher, then all players at that table are immediately banned from the RPGA.
LGMoses 03-12-07, 03:10 AM	:teach: ability draining monsters are banned cuz they cause perma-damage at low levels and that can decrease fun. Also, monsters that drain/damage int, wis, and cha are banned cuz they pic on peple who use those as dump stats which is clearly not being a team player. :teach:
Cardinal Teplin 03-14-07, 09:08 AM	Guide to avoiding table variation: All modules should be a series of fights loosely connected by a combination of box-text and DM description of events, generally referred to as 'plot'. These may involve skill checks, (Climb, gatherinformation, knowledge, diplomacy, etc.), in which case that particular skill is required, and no other method or plan, magical or otherwise, may substitute for the skill check. You can punish characters for failing skills checks, but remember that everything beyond the fights is 'optional', and should not be allowed to detract from the game. Players may talk to eachother and to NPCs 'in character', but such conversations are strictly for ornamental purposes. Under no circumstances should any interaction with an NPC alter the course of an adventure. Fights take place on a blank grid for a reason. If you start drawing on or describing anything more complicated than an empty room then players may feel tempted have their characters use furniture as cover, set fire to objects, swing on chandeliers, and other manifestations of table variation. A simple barrel or table may look innocuous, but you must be steadfast against temptation! The rules in the book represent the sum total of the character's interaction with the game world. And even some of those are dubious. Remember the ultimate rule of thumb : "If it doesn't cause damage, it's probably wrong."
bitznarf 03-14-07, 10:52 AM	Even this may be too much variation. Walls can chopped down, floors can be hacked through. To ensure that none of these 'variations' occur, all fights must take place on flat, featureless plains.
solbergb 03-14-07, 12:17 PM	Then you also have to ban Disintegrate and the wall and fog spells, since they can ruin the featureless flat terrain by making barriers or digging pits!
Jay_Ibero_911 03-14-07, 01:57 PM	And we shall call this featureless plain world "Living Parking Lot"!
Munkwunk 03-14-07, 06:44 PM	All monsters should be placed in modules as described in teh Monster Manual. Templates, class levels, and tactics not specifically described in a monster's entry should not be used for any reason. There are plenty of creatures for each listed CR and changing that up at all causes table variation, which decreases fun. That being said, encounters should never be more challenging than EL+0. Weak and stupid players will experience too many fun-draining TPKs if they are forced to fight an ogre at APL2 because a CR3 creature is simply too powerful, especially when considering that there may be stray first-level characters at the table. Actually, that brings up another point: All players who sit down at the table should be of exactly the same level. It is no fun for a first level character to be forced to play "up" to APL2 with third level characters. The third level characters will obviously outshine the first level PCs and then everyone's entire day will be just dreadful. Modules must be written for all 15 possible APLs.
LGMoses 03-15-07, 12:58 AM	from now on, all adventures are to be read verbatim from the paper. When encounters are reached. The players will be read 3 different options on how to solve each one. They may then choose one and a dice roll will be made using one of their skills to solve the problem OR a combat may begin. This is how table variation will be eliminated.
Samwise 03-15-07, 12:58 PM	from now on, all adventures are to be read verbatim from the paper. When encounters are reached. The players will be read 3 different options on how to solve each one. They may then choose one and a dice roll will be made using one of their skills to solve the problem OR a combat may begin. This is how table variation will be eliminated. Errr . . . If there are three different options then you have three different table variants. To properly eliminate table variation: 1. Pregenerated PCs will be provided. 2. The adventure text will be read. 3. The players will be allowed to nod sagely and agree that yes, that is just what their character would do in each encounter. 4. The ARs, which will be filled out by the Circle as part of preparing the pdf, will be handed out. 5. Everyone will talk about how much fun they had. (Yes, that is mandatory. Anyone failing to do so will be suspended until they learn how to have fun with everyone else.)
bitznarf 03-15-07, 01:31 PM	Heh, I love it.
Timlagor 03-15-07, 02:39 PM	Good work Samwise but you forgot to mention that all the PCs are identical to avoid any variation about who plays which one.
