Post/Author/DateTime	Post
wraithgnome 03-24-08, 11:55 AM	I recently read a post about a player who was tired of "having to be good at DnD". He didn't want to own all the books and be great at optimizing every character he plays, and know all the rules and what page they are on, and know all the errata, and make the very best tactical combat decision on every encounter and never take a point of damage...I feel exactly the same way! I've played DnD since 1st edition Red Box. I played ADnD, 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition, 3.5 and soon 4th Edition...I get it! But latley it seems that just sitting down with some friends to play a character for a few hours, roll some dice, do some crazy things and have some fun is just not enough. You have to be good at it. Maybe it has to do with the players at the table. We have one player who knows every rule, what book it is in, what page number and what the errata says about it. Another player has every book ever published on PDF on his laptop...I'm surprised he actually rolls dice instead of using a program to do it. It's just not my style. My main goal is not perfection or victory or optimization...it's to have FUN! And when you have players who question every move your character makes because it's not "the best move" or who break down every encounter like a formula.."the fighter moves to X and does Y, while the wizard casts Z and the cleric readies for W" It's just not fun that way. Maybe it's the DM. We've been gaming with him for years and he is very knowledgable and always prepared. He tries to make the story or campaign come to life and tries to be fair with his rulings. But, when a player wants to try something new, a new feat from a Dragon magazine for exapmle, or a combat maneuver that isn't exactly covered in the rules, or a Prestige class that has a requirement you haven't met he is quite a stickler. I used to remember DnD being about what you Could do...not about what you Couldn't do. Maybe it's me. I admit I don't know all the rules by heart(I do have a real life) and don't own most of the books, and like to roleplay too much when the others just want to kill the monster, get the loot, get the XP and move to the next room...and then repeat. I do argue some rulings to try to get an advantage(I have to compete with the other players who are optimized and can do ungodly amounts of damage) and I do try to come up with different race/class/feat combos to keep it fun and interesting to me. Bottom line...I just wanted to vent about my recent experiences gaming and see if anyone else was feeling that way. Don't get me wrong...I'm not going to stop gaming, and I'm not going to find a new group(these guys are all my good friends) but I need to find a little of that magic I had when I first began playing...
Jaamus 03-24-08, 12:10 PM	Switch games. Try a different D20 based(or other but I don't like nonD20 personally) of a different genre. As a break we play Mutants and Masterminds or Deadlands after a few months of D&D. When you come back to it, you will appreciate it once more.
MaD_DiCe_RoLLa 03-24-08, 12:12 PM	well, you could always set up a small campaign with pre-gen non-uber characters. Make them all quirky, and interesting and see what they do with that. Sometimes people get so mired in routine that they forget that theres a lot more out there than just the most powerfull character you can make. I recently rolled a favored soul who swings a greatsword with a 12 strength. I love him though because he's an interesting guy. I honestly believe its what you put get back as much as you put in with your characters. It could be your friends have stopped thinking of character creation as an inventive and limitless form of expression and instead think of it as just another mechanic in the game, because bottom line is its just a game. It could also be that you've had the same 1 DM for a long time. My group tends to switch it up, with at least 3-4 DM's running something and the different games always offer something fresh. A new interpretation to the way a world is, to just a different voice for the shopkeeper can all add up to new ideas and adventures. It might put that spark back in ya gaming heart. =)
Stolide 03-24-08, 02:07 PM	Why don't you offer to dm? If you can run a game and shift the emphasis to roleplaying, instead of combat, they may realize the difference between a table top war game and a roleplaying game. I find having multiple dms makes a big difference as players notice the different styles of playing dnd. I personally favor roleplaying to combat. And when there is combat, I make it flavourfull. I roleplay during combat, which is something many people won't do.
Wandering_Mind 03-24-08, 02:15 PM	I'm playing in a game much like this and I still have fun only because I'm the only person who really roleplays. Its actually quite comical when the others get into situations where their uber characters cant hack and slash through the problem. My character is current a sorcerer who has suffered at the hands of the parties greed and is currently waiting for the chance to pay them back is some very colorful ways. I used to have to cover most of the roleplay, but after speaking with the dm, they've been forced to begin speaking to npcs instead of just cutting them down. Though I'd be lying if I didn't admit that some npcs didn't recieve the brunt of my sorc's fustration every now and again...........cough's while looking at burning village.
Dog_As_A_Devil_Deified 03-24-08, 02:18 PM	I recently read a post about a player who was tired of "having to be good at DnD". He didn't want to own all the books and be great at optimizing every character he plays, and know all the rules and what page they are on, and know all the errata, and make the very best tactical combat decision on every encounter and never take a point of damage...I feel exactly the same way! So...don't. I don't play the game optimally in every respect. Sometimes I will pass by the great sword and even long sword in favor of the short sword and shield, if I feel it fits the character best. What matters is being good enough to perform at a satisfactory level in those niches you expect the character to cover. Absolute mechanical perfection isn't needed and getting a character to a point where "he cannot be hit" may well be beyond the bility of the RAW even played opimally. It sounds to me like you are placing the pressure to absolutely "optimize" on yourself, rather than making the character "good enough to be a badass" (but yet still potentially suboptimal in some regards).
Sunic_Flames 03-24-08, 02:19 PM	But don't you know? You need MAD SKILLZ to be teh D&D pros! Lolz noob! Kidding. Mostly. System mastery will always be a part of any game, though I don't see why it's being taken to that extreme. Unless you're trying to say... play a single classed core only Fighter, a single mistake is not going to break you. Course in such a case the single mistake is trying to play a single classed core only Fighter... The system is loaded with newbie traps like that.
