Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LordHell 01-07-07, 05:26 PM	Hi all. I am a long time DM and I have DM'd many fun and enjoyable campaigns over the years (starting with AD&D). But now, I find myself in a bad predicament as a player. I am currently playing in a campaign with a good friend of mine DMing. He is newish to 3rd edition and is what you'd consider 'old school'. That means he likes having more control over the game, since the older editions of D&D had less rules, thus more power was in the hands of the DM. He is trying to DM 3.5 this way, and it's beginning to have consequences in game. One of the most important things I find as a DM is to be consistent. This makes the world believable for the players, and also fair so the players have a more enjoyable time. I am playing a ECL4 level 3 Cleric (going divine MM, persist. We do not have a melee machine and he has cleared that as OK). Problem #1. He has different players in his game and does not know how to compensate for that. I have been playing for yonks and know the rules inside out. My other good friend loves to have a powerful character. We have a couple of players who don't know the rules very well and enjoy more flavourful characters. When we first started playing he basically allowed everything. Not a good idea for a DM new to 3.5 - you should go core only (or core + campaign setting at least). He encouraged my friend who likes powerful characters to play an artificer - again - not a very good idea. Now that he is becoming more experienced he is starting to see the unbalance of non-core and ban a lot of things. Probably the thing I disagree with the most is that he took away a custom item of UMD that he allowed the artificer to make in the first place, because he now wants 'no custom items'. Problem #2. He likes the oldschool training rules. This has some minimal consiquences in 3.5 edition because it lowers our wealth significantly. To get to level 4, we have to pay 2000gp. This is a huge chunk of our wealth at that level, and requires 2 weeks downtime. This lack of wealth effectively lowers our ECL. He originally made us train every level above 4th, but then changed it to every 4th level. Problem #3. He is running in my opinion, a very poor module. It is some Vampire module out of Eberron (whispering blade something something?). It is basically a railroaded module where the players have very little freedom of choice (it's trying to be cinematic, but fails poorly in my opinion). The major problem is this module requires you to chase this vampire day after day. Not only are we getting little loot, but myself and another player do not have any chance to train. We have been stuck on level 3 for about 4 months now, while some of the other players are hitting level 6 already. We both almost have enough XP for level 5 (ECL 5 and ECL6), completely missing a level! How hard would it be to add in some downtime? I've already talked to him about this and he refuses to, sticking to the printed book. Unfortunately for him the suspension of disbelief has already been ruined (why are us lowbies chasing such a high level guy? Why hasnt he just killed us already?, etc etc) This leads into..... Problem #4. He is now having to compensate. I know the badguy is at least ECL8 from OOG knowledge. There is no way in hell a party that is ECL3, ECL4, ECL4, and ECL6 is going to be able to take this guy on, not to mention we are way down on our wealth level. He already has to tone down encounters, and the suspension of disbelief is being totally ruined. Problem #5 The big problem is now he's realised that this isn't going well, so he wants to allow me to level up without training before the final fight (which is coming up soon), but won't allow my friend (the ECL3 artificer) to level up. His argument when I asked him as to why "He [the artificer] won't make much of a difference anyway'. What the hell?? I think the main issue is that he has now realised the mistakes he made by allowing a lot of non-core stuff (e.g. he allowed the artificer flaws. He now has 8 feats at level 3), and is trying to nerf my friends artificer big time. He is really ruining the enjoyment of the game for him. I also really do not want to be given a free level up when my friend is not. I'm not entirely sure what to do. I'm trying to ween my way into DMing some games for his group to try and 'lead by example'. I've tried talking to him - without pressing the matter - but he has some funny ideas that probably stem from D&D in an age gone by. Hey, I loved AD&D too, but there was a revison for a reason. Now having said all this he is a pretty fun DM, and can run a great game. He just seems stuck in the old ways a bit and does some things I totally disagree with. It's always difficult as an experienced DM playing under other DM's that do things diffierently. At the moment I've just told my friend [the artificer] to ride the storm until this module is over. Most of the blame can be laid at the feet of a very poorly written module, to be fair, but it also does not gel well with a lot of house-rules (such as training) that he has chosen, and he refuses to be flexible on the matter.