Samwise 03-15-07, 02:46 PM	Good work Samwise but you forgot to mention that all the PCs are identical to avoid any variation about who plays which one. Gack! Is there a way to have the PCs not be identical but keep the variation of how they are (or rather aren't) played from intruding? What if we had a mandatory table size and a mandatory number of encounters and the characters were rotated after each encounter so everyone played (or sat around and listened as the character was played) for an equal amount of time in each adventure (reading)?
magebeast 03-17-07, 01:30 PM	Gack! Is there a way to have the PCs not be identical but keep the variation of how they are (or rather aren't) played from intruding? What if we had a mandatory table size and a mandatory number of encounters and the characters were rotated after each encounter so everyone played (or sat around and listened as the character was played) for an equal amount of time in each adventure (reading)? Nah, just make it so every player in the RPGA has a set table of players they are required to play at. That way while there may be variation between tables, there will be no variation within tables.
comixguru 04-20-07, 11:16 AM	All this dice-rolling! What is one player get hot at rolling dice! I think all rolls should be written in the adventure, with all damage dealt and ACs hit predetermined. Adventures should never include crits except in the case of plot-driven NPC deaths. All player rolls should be either use average results for all die rolls, with all D20 rolls being 10s, or should come from the Complete Die Rolls sourcebook, Equal Fun chapter. -comix
smerwin29 04-20-07, 11:47 AM	And all tables and chairs must be the same size. Preferrably the table will be large enough to keep the DM separated from the characters, so as not to be influenced by them in any way.
bitznarf 04-20-07, 12:47 PM	But wait! Lo and behind, the game already exists! For early in the 2nd age did Progress Quest (http://www.progressquest.com/) emerge. It would in time become the gold standard of progress, wherein every PC was equal, every roll was fair. With such stunning endorsements from some of the worlds most powerful leaders, how could such a project fail? However the Wizards on the Coast did not like this idea; for solid progress made splat books less attractive. So the wizards did carry on with their random dice, and the need to actually be at the table...
Alpha_Nerd 04-20-07, 01:02 PM	Hey guys, I just got done making some new dice and I think yall might want to purchase some. I've got a 4-sided die with 2.5 on every side, a 6-sided die with 3.5 on each side, an 8-sided die with 4.5 on each side, a 10-sided die with 5.5 on each die, a % die with 45 on each side, a 12-sided die with 6.5 on each side, and finally a 20-sided die with 10.5 on each side. Any takers?
bitznarf 04-20-07, 04:32 PM	Do those round up or down? After all, anything less than average is simply not acceptable.
Genghis Cohen 04-20-07, 09:25 PM	The best way to eliminate table variation is to eliminate the tables. Make everyone play standing up with dice in one hand and a martini in the other.
Potato Weasel 04-21-07, 08:31 AM	Won't a policy like this encourage drink variation?
Timlagor 04-21-07, 09:18 AM	And Alcohol encourages totally unacceptable variation in behaviour!
Genghis Cohen 04-21-07, 09:46 AM	And Alcohol encourages totally unacceptable variation in behavior!Alcohol also encourages conga lines, which are a very standardized form of social behavior.
duhtroll 04-29-07, 11:21 AM	Costumes for the four iconics will be issued at the door. One size fits all. Petite gamers, being a myth, will have to make do with an XXXXXXXXXL. The standard snacks of nachos and Fresca will be served at all gatherings.
King Kashue 04-30-07, 01:34 AM	The standard snacks of nachos and Fresca will be served at all gatherings. Where the hell do you live that nachos and Fresca are "standard"?