Stolide 03-24-08, 02:32 PM	But don't you know? You need MAD SKILLZ to be teh D&D pros! Lolz noob! Kidding. Mostly. System mastery will always be a part of any game, though I don't see why it's being taken to that extreme. Unless you're trying to say... play a single classed core only Fighter, a single mistake is not going to break you. Course in such a case the single mistake is trying to play a single classed core only Fighter... The system is loaded with newbie traps like that. Playing a single classed fighter isn't the problem. The problem is feeling that you have to be uberbadass. You don't. Just as long as you aren't forcing the party to support you every encounter, it's okay. So what you aren't doing 111 points of damage in one hit at 6 level (happened in my party last night. I was playing a beguiler and still being effective, although not uberbadass) Unless you are a detriment to the party, you shouldn't have a problem with what you're doing.
wraithgnome 03-24-08, 02:46 PM	Yeah...I know...you guys are right. I'll try some of your advice. I was just venting a bit cuz last night's game was filled with arguements("why didn't you move 5' to the left instead?"), and rules discussions("Well it clearly states in the errata pg 21, subparagraph 3, section a") and it just wasn't that much fun. It takes a whole group and a Dm to make the session fun so it's nobodys fault. We're actually trying some new ideas for next campaign which should help with some of the frustrations. Thanks for the advice.
Chaos_Rat 03-24-08, 02:51 PM	If playing D&D is what you still want to play, you stated you have been playing since the Red Box, dig it out and play old school, 3d6 straight down, my group started doing this in January and it has been a blast.
Sunic_Flames 03-24-08, 03:27 PM	That was meant as a rare example where it isn't a matter of being a 'uber perfect badass' but as an example of well... forcing the entire party to support you, even under perfect play. Mostly though it is taken to a greater extreme than it needs to be, as most everything else has a higher error tolerance, allowing you to mess up without sucking horribly for it. End result is you skip the 'errata page 21, subparagraph 3, section a' talk and just play fine.
Wheldrake 03-24-08, 04:05 PM	You don't need to exploit every rule, every loophole, every splatbook and minmax every stat in order to enjoy D&D. I'm playing a campaign where we all have seriously sub-optimal characters. I have a rogue/fighter with 12STR and 13DEX, who decided at first level to be a bastard sword specialist... and then proceeded over the course of subsequent adventures to find one magical *longsword* after another. What a waste of two feats (wpn spec and exotic wpn prof). But he still has fun, fun, fun. Our party is seriously under its theoretical party level vs EL of monsters, but we have fun anyway. Just tell the rules lawyers to lighten up, and play the game without looking everything up in the book. In fact, you could just as well ban players consulting the books during the game, since they seem so intense about doing it. There's no reason not to have as much fun with D&D3.5 as with D&D1, as with any other gaming system. This said, if you really dislike all this nonsense about skills, feats, 5-foot-steps and so on, go out and play Castles and Crusades, a latter-day D&D1 clone. Cheers, --- Wheldrake
weepingminotaur 03-24-08, 04:41 PM	This situation sounds like it could benefit from an honest, lengthy round-table with everyone involved, DM included. Take an hour or two one evening to really talk about what bothers you about the current campaign, what style of play you like, what you dislike, etc. If you are sick of optimizing and want to inject more spontaneity into your D&D sessions, that's a perfectly valid desire to express. The only caveat is that the rest of the group has to be on the same page. :) Perhaps you could convince your DM to try a one-off adventure that strictly adheres to a non-optimized format, one session only, just to see how everyone likes it. Let everyone get a taste of how fun non-optimized D&D can be, and see if your DM can't build a campaign in the same mold. The key is to get people aware that there is a problem. Too often, games drift into hyper-optimization so gradually that no one realizes that it's happened, and sometimes all it takes is an honest conversation to get everyone back on track. Perhaps other players in your group are also unhappy but haven't pinpointed the cause of their unhappiness. Perhaps your DM is catering to what he thinks is the group's preference (as a DM, I do this a lot, which is why our campaigns are heavy on tactics and light on roleplaying: my players like it that way, even though I myself would prefer more roleplaying). Bear in mind, though, that for the rest of the group, tactical roleplaying and optimizing might actually BE fun. ;) Hopefully you'll be able to strike an acceptable balance with everyone else. If not, you might have to find yourself another group to play with, one more suited to your tastes.
Shaggy_Shaggs 03-24-08, 10:47 PM	I think this and many other D&D group problems could be solved by a realization that people use the game to have fun in different ways, and the participants shouldn't force their own sort of fun on others. This means the wargamers letting the thespians have their garbage feats and silly tactics if they like 'em or find 'em more fitting to the story or character. It means the thespians butting out when it's the wargamers' time to beat ass, and not complaining or banning the wargamers' choices because they're mechanically superior but less dramatic. It means the researcher needs to shut up when the puzzle-solver is trying to work out a riddle in a module the researcher has already read, but it also means the puzzle-solver needs not to pout too much about metagaming when the researcher's character is outfitted and prepared for anything that might come up. Bottom line: nobody's D&D is better than yours - and your D&D isn't better than anyone else's. Deal.
sblaxman 03-25-08, 12:32 PM	Go back to 1e/2e. Honestly. It is a refreshing breath of air after the rule-fest that 3.x became. Simple it down to a few core rules, and have fun.