Man in the Funny Hat 01-07-07, 06:01 PM	You can't expect new DM's to get it right the first time, every time. You MUST expect that there will be problems - even game crashing ones. Even though these are common mistakes that you might otherwise think should be avoidable there is simply no substitute for being IN the chair and running an ongoing game to be able to not just know not to do X, but WHY not to do X. I don't see anything here that can't be dealt with by simply talking to the DM. The one thing that MIGHT not be fixable (at least not without clumsy, unsatisfying changes) is the current campaign. But, these should be problems that you're talking to your DM about - not us. WE can't fix it for you. All we can do is suggest how your DM might go about fixing it. YOUR solution is simply communication with the DM about your concerns and your assumptions of his reasons for doing things. [They may be accurate but they are still assumptions nonetheless.] COMMUNICATE with the DM. Be willing to just start over rather than try to force a broken campaign to work. And being inexperienced, your DM may of course look at an abruptly discontinued campaign like this as a personal failure so you need to be ready to assure him that it is simply part of the process of LEARNING to DM and that you're still at the table so he's hasn't REALLY failed.
LordHell 01-07-07, 06:12 PM	I've talked to him on the issues a few times, but I have tried to been fairly diplomatic about it. It is his game, his rules, and his pride-and-joy if you will, so I don't want to press the issue too much. He likes to do it his way, and that is fair enough. He has many big ideas for this game that could be very interesting in the future if things progress well, but I think after this module a clarification and a clear set of house-rules need to be nutted out and written down. I'm still having fun, and I don't mind being stuck on level 3 for so long (it does make it rather challanging). I know however that my friend is rather miffed and there is the potential of things to get out of hand with such a wide range of player skill in the game unless some consistency is found. I know for a fact on his second campaign he will definately do things differently, so perhaps I need to encourage him after the adventure to get the entire group to sit down and talk about how we all want the campaign to progress - rules-wise.
Roivas 01-08-07, 02:56 AM	So you are playing in a game where you and another player have opptimized heavily and you can't take on a CR 8 creature? I've done this without heavy char. op. with level 5 character, and we only had three players. If your party can't handle a little problem like low gp, or level defiency then you clearly need to redefine what you mean by experianced player. As a party leader [I assume] you need to figure out how this threat looming on the horizon should be taken care of, not holding a blame fest. Pull yourself by the bootstraps and go treasure digging! Find some extra pocket change to boost back to your recommended wealth and then start back down the road to adventure. Don't try to blame a new GM for a railroad plot on a module! All modules are railroads, they are written on friggin' paper. They can't be adapted unless the Gm knows how to do so, and a new Gm generally won't. When a problem arises the most experianced person should handle the situation, not start whinging on about how their Gm isn't doing anything right. Now grab a sword and start hacking.
LordHell 01-08-07, 03:08 AM	So you are playing in a game where you and another player have opptimized heavily and you can't take on a CR 8 creature? I've done this without heavy char. op. with level 5 character, and we only had three players. If your party can't handle a little problem like low gp, or level defiency then you clearly need to redefine what you mean by experianced player. As a party leader [I assume] you need to figure out how this threat looming on the horizon should be taken care of, not holding a blame fest. Pull yourself by the bootstraps and go treasure digging! Find some extra pocket change to boost back to your recommended wealth and then start back down the road to adventure. Don't try to blame a new GM for a railroad plot on a module! All modules are railroads, they are written on friggin' paper. They can't be adapted unless the Gm knows how to do so, and a new Gm generally won't. When a problem arises the most experianced person should handle the situation, not start whinging on about how their Gm isn't doing anything right. Now grab a sword and start hacking. If you knew anything about optimization, you'd probably realise that the divine MM, persistant spell cleric's power does not kick in at level 3 (in fact you're a little gimped early on), and the artificers certainly doesnt. Now having said that, we are not 'heavily' optimizing. That would just ruin the game. I wouldn't take an LA +1 race if I was, and I would probably play a race and class combination that got me Divine MM and Persist at level 3. Find some extra treasure? How do you suggest that? We are forced down one path. If you find enjoy railroaded games where you have little choice, and the DM changes rules as to see him fit, then more kudos to you. If you don't have anything constructive to add, find another thread. Also, way to miss the point. I really dont care about an EL8 encounter, that wasn't the core problem in this thread. In fact, I recommended we just grin and bare it. Heck I already have a few plans to keep a vampire at bay - all totally beside the point. This thread was to find out what other mature players would do in a similar situation, not a '***** fest', well, not until you came along.