_metz_ 04-30-07, 06:56 AM	I think one should work out average statistics for each encounter for the pregenerated PCs. Therefore damage each roudn, hit each round, etc will be reduced to an exact science. Being lucky is occasionally fun or non fun. Remove it. Greatswords do exactly 7 damage if medium plus strength etc. Therefore at the end of each module, noone dies - cos that would be unfun, but noone does anything interesting or unusual. THat would be table variation. Ban prestige classes as well. And anything not form the PHB. Ban Archers for using good fighter levels on something that isn't power attacking. Make party information ocme in the form of Box text. Having to ask people questions encouragaes table variation, and discourages players who don't roleplay.
smerwin29 04-30-07, 07:28 AM	Wait, I just realized we are describing something already available! D&D Minis!
just_be_glad_now 04-30-07, 10:27 AM	LOL. I can remember a dnd minis tournament (don't remember where, but it was one with the Wizards-provided clear plastic block trophies so it was an important one I guess) where I showed up to discover that about 2/3 of the players at the tournament were playing identical warbands. After a day playing what amounted to 5 or so identical games out of the 8 or so that I played, I took my plastic block trophy and went home, never to play dnd minis again. Brayden Glad smerwin29 said Wait, I just realized we are describing something already available!... D&D Minis!
pedr 04-30-07, 11:19 AM	Wait, I just realized we are describing something already available! D&D Minis!<<Casts Summon Factionmaster: Kiddoc and stands back to watch the Blackwheel Company vs Crimson Codex rivalry take on a new dimension ...>>
_metz_ 04-30-07, 11:19 AM	Haven't touched that game, don't want to. ever.
smerwin29 04-30-07, 12:58 PM	<<Casts Summon Factionmaster: Kiddoc and stands back to watch the Blackwheel Company vs Crimson Codex rivalry take on a new dimention ...>> There's nothing uglier than a Factionmaster Slapfight(tm). And for the record, I do like playing DDM, but the big tournaments do sometimes turn into the same warband more or less in every game.
MichaelAhlf 04-30-07, 06:23 PM	LOL. I can remember a dnd minis tournament (don't remember where, but it was one with the Wizards-provided clear plastic block trophies so it was an important one I guess) where I showed up to discover that about 2/3 of the players at the tournament were playing identical warbands. After a day playing what amounted to 5 or so identical games out of the 8 or so that I played, I took my plastic block trophy and went home, never to play dnd minis again. Brayden Glad smerwin29 said I used to play Magic: The Gathering until the presence of magazines and internet decks ruined the fun for me. My complaint was about the same as yours, I would go to local tournaments and out of 25-30 people, you'd have 6-7 unique decks and the rest of the people would all be playing two or three "concept" decks that were hot at the time. And then came the "Summer of Necro", when EVERY player played the same deck, or lost if they didn't. :( What you're describing scares me about D&D Minis because it feels like the same phenomenon that killed Magic.
Mommy was an Orc 04-30-07, 07:50 PM	Gack! Is there a way to have the PCs not be identical but keep the variation of how they are (or rather aren't) played from intruding? How about this: Use 2 point buy. All stats are 8 except for a 10. All Race choices are flavor only - being a half-orc just means you look a bit funny(but doesn't affect your charisma of 8(or 10) at all) All Magic Item/Feat/Skill/PrC access requires that the previous AR gave you access to it to work. So you might very well have a +6 Amulet of Wisdom for a 16 Wisdom or Shock Trooper, but unless you got access the very previous adventure, it doesn't do anything. All actions by your character require a full vote by the table to determine if they believe you roleplayed effectively. If anyone votes no, abstains, or has used the bathroom in the past hour, it can't be done. And finally, all encounters should be autosurprise EL+10(or worse) encounters. ------ There are several advantages to this: Character generation is easy to understand and simple. Access to pretty much anything can be given out - this will let players try out new, exciting different options, yet be balanced at the same time. Mods will be challenging. DMs who softball mods can be recognized and punished for cheating. Presumably, this will narrow the APL range a bit - all mods can be made APL 2 to reflect the new nature of the campaign. As there is no APL range, this should make for a wide variety of interesting mods as writers' lives are now made much easier - no need to write up complicated statblocks for each APL. Even better, this means mods require less paper to print, for an environmentally sound campaign...
Gallaway 04-30-07, 10:56 PM	a 2 point buy is rather generous don't you think ?
Mommy was an Orc 04-30-07, 11:55 PM	a 2 point buy is rather generous don't you think ? Hey, I'm all about encouraging player choice here...