iserith 03-25-08, 12:46 PM	I recently read a post about a player who was tired of "having to be good at DnD". He didn't want to own all the books and be great at optimizing every character he plays, and know all the rules and what page they are on, and know all the errata, and make the very best tactical combat decision on every encounter and never take a point of damage...I feel exactly the same way! I've played DnD since 1st edition Red Box. I played ADnD, 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition, 3.5 and soon 4th Edition...I get it! But latley it seems that just sitting down with some friends to play a character for a few hours, roll some dice, do some crazy things and have some fun is just not enough. You have to be good at it. As the DM of said campaign, I guess it is on me to respond. I rarely visit this forum, but I guess it's good that I chose to do so today. Maybe it has to do with the players at the table. We have one player who knows every rule, what book it is in, what page number and what the errata says about it. Another player has every book ever published on PDF on his laptop...I'm surprised he actually rolls dice instead of using a program to do it. It's just not my style. My main goal is not perfection or victory or optimization...it's to have FUN! And when you have players who question every move your character makes because it's not "the best move" or who break down every encounter like a formula.."the fighter moves to X and does Y, while the wizard casts Z and the cleric readies for W" It's just not fun that way. Let's talk about the players from the DM's perspective. (I will refer to the players by letters.) All of my players - D (the original poster), G, and J - are great players, each in their own way. D is famous for creating fun characters and focusing on roleplaying. G does the same with an eye toward optimization. J is less a roleplayer and more of a tactical gamer, but enjoys the story even if he doesn't roleplay as actively as D and G. The fact that he doesn't drink as much as D, G, and myself may have something to do with it. And now, the campaign: The short miniarc we're playing couldn't be less optimized. We randomly generated stats (32 point buy value but random assignment to stats), limited the races to two (vashar or tiefling), and limited the books to Core, 4 Completes, and Eberron materials. We have a hexblade, a barbarian/warlock, and a spirit shaman/stormlord. There is no decent healer. There's no rogue. There's no real arcane caster. What's more, each and every encounter is designed with these characters in mind so that they aren't screwed by some nasty trap that only a rogue could find or killed off my some effect that a wizard might have dispelled. Nothing, nothing, nothing is optimized here. Most would consider this party to be gimpy. But they are unique and fun to play, especially given the backstory which for the sake of brevity, I won't get into. Maybe it's the DM. We've been gaming with him for years and he is very knowledgable and always prepared. He tries to make the story or campaign come to life and tries to be fair with his rulings. But, when a player wants to try something new, a new feat from a Dragon magazine for exapmle, or a combat maneuver that isn't exactly covered in the rules, or a Prestige class that has a requirement you haven't met he is quite a stickler. I used to remember DnD being about what you Could do...not about what you Couldn't do. In this case, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. When I allow every book on Obad-Hai's green earth, we get broken characters from everyone including D which leads to complaints from the players that so and so is more broken than so and so. When I limit the source materials, I get complaints from D that he can't take some broken feat that exists in a magazine from 8 years ago. Because I value my players' input, I've changed whole storylines during the campaign to accomodate their cool ideas. But just because I don't allow someone to take a prestige class without *gasp* meeting the actual requirements first, I'm a stickler who is more interested in limiting players than playing the game. Where the rules aren't clear, I do make fair rulings on which I allow the players to have input. But where D is confused is that he's not making strange combat moves that require me to do improvise rules to resolve it. Not at all. He's making move that are covered by the rules that he insists on getting wrong. Repeatedly. Maybe it's me. I admit I don't know all the rules by heart(I do have a real life) and don't own most of the books, and like to roleplay too much when the others just want to kill the monster, get the loot, get the XP and move to the next room...and then repeat. I do argue some rulings to try to get an advantage(I have to compete with the other players who are optimized and can do ungodly amounts of damage) and I do try to come up with different race/class/feat combos to keep it fun and interesting to me. It is you. Even I don't know all the rules by heart, but for the love of god, can you at least learn the rules for your own characters? We've been playing every week since 3.5 came out - 5 years ago. We have to go over these same rules with you every week, which results in the same complaints from you and the same frustration from the other players, regardless. It's like a broken record. How many times do we have to explain the rules for grappling or tripping to you before you just accept it and move on? I took you aside on Saturday specifically to ask why every turn you took was an exercise in debating and trying to find an advantage by this 5' move or that. Who's optimizing now? It wasn't the other players telling you what to do. It was the players telling you the rules associated with the action you wanted to take - but you don't want to hear it. At one point, J got up and left the table because it was the tenth time you argued in that single combat about how to do something simple. DM: State your action. D: I want to move over behind this guy and attack him. DM: You can't move that far and still attack. D: WHAT?! DM: Dude, you only have a movement rate of 30 feet. You can't charge because of that pillar and the enemy is 50 feet away. G: Yeah, that's a little to far. Why don't you just double move into the flank to help me out, then attack next round? D: No, I don't want to do that then. J: Can you please just do something or at least delay till you figure it out? D: Get off my back! We know the rules and we want combat to go smoothly. You don't know the rules (or pretend not to) and don't trust us to help you move your character along in combat when we know what you want to do. Instead, you get angry and think we're railroading you, when really we just want you to state your action and get your turn done so we can move on. On average, you state, revise, and restate your actions at least 3 times per turn. I get it. You want the best result for your character - but don't act like it's my fault or the fault of the other players. You're the one "optimizing" in this case. Bottom line...I just wanted to vent about my recent experiences gaming and see if anyone else was feeling that way. Don't get me wrong...I'm not going to stop gaming, and I'm not going to find a new group(these guys are all my good friends) but I need to find a little of that magic I had when I first began playing... You and me both, pal. Step one: Learn at least some of the rules and stop arguing every time your turn is up. Until then, trust your DM and other players who know the rules better than you.
Shaggy_Shaggs 03-25-08, 01:01 PM	So, essentially the OP is Thespian Lite, refusing to butt out when it's the Wargamers' time to do their thing, and unwilling to put in the study to be a Wargamer himself, is that about the size of it? At least, this sounds like somebody who's more interested in doing whatever sounds neat at the time, refuses to put in the mental work to do what's tactically effective at the time, and wants a free pass to rule combat anyway.