Mitchell 01-08-07, 04:43 AM	I would roll with it. If/when the bad stuff happens, that is when I would explain to the DM that hey have to get out of their box. This isn't a problem because of how things were in 1st edition. I was there in 1st edition, and a bad DMing episode was just as relevant then as it is now. Everything you mentioned is a DM problem. It isn't the fault of the module, as most DMs can develop workarounds. If the DM is taking away most of your wealth, it certainly seems easy enough to me that they should plan on increasing the wealth they give you as you level up. Simple enough, no? Just wait until it all goes down, and afterwards you can explain in a calm, mature manner, where you feel the DM messed up. Maybe you can, as a group, develop some universal house rules that will be in effect for everyone's game, no matter who the DM is. At least you can try to prevent someone from doing this sort of thing again.
Morwen 01-08-07, 05:13 AM	Now, this is obviously not about the module, but I just felt the need to defend it slightly :) It incorporates one or two places where the DM could allow you the necessary downtime, despite the fact that it is, as you say, a pretty railroadish adventure (in fact, the first page states "you control the pacing of the adventure, and you have the freedom to move encounters ...") For instance, if I were going to force downtime/training to level, I'd put in a waiting period after part 2, before handling the part 2 aftermath and part 3 of the adventure. It seems that the gold-cost for training is way too high, though. He'll basically have to add additional treasure if he uses that variant- Anyway, since your DM apparently tells a good story and handles the roleplaying parts of his campaign well, I suggest you stick with it. Since he obviously allowed too many variant and noncore rules in the beginning, work with him to sort this problem out after the current adventure is over. I suggest you show him the rules for rebuilding a character in PHB2; he can have the next adventure be a quest where the reward is that each of those with variant rules get to rebuild their character in a way that allows all of you to enjoy the game.
danielinthewolvesden 01-08-07, 01:36 PM	Yeah, training is stupid and it sucks. It also will lead to in-party PvP arguments, nasty ones. Get your DM to stop. It also often means that the PC's have to go up against encounters that are tougher that the encounter should be as several of the PC's haven't "trained" yet. I tried "training" also myself. I have been DMing for over 30 years.I found that it does not work. But why does your party range from 3 to 6???:confused: You DM should make sure the party is within a level of each other. It's because of the training? Then, have your PC's just walk back to the nearest big city and train up. If that measn you fail in the module, you fail. Big deal. If it's a choice between failure and death- and in this case death means being turned nto vampire spawn possibly, thus making the enemy even more powerful, then you have to just give up and fail. Try talking to him like adults. He should just go "OK, I am dropping the traing rules and everyone is now their new real levels. Sorry, I thought it would add realism, but it's not working for this module". Otherwise, have your PC and the artificer PC just say "sorry guys, this is way too dangerous for a person of my power level, if we continue chasing this vampire without training we will just die, and our deaths will not only make the party weaker, but also make our foe strainger. We can't take the risk of your guys not only facing our foe with only the two of you, but ALSO the two of us back from the dead as Spawn. We're leaving now for the City. See ya."