Simpi 05-01-07, 01:43 AM	What you're describing scares me about D&D Minis because it feels like the same phenomenon that killed Magic. Actually, may I point you out to any number of WOTC forums, including Living Greyhawk, which deal with optimising PCs. Like DDM teams or magic decks, one can see that certain archtypes are quite dominant. Perhaps a little bit of history is repeating itself.... Edit: And about this thread, I am quite sure some of these posts are actually dead serious. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
bitznarf 05-01-07, 01:51 AM	Actually, may I point you out to any number of WOTC forums, including Living Greyhawk, which deal with optimising PCs. Like DDM teams or magic decks, one can see that certain archtypes are quite dominant. Perhaps a little bit of history is repeating itself.... Edit: And about this thread, I am quite sure some of these posts are actually dead serious. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad Wait, what? This thread is actually talking about something real? Whoa. I surely hope that this thread isn't being taken seriously. And I'm the one that suggested this thread get started. I don't think that 3.5ed D&D has reached that point yet, nor do I think it will do so anytime soon. Why? Because the players for the most part aren't competing against each other all that much. If they were, we would quickly see the number of different builds in play pared down quickly. But due to the more cooperative nature of D&D there is room for those who just want to play. And thats a good thing. I myself like optimizing characters. It's a challenge in and of itself, thats why I do it. That doesn't mean that I won't take what is obviously a sub-optimal build (read: anything that isn't a caster) and have fun with it. P.S. Not sure what 'DDM teams are'
Gallaway 05-01-07, 03:09 AM	Because the players for the most part aren't competing against each other all that much. Some players definitely are .. just look for comments like "xxx is overpowered", "should be banned" or "best dip ever" or "we ZZZ are disadvantaged compared to all those mages/druids/rogues/fighters/druids/(anything not ZZZ) " as a giveaway of someone that sees D&D as a competitive rather than co-operative game.
_metz_ 05-01-07, 04:53 AM	Actually the staement on Ruathar being the best dip ever - by me and many others, is recognising some flaws in the game. Up till now I have a 7th level Rogue and a 7th level cleric. In all honesty, not trying to powergame or anything. However, in LG, its about modules and encounters, diplomacy is even occasionally discouraged, so you work with the system to keep your characters alive, useful, and interesting as well. Push comes to shove you won't get a game with your character if its useless, interesting is fun, but try to ocntribute in what way you can. If there is offence to this mentality, perhaps LG is not the ideal campaign. I am not trying to argue or anything like that, but by virtue of having restrictions, modules, and rules, LG moves towards a more standardised "computer game" style environment, and focuses less on Roleplaying. Personally I am just glad to get a game when I can, and try to roleplay when I have the time. Argueing roleplaying is good doesn't remove the importance of having a character who is usful in an adventuring situation. Otherwise go play Dungeons and Cafe's or something - where you sit around all day and compare character histories - roleplaying is important, but its only half of the game. An important half, but its foolish to ignore the adventuring aspect. If anything, wanting your character to be able to contirbute should be part of being cooperative, not relying on other characters. Why must it be competitive, its only competitive when you take offence that someone else does more damage. Neither of my characters actually do much flashy stuff, but my rogue has style and my cleric is helpful, and I am happy with that. Some characters are inevitably going to be more consistantly powerful based on campagin settings - e.g: Rogues in Perrenland are very rare, (Hence I made one for fun) But one can still have a useful character. Is it bad roleplaying for one person's Barbarian to make fun of another barbarian at the table who doesn't do any damage? occasionally its not the Player making fun of the other person's build, but every noe and then the barbarian roleplaying his outlook on what a strong brabarian should do. Its a very fine line. D&D minis is like a wargame, it will of course eliminate roleplaying and as such shouldn't really be considered. This thread is a joke, recognising some inherent issues with the administration of such a large campaign, and some less tasteful elements, but please try not to take it too seriously. Some people like roleplaying a fighter who is as good as they can be at waht they do, don't hate them for that, its just another way of roleplaying. However I must agree, lacking roleplaying justification for what your character does is an issue, and I don't really like it. There are many ways to roleplay a pious templar for example, don't jsut need to be doing it for weapon spec, bonus feat, smite and mettle...