Josheva 03-25-08, 01:16 PM	I do have a real life. Why do people always have to play that card when explaining why they don't know the rules? DND is a highly social and enjoyable game that broadens one's experiences and mental capacities. People who play DND enough to know the rules have lives. Anyways, your DM has said many things that I would have said, so I shall simply state the following in response to the issues of optimization. Optimization is a part of the game. Roleplaying is also a part of the game. It is when the two blend together that you get a good DND player. That being said, you do not have to be exceptional at either of the two to contribute to the DND experience. In my view, one succeeds at DND by creating a character that can fulfill his role in the group, contribute to the roleplaying fun, and pick up the slack when others are not performing optimally. If you create a character with a strong build and a matching personality then you have done your job. That being said, when one favours either extreme things go wrong. A player who plays Pun-Pun, for example, is simply abusing loopholes in the rules of the game to outshine the other players and the DM. Doing this is like typing a cheat code into a computer game. Alternatively, when one completely favours roleplaying over build strength, it drops too much weight on the other characters. DND is not fun when you are locked in a constant struggle to compensate for the lack of other players. So, when you are involved in a game, try to recognize your role in the game as well as the roles of others. If you are the best roleplayer around, try to create situations that involve the other characters as a way of involving them. If you are the strongest character around, then use your power wisely. Let others shine as often as possible and encourage them to improve their abilities. Whether you are outshining everyone or not, other players will always recognize your abilities; you have nothing to prove. The most important thing to keep in mind is that DND is a social game. It is not about getting ahead of your fellow players, it is about bringing them to your level. If you are feeling outclassed by somebody else, then simply work with him rather than against him. Don't try to make a build that is better than their's; play a support role. If the fighter is capable of dealing 100+ damage in a round then be the flanker that gives him bonuses to hit. Everybody has a role, and your time to shine will come eventually.
Wheldrake 03-25-08, 01:44 PM	DM: State your action. D: I want to move over behind this guy and attack him. DM: You can't move that far and still attack. D: WHAT?! DM: Dude, you only have a movement rate of 30 feet. You can't charge because of that pillar and the enemy is 50 feet away. G: Yeah, that's a little to far. Why don't you just double move into the flank to help me out, then attack next round? D: No, I don't want to do that then. J: Can you please just do something or at least delay till you figure it out? D: Get off my back! I have this problem too, from time to time. Some players just want to do more actions in a turn than their characters are capable of. My solution? Just take his first stated declaration of action, execute it and enforce it. THe player said: "I want to move over behind this guy and attack him." So in turn one he moves 30 feet, then he moves 20 more feet and is "behind this guy". He wants to attack, sure, you say, sure, you'll attack. When it's your turn again. He just has to wait until everyone else has acted and in the new round it comes to his initiative again. When he says: "No, I don't want to do that then." Well, just don't allow it. He said what he wanted to do, so... have his character perform the stated action, taking the requisite number of rounds to do it. My players have got used to me saying, OK, sure, you move again, but you can't attack this round. They just wait it out and attack the next round. The rules for special attack actions like tripping and grappling are a little tricky, but not that awfully hard. I can really hear the pain of the DM, dealing with a player who just won't get with the program. Sometimes you just have to tell the player when to roll the die to accomplish his desired action. Bottom line: don't allow players to dither. Either they state their chosen action and do it (if necessary over the course of several rounds of combat) or else their character loses a round to indecision. Cheers, --- Wheldrake
Josheva 03-25-08, 01:49 PM	I would have him delay until the next character in the initiative order has finished rather than an entire round. People don't hesitate for a full round in combat, and it's much less annoying to the player when you do this. Also, I think it's reasonable to tell the player how much of their stated action they will complete in a round. Give the players a bit of leeway.
TazendrasGhost 03-25-08, 04:19 PM	This kind of experience isn't unusual I think. People play for different reasons, and have different things they'd like to get out of the game. I've seen similar problems crop up when people in the group have different expectations from the game. Its a very tough job for a DM to keep the guy who isn't that interested in learning the rules happy while also working with the girls who own every sourcebook and know every rule. I'd talk to your group about your feelings. I play in a group where most of the players are a bit weak in their knowledge of the rules, and it took me a little while to figure out that some of the others were just not interested in learning the rules. I was trying to help by suggesting options, and some of them didn't appreciate it. Once I knew that, I stopped making suggestions, and we've gotten along pretty well since. In every group there has to be some compromise in play styles. You want to play in a game that's a bit less mechanical, while it sounds like some of the others are more interested in making and playing powerful characters. Try meeting them half way. Encourage them to be a bit more descriptive and stylish in describing their character's actions, and don't get too upset if they offer suggestions on better mechanical ways to do things. They probably are trying to help. Remember that compromise is a two way street. D&D has gotten a lot more complicated over the years with the ever expanding number of source material out there. Its not reasonable to expect everyone who plays to know all the rules, but it is reasonable to expect each player to know the rules in their character's area of their expertise. That doesn't mean that the player of every wizard needs to know about all the prestige classes in every sourcebook ever printed, but that player should understand how to calculate his character's spell DCs, what it means to cast defensively, and other basic rules that pertain to wizards.
Elsydeon 03-26-08, 02:33 AM	Short response is easy: No game is invalid. If they hold themselves to the pinnacles of optimization prowess you should find a new game. At the same time, if you're bringing the game down because you don't even know the basic rules like what you can do with your 1 character in an action, or the jist of a spell effect.... well, you're the one responsible for the problems not them. Don't complain or act as though you play a better way. Just find a game you like and stop worrying about what other people do. Often the mechanical types are happy to help, we enjoy character design and we know the details because it's how we think. Often the heavy RPers are the ones who don't encourage RP. At least that's my experience. I can't fairly generalize it, but that's how most RP groups I've been in went when I was new. They don't help you. Luckily the group I have now is cool for the most part.
Templar3378 03-26-08, 03:03 AM	Lately the group that I play with has implemented something that I find intriguing: Experiance Bonuses and Penalties. Short version is this: there are times when your character does something in combat that isn't always the best tactical choice. I've done it myself with my paladin who was desperatly trying to keep our crazy monk alive. Well, with a sudden influx of new players who DON'T know the rules at all, we are in the middle of teaching, and all that stuff. Well, our DM started this as a way to teach them some better tactics, but it's also go roleplaying implementations too: basically after the game we send him suggestions for who did stuff good or bad tactically, or who stayed totally true to their character. He looks its over, re-types it in a neutral tone, and sends it out to us all to vote. So far its worked rather well. So for example, in the last battle, we faced off and won against 9 15th level wizards and their 10 knight guards, and won. hard battle we lost 6 of our 16 character group (most of us had at least one NPC to control) and they had 2 who survived our attack. So, for example, while my spellsword accidentally fought the knights into handy line formation, our sorceress spotted the opportunity and nailed 5 of the 10 with a explosive lightning bolt. Bought me time to heal, and wail on one before they got up.
Valgoth 03-26-08, 12:13 PM	Try making a non-optimized character with a great backstory. How about... a half-elf bard. That's right... the penultimate "worst class, worst race". Come up with a hell of a backstory, though... and play it out the way you want to. I've never played an optimized character. Never. Ever wonder what feats like "nimble fingers" and "eschew materials" were made for? People like me. And, I'll tell you... I've never had a "bad" character (in fact, I often play the character that actually *does* the most, and is remembered most highly) or even an woefully underpowered character. I've never understood the whole optimization thing. It's pointless to me. If I wanted to have an optimal character, I'd hit the XBox 360 and play by myself. D&D isn't a game about rules... it's a game about having fun and creating an amazingly complex story by taking control of the characters. And the best characters and never optimized.
Shaggy_Shaggs 03-26-08, 12:17 PM	Some of us like heroes that succeed because they were more capable than their enemies, rather than because they were spoonfed victory where they couldn't create it with their own abilities. Personally I find the story of Jorlin Bearcrusher (whose rite of passage hunting trip resulted in him strangling a dire bear to death, hence the name) more compelling if he can actually outgrapple a dire bear if he meets one during the course of a game. If he can't, either he himself seems to be a liar, or his background story seems hollow and cheap. (This happened in a game I played long ago. Jorlin failed hardcore. Good thing I was a TWF rogue that actually functioned or Jorlin'd be dead.)
Rictras_Shard 03-26-08, 12:37 PM	My philosophy: Did you have fun? Did the other players and the DM have fun too? If so, then you are good at D&D.
Valgoth 03-26-08, 12:40 PM	There's a lot to be said for actually being able to play the game intelligently. In my opinion, the game is set up to be more or less equal without having to "optimize". As far as "being able to do what you did in your backstory"... that's just common sense. And no first level character could kill a dire bear through grappling... without munchkin levels of cheese, of course. I've never had a problem when making a well functioning character (that is, not optimized). Obviously don't make a character that would have no business adventuring... again, just common sense. But, who says every feat must be spent a certain may? Who says you have to know what feat you'll take at every level? Who says you can't burn some skill points in "Profession(baker)" because you want to match your backstory?
Sunic_Flames 03-26-08, 12:54 PM	Some of us like heroes that succeed because they were more capable than their enemies, rather than because they were spoonfed victory where they couldn't create it with their own abilities. Personally I find the story of Jorlin Bearcrusher (whose rite of passage hunting trip resulted in him strangling a dire bear to death, hence the name) more compelling if he can actually outgrapple a dire bear if he meets one during the course of a game. If he can't, either he himself seems to be a liar, or his background story seems hollow and cheap. (This happened in a game I played long ago. Jorlin failed hardcore. Good thing I was a TWF rogue that actually functioned or Jorlin'd be dead.) Indeed. 2 points: 1: Half elves are at least good at being bards. Worst class goes to Fighter or Monk in core, and stuff like CW Samurai outside of it. I see your point though as from a mechanical perspective, that's about all they're good for. And don't bother arguing flavor as every single point could be copy pasted onto anything else ranging from Commoner to Paraplegic. It's not an advantage if everything can have it. 2: Any DM seeking to encourage flavor skills will exempt them from mechanical restrictions as they are apples and oranges. Aka bonus points in 'Profession (baker)' instead of losing out on Listen/Spot, or something. If he doesn't, even if it's suggested to him... DM sets game tone. Clearly he isn't encouraging that tone.
Shaggy_Shaggs 03-26-08, 12:57 PM	We actually started those characters (the party including Jorlin) at 10th level. My point was to try to explain why some players who are not careless of roleplay want to to optimize. Some of us like stories about exceptional characters, and we want our characters' mechanics to be able to back up the claims their stories make.