Mommy was an Orc 05-01-07, 08:12 AM	Some players definitely are .. just look for comments like "xxx is overpowered", "should be banned" or "best dip ever" or "we ZZZ are disadvantaged compared to all those mages/druids/rogues/fighters/druids/(anything not ZZZ) " as a giveaway of someone that sees D&D as a competitive rather than co-operative game. I don't see that at all. My goal when I sit down at the table is that everyone have fun. The ultra-optimizing players, you deny them the ability to get say Wraithstrike, they might be annoyed at the moment, but they'll figure out something else to do with their characters and have a good time regardless. You don't ban those things, though, and those players will start to dominate tables without trying hard. That's a bad thing for LG - who wants to play in a campaign where you're constantly the side show?(unless that's the intent of your build - almost all my builds that are in play are designed to be very good at something, but at the same time I weaken them to iconic by taking on an essential team role)
Samwise 05-01-07, 10:55 AM	Some players definitely are .. just look for comments like "xxx is overpowered", "should be banned" or "best dip ever" or "we ZZZ are disadvantaged compared to all those mages/druids/rogues/fighters/druids/(anything not ZZZ) " as a giveaway of someone that sees D&D as a competitive rather than co-operative game. When I identify something as overpowered and worthy of banning it is almost always because I don't want to see it used against the players. A spell like power word pain is virtually for a PC. It is ludicrously lethal against APL 2 parties. Cooperation in the game extends beyond the players working together to be an effective team. It includes the players and DM (or campaign staff) working together to decide what additions to the rules are too powerful and will upset the overall game balance, both for what players can do and what the DM can use as challenges for the players.
King Kashue 05-01-07, 01:50 PM	Actually, may I point you out to any number of WOTC forums, including Living Greyhawk, which deal with optimising PCs. Like DDM teams or magic decks, one can see that certain archtypes are quite dominant. Perhaps a little bit of history is repeating itself.... Edit: And about this thread, I am quite sure some of these posts are actually dead serious. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad And I seriously think you're taking this thread too seriously if you seriously think that people here are seriously serious...:D As for builds, some options just get taken since they're clearly optimal. Should it be seen as a bad thing that nearly every melee combatant takes Weapon Focus? I just played 14 rounds of LG at Theocracy by the Bay and I played with a huge variety of characters. Cavalry Druids, Draconic Sorcerers, Power Attacking Bard Fighters, Warmage Rogue Fighter Pirates, Archer Tanks (seriously), Grey Elf Sorcerers (well, I didn't play with this character, since it's mine :D), etc...I don't think we're in danger of homogenization... As for the character build forums, sure some people are trying to optimize their builds, but there are plenty of others (like me, for instance) who are saying things like "I really want to play this concept (Stormlord, for instance), but it kinda sucks, how can I make this a viable character in order to properly contribute"...
bitznarf 05-01-07, 03:15 PM	As for the character build forums, sure some people are trying to optimize their builds, but there are plenty of others (like me, for instance) who are saying things like "I really want to play this concept (Stormlord, for instance), but it kinda sucks, how can I make this a viable character in order to properly contribute"... Some classes/builds need that extra bump <.< >.> Just not full casters really. Its kinda hard like copper_wyrmling says to screw up a CoDzilla if you start with a 15 wis.
copper_wyrmling 05-01-07, 04:19 PM	Some classes/builds need that extra bump <.< >.> Just not full casters really. Its kinda hard like copper_wyrmling says to screw up a CoDzilla if you start with a 15 wis. Eh, it's hard even if you start with a 14 Wis. Trust me on this one :P (My L15 cleric had her highest starting stat in Dex and has four very suboptimal feats - two were for style reasons, two were good feats up to about L12 but have now been outgrown, and she never got to retrain. The only time I've ever felt like that PC wasn't pulling her weight at a table was in one Iuz mod where she was three levels below APL and all the bad guys had personal antimagic fields. Full spellcasting progression with full access to your spell list makes up for a multitude of deficiencies...)