Zillah 03-26-08, 01:01 PM	i learned along time ago that that is whats "fun" to people like that. to see what they "Can" do with the limitations they have. if thats not you don't worry about it. let them have their fun. I don't think its at the expense of your fun, and if it DOES get to be like that, next time you get corrected explain it like this. "hey guys, i know you have fun doing it your way, but im doing this for a hobby, not to break DND(yea i have said this before) every week for kicks. I just wanna RP a little, kill stuff sometimes, crack jokes and have a good time in general. So, if I am doing this wrong its ok, cause im still gonna do it my way to have my fun" /thread this of course IS when the rules are known clearly by all. for example, back in the day I would get told, "you should charge next time, it gives you +2 to the attack roll" my response was "k, i didn't know, but ill remember that for next time"
Etarnon 03-26-08, 02:17 PM	Wraithgnome wrote: I was just venting a bit cuz last night's game was filled with arguements("why didn't you move 5' to the left instead?"), and rules discussions("Well it clearly states in the errata pg 21, subparagraph 3, section a") Potential responses to this are: "Play your own damn character." "Let me see that. Oh, I see, nope, you misread it, you're wrong. I've seen the rule that changes that, in a later book, that I don't have with me. Nope you're wrong, it's in the rules. I don't have time to show you where. DM, can't we get back to the game?" Corner the person outside the game, and tell him, "Next time you quote rules and errata to me, we're gonna have a big problem. Knock it off, it's lame, and weak." On a more aggressive note: "I know how to play. Back up, you're spitting on me."
wraithgnome 03-26-08, 02:49 PM	Go back to 1e/2e. Honestly. It is a refreshing breath of air after the rule-fest that 3.x became. Simple it down to a few core rules, and have fun. That's an interesting idea. Sometimes I play with some guys who do not own ANY 3.5 books. They only play 2nd edition and even then they don't have too much material. It's kind of fun sometimes to play a game where not everyone at the table knows how long a spell lasts, and what bonuses you get, and how many feet you can move and all the actions you can take. They state their actions and we decide if it's possible. You use your imagination to suspend belief. It just seems to me that is missing in 3.5 because every little move or action is ruled and there is NO wiggle room. Don't get me wrong...I wasn't so much complaining about the group, the players or the DM as much as the system and how some of the fun, imagination, and spontenaity of the old game has been lost. They created rules for every situation and that's great...until in the middle of a combat you want to try something but it doesn't work cuz you forgot to subtract minus 2 for being fatigued, and remember that your speed is now reduced because of some other effect, and flat footed means you can't add your dex, and don't forget the ray of XYZ, and remember that your str is drained, plus we're all hasted...and holy **** my brain just exploded! I just want to move and attack that bad guy! Is it partly my fault for not knowing every rule in detail...yes. Is it fun to know every rule in detail...no. Now...I probably should have mentioned this earlier...I am usually a bit drunk at the gaming table which of course doesn't help things...but, in my opinion that's one of the reasons I like to game. Drink, roleplay, roll some dice, hang out with friends, have fun. It's just gotten a bit too complex from a rules standpoint in my opinion. I've read that 4.0 might be addressing this issue...but that's for another thread.
Etarnon 03-26-08, 03:56 PM	Everything you just wrote is why I'm leaving 3.0 / 3.5 after over a year to go back to 2e, and Birthright. More fun, less rules, less wargaming. Roll the dice not look up feats. State your actions in dramatic, style, rather than moving 5 foot step to set up the 6 square cone attack. Everything you said, except the "Get drunk part." Alcohol at our table is banned.
iserith 03-26-08, 04:24 PM	Everything you just wrote is why I'm leaving 3.0 / 3.5 after over a year to go back to 2e, and Birthright. Mmmm... Birthright. Daddy like. Everything you said, except the "Get drunk part." Alcohol at our table is banned. I have to have a bottle of rum at my side in order to put up with these munchkins. (kidding) But we do call the original poster Belligerent D after a few rounds.
Vintar 03-27-08, 10:27 AM	I must say - this topic is rather interesting in that many people have differing yet valid opinions - so I think I'll add my $0.02 :twocents:. I personally am a power-gamer. I was a war-gamer (40k) before I played D&D and it's just something that I enjoy. However - the rest of my group isn't - and neither of us would have as much fun if I was the most powerful person in the group. Therefore my solution is for myself and other power-gamers in a non-power-gaming group is to power-game a suboptimal choice. For example, right now my character is blind. He makes up for that fact with blindfight, keen-eared scout, the combat focus feats, and max ranks in listen. (The DM did allow me to have listen be a permanent class skill and took away the BAB req. of the combat focus feat giving me blindsight 5ft.) I also power-gamed this character out the wazoo, dipping into four different classes before going into pious templar. At level 12 I have 166HP, an AC of 35, fast healing 4 and DR 7/-, but my blindness and defensiveness makes it so I don't outshine the group even though I powergamed to my heart's content (and the wizard loves me as I know shield other :love: ).
themocaw 03-27-08, 12:41 PM	Therefore my solution is for myself and other power-gamers in a non-power-gaming group is to power-game a suboptimal choice. That for me is the difference between a munchkin and a powergamer. A powergamer lives for the challenge of tweaking the system, the munchkin just wants to be as powerful as possible. For the record: I've gamed with a powergamer who took a Kobold with a high stat of 13 INT, made him a wizard named Jerry the Freak, and managed to turn him into a viable character.
Justaidan 03-27-08, 04:04 PM	Try making a non-optimized character with a great backstory. How about... a half-elf bard. That's right... the penultimate "worst class, worst race". Come up with a hell of a backstory, though... and play it out the way you want to. You should probablely look at the Diplomancer half-elf bard. Diplomancy maxed out turn your enemies to friends today :D and then to fanatics tommorrow. I've never played an optimized character. Never. Ever wonder what feats like "nimble fingers" and "eschew materials" were made for? People like me. And, I'll tell you... I've never had a "bad" character (in fact, I often play the character that actually *does* the most, and is remembered most highly) or even an woefully underpowered character. I've never understood the whole optimization thing. It's pointless to me. If I wanted to have an optimal character, I'd hit the XBox 360 and play by myself. D&D isn't a game about rules... it's a game about having fun and creating an amazingly complex story by taking control of the characters.. Ok so you've never played an optimised character. You seem to have an extreme view of optimisation but answer these. Did you over choose a greatsword over a longsword wielded in two hands? Or a longsword over a dagger? Did you ever say "I need reach so I'll take a spear" or "we coud be attacked by flying enemies so I'll take a crossbow"? Did you choose detect magic over detect poison for your cantrips? Did you dump your standard weapon for a masterwork one? Each of the above is a simple form of optimisation. If you're freaking out about the extreme optimisation (such as the ever mentioned pun-pun or the hulking hurler builds) most of those are never entended to see actual play and sit safely in the theoretical optimisation section. And the best characters and never optimized. Thats just your opinion. Back on the thread players shouldn't be dictating other players actions. If that want to control another character so bad get a cohort. I think the main problem isn't that one player is powergaming but that this player thinks he has some right to dictate other players actions/choices. Just mention it/talk it out etc the usual stuff. Always thought munchkins used loopholes and cheated while powergamers always worked within the system(think thats the definition on the charOp boards). Powergamer myself. Managed to make a decent monk/sorcerer that is often remember for his foolish "CHARGE FORWARD!" attitude. Ah he had character but it took a lot of work to make a character with that personality last more then two combats. HA! Also had to give out to the other players for listening to my advice in character (I usually play the tactical planner wizard or fighter) and eventually, when they agreed to a very silly suggestion about how to deal with necromancers, said "For gods sake don't listen to him he's an idiot" out of character
iserith 03-27-08, 04:16 PM	I view optimization as an arms race. I design my campaigns around the characters, from the encounters to the overarcing storyline, even if I am using published adventures. Optimization is entirely unnecessary. You can create the gimpiest character with the fluffiest feats that you find fun to play and I will write the campaign around him or her. I'm not out to "beat" my players. I'm out to tell a good story and challenge them with fun scenarios. But when players insist on optimizing, I have to respond in kind else the encounters will be a cakewalk. This leads to more optimizing by all parties. It only gets worse, not better.
Ace_of_time 03-27-08, 05:21 PM	You should play a commoner game. Just have your DM read this and your players/ friends and tell them your next campaign you want to try something like that. Also talking when it involves your best friends is the best option. To the ones arguing over the worst class as I have said a thansand times "that is based an the build not the class'' and are you really arguing about the same stuff he is tired of.:raincloud
Mock26 03-27-08, 05:32 PM	I used to remember DnD being about what you Could do...not about what you Couldn't do. I find that statement to be more than a bit misleading. Not being able to do something is exactly about what you can do. For example, Player A's character knows skill/feats/spells/recipes/poems/whatever A, B, C, G, H, and J. When that player then says he wants to do D and the DM says, "No," it isn't about what the player can't do because the player can clearly do A, B, C, G, H, and J. That is what he can do. The player needs to stick to that. If he constantly tries to go beyond what he can do then it will seem like the game has suddenly become about what he can't do.
Mock26 03-27-08, 07:07 PM	I personally am a power-gamer. I was a war-gamer (40k) before I played D&D and it's just something that I enjoy. . He's a wargamer! Burn Him! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Mock26/Burn.jpg :D This has been a joke of the emergency jester association.
Kuros81 03-27-08, 08:03 PM	OP, I know how you feel. Before I begin to describe what kind of gamer I am, I want to ask you a question about your group. Is your group individualistic or a good team? Here's what I mean. I started playing DnD in an individualistic group. Teamwork was not the emphasis, roleplaying your character and getting cool items was. This was not a powergamer group per se, but it was a group focused on 5-6 ME, ME, MEs. A few games ago I played alongside an member of our old games, and he was as bratty as ever. We were evil characters, and after his character fell in battle (even after I had put abjurations on him AND we stopped advantageous pursuit to heal his character), he demanded that my character pay for his 5k gp for the raise dead. There was no offer on his part to pay for the Mass Heal scroll my character busted on our collective behalf. He was just being bratty. (I remember one of my fellow players in the old group always used to play the opposite dominant alignment that the party had established. In a good game, he was evil. When we wanted to play an evil game, he designed a good character. His narcissism was irritating. And then, when he became a DM, HE BANNED PCS PLAYING ALONGSIDE EACH OTHER WHO HAD OPPOSING ALIGNMENTS.) So, is your group individualistic or a good team? I will play with any group that is willing to do teamwork. I would split the treasure 19 - 27 - 27 - 27, if it would be best for a team that cares about what is best for the team. And I'd certainly play among heavy thespians or wargamers (but I'm a little of both myself).
jage 03-28-08, 12:43 AM	I view optimization as an arms race. I design my campaigns around the characters, from the encounters to the overarcing storyline, even if I am using published adventures. Optimization is entirely unnecessary. You can create the gimpiest character with the fluffiest feats that you find fun to play and I will write the campaign around him or her. I'm not out to "beat" my players. I'm out to tell a good story and challenge them with fun scenarios. But when players insist on optimizing, I have to respond in kind else the encounters will be a cakewalk. This leads to more optimizing by all parties. It only gets worse, not better. What's hard with this is when you, say, only own the PHB 3.5 and maybe Complete Scoundrel as is the case with myself. I'm sitting at the table with people who have played 3.5 from the beginning and are doing a half-demon ninja thing, taking stuff down in 1 hit while I'm trying to figure out how to flank sometime in the next 3 rounds. It's very difficult to be a party to the arms race when that means buying 20 books, reading every one and trying to catch up on 5 years of experience playing 3.5. I don't even have this "real life" that everyone refers too and I don't have time to do all that research. Even if 4e wasn't on the immediate horizon I wouldn't want to spend the time trying to catch up with even what seems to constitute a "normal" player these days. Being new to 3.5 is very difficult this late in the game.
Wheldrake 03-28-08, 03:01 AM	What's hard with this is when you, say, only own the PHB 3.5 and maybe Complete Scoundrel as is the case with myself. I'm sitting at the table with people who have played 3.5 from the beginning and are doing a half-demon ninja thing, taking stuff down in 1 hit while I'm trying to figure out how to flank sometime in the next 3 rounds. I really feel your pain. Guess I'm just old-school, but half-demon half-dragon ninja pirate spellswords just seem too wacky to me. I prefer games where the heros are, well, people. That means mostly core, and mostly core rules, and to h@ll with most of the odd splatbooks, except in as much as they give the DM a few unique new ideas for campaign extensions and adversaries. For those who are into exotic races, classes, stances, psionics and Bane-knows-what-all-else, hey, more power to them. It's a highly versatile game and folks can play it any way it pleases them. But it is still possible to play DD3.5 with all the raw idealism and spirit of adventure that we brought to the first D&D games in the mid-70s. The core rules aren't that hard to master, and you can take them in stages. Cheers, --- Wheldrake
Mercurius 03-28-08, 01:04 PM	The funny thing about the idea of trying to keep up with players who have more books than you is this: Why don't they let you look at books you don't have? When I play, I most often have more books than other players in the group. Doesn't mean I get to play with more toys. I let 'em look at books, if they're pondering how to do something and I know there's a way to do it efficiently in a book they don't have, I show 'em where it is. I've got a new player in a group with two players of more experience right now, and we helped her out with her initial character build, and with the leveling, but she understands how her character works, and is willing to take advice from more seasoned players if she's unsure of something. We advise each other all the time in my groups, and I don't see how that could really be a problem.
Zillah 03-28-08, 01:30 PM	The funny thing about the idea of trying to keep up with players who have more books than you is this: Why don't they let you look at books you don't have? um, i have never heard of this ever. what idiot does this? :rolleyes:
Myria- 03-29-08, 12:03 AM	I recently read a post about a player who was tired of "having to be good at DnD". He didn't want to own all the books and be great at optimizing every character he plays, and know all the rules and what page they are on, and know all the errata, and make the very best tactical combat decision on every encounter and never take a point of damage...I feel exactly the same way! I've played DnD since 1st edition Red Box. I played ADnD, 2nd Edition, 3rd Edition, 3.5 and soon 4th Edition...I get it! But latley it seems that just sitting down with some friends to play a character for a few hours, roll some dice, do some crazy things and have some fun is just not enough. You have to be good at it. Maybe it has to do with the players at the table. We have one player who knows every rule, what book it is in, what page number and what the errata says about it. Another player has every book ever published on PDF on his laptop...I'm surprised he actually rolls dice instead of using a program to do it. It's just not my style. My main goal is not perfection or victory or optimization...it's to have FUN! And when you have players who question every move your character makes because it's not "the best move" or who break down every encounter like a formula.."the fighter moves to X and does Y, while the wizard casts Z and the cleric readies for W" It's just not fun that way. Maybe it's the DM. We've been gaming with him for years and he is very knowledgable and always prepared. He tries to make the story or campaign come to life and tries to be fair with his rulings. But, when a player wants to try something new, a new feat from a Dragon magazine for exapmle, or a combat maneuver that isn't exactly covered in the rules, or a Prestige class that has a requirement you haven't met he is quite a stickler. I used to remember DnD being about what you Could do...not about what you Couldn't do. Maybe it's me. I admit I don't know all the rules by heart(I do have a real life) and don't own most of the books, and like to roleplay too much when the others just want to kill the monster, get the loot, get the XP and move to the next room...and then repeat. I do argue some rulings to try to get an advantage(I have to compete with the other players who are optimized and can do ungodly amounts of damage) and I do try to come up with different race/class/feat combos to keep it fun and interesting to me. Bottom line...I just wanted to vent about my recent experiences gaming and see if anyone else was feeling that way. Don't get me wrong...I'm not going to stop gaming, and I'm not going to find a new group(these guys are all my good friends) but I need to find a little of that magic I had when I first began playing... You sound like my kind of gamer. I want to play with you. ^^
Myria- 03-29-08, 12:08 AM	OP, I know how you feel. Before I begin to describe what kind of gamer I am, I want to ask you a question about your group. Is your group individualistic or a good team? Here's what I mean. I started playing DnD in an individualistic group. Teamwork was not the emphasis, roleplaying your character and getting cool items was. This was not a powergamer group per se, but it was a group focused on 5-6 ME, ME, MEs. A few games ago I played alongside an member of our old games, and he was as bratty as ever. We were evil characters, and after his character fell in battle (even after I had put abjurations on him AND we stopped advantageous pursuit to heal his character), he demanded that my character pay for his 5k gp for the raise dead. There was no offer on his part to pay for the Mass Heal scroll my character busted on our collective behalf. He was just being bratty. (I remember one of my fellow players in the old group always used to play the opposite dominant alignment that the party had established. In a good game, he was evil. When we wanted to play an evil game, he designed a good character. His narcissism was irritating. And then, when he became a DM, HE BANNED PCS PLAYING ALONGSIDE EACH OTHER WHO HAD OPPOSING ALIGNMENTS.) So, is your group individualistic or a good team? I will play with any group that is willing to do teamwork. I would split the treasure 19 - 27 - 27 - 27, if it would be best for a team that cares about what is best for the team. And I'd certainly play among heavy thespians or wargamers (but I'm a little of both myself). You, too! ^^
jage 03-29-08, 11:33 AM	The funny thing about the idea of trying to keep up with players who have more books than you is this: Why don't they let you look at books you don't have? I'm sure they would except the only time I see these people is during the game and we're busy gaming. Finding a minute to look for something you know is there might be possible, but actually reading them is not.