LordHell 01-08-07, 04:02 PM	Now, this is obviously not about the module, but I just felt the need to defend it slightly :) It incorporates one or two places where the DM could allow you the necessary downtime, despite the fact that it is, as you say, a pretty railroadish adventure (in fact, the first page states "you control the pacing of the adventure, and you have the freedom to move encounters ...") For instance, if I were going to force downtime/training to level, I'd put in a waiting period after part 2, before handling the part 2 aftermath and part 3 of the adventure. It seems that the gold-cost for training is way too high, though. He'll basically have to add additional treasure if he uses that variant- Anyway, since your DM apparently tells a good story and handles the roleplaying parts of his campaign well, I suggest you stick with it. Since he obviously allowed too many variant and noncore rules in the beginning, work with him to sort this problem out after the current adventure is over. I suggest you show him the rules for rebuilding a character in PHB2; he can have the next adventure be a quest where the reward is that each of those with variant rules get to rebuild their character in a way that allows all of you to enjoy the game. Good suggestions. Regarding the module - there was one place where he could have added downtime, but didn't. Spoiler: After the airship crash, it wouldn't have been hard to have had a delay in the lightning rail that comes and picks us up. Instead, we had to jump on the next morning. I guess he wants to enforce a sense of urgency or something. There are however problems I have with the module. Does Lucan have Longsword prof? How did he get around Tolanport? etc etc Why is such a lowby party dealing with such a threat? (there seems to be no shortage of higher level NPC's involved). There is no need for Lucan to run away from us. A smart vampire like himself would have taken us out numerous times, but because of our power level the DM has to ruin the suspension of disbelief and make Lucan flee. Maybe it's the swords influence, I don't know. But why does your party range from 3 to 6??? You DM should make sure the party is within a level of each other. It's because of the training? Then, have your PC's just walk back to the nearest big city and train up. If that measn you fail in the module, you fail. Big deal. If it's a choice between failure and death- and in this case death means being turned nto vampire spawn possibly, thus making the enemy even more powerful, then you have to just give up and fail. We are level 3 because we joined the campaign at level 3, while the rest of the party had already trained to level 4. We joined at the start of this module, so we havn't had a chance to train (chasing chasing chasing the vampire). I actually almost have enough experiance for Level 5 (ECL6). It is likely I will completely skip a level. Otherwise, have your PC and the artificer PC just say "sorry guys, this is way too dangerous for a person of my power level, if we continue chasing this vampire without training we will just die, and our deaths will not only make the party weaker, but also make our foe strainger. We can't take the risk of your guys not only facing our foe with only the two of you, but ALSO the two of us back from the dead as Spawn. We're leaving now for the City. See ya." We've discussed this, but hey, it's not entirely in character for my Lawful Good 'Peacemaker' Cleric to let Lucan run rampant for two weeks, and I almost guarentee there will be a storm or some sort of event that causes us to keep chase ;) Try talking to him like adults. He should just go "OK, I am dropping the traing rules and everyone is now their new real levels. Sorry, I thought it would add realism, but it's not working for this module". He realises it's not completely working, which is why he is letting ME level up, but not the Artificer. Not that it matters, since the Artificer can't actually afford to level up anyway, but still the decision is a little unfair I feel. Just wait until it all goes down, and afterwards you can explain in a calm, mature manner, where you feel the DM messed up. Maybe you can, as a group, develop some universal house rules that will be in effect for everyone's game, no matter who the DM is. At least you can try to prevent someone from doing this sort of thing again. This is probably what we'll do in terms of the game. As for the common house-rules thing, he has some different ideas to me. I like core-only games with very little house rules (a little tweak for sorcerers and a slight tweak on item creation). He prefers to have a lot material, but also a lot of control, and he likes to tinker with many aspects of the game, such as back in the days of older D&D. We have very different styles.
NordicBirch 01-08-07, 04:30 PM	Hi all. I am a long time DM and I have DM'd many fun and enjoyable campaigns over the years (starting with AD&D). But now, I find myself in a bad predicament as a player. I am currently playing in a campaign with a good friend of mine DMing. He is newish to 3rd edition and is what you'd consider 'old school'. That means he likes having more control over the game, since the older editions of D&D had less rules, thus more power was in the hands of the DM. He is trying to DM 3.5 this way, and it's beginning to have consequences in game. Snip Most of the blame can be laid at the feet of a very poorly written module, to be fair, but it also does not gel well with a lot of house-rules (such as training) that he has chosen, and he refuses to be flexible on the matter. Bad DM is a bad DM no matter the edition. He's out of his depth sitting in the DM-chair in the new D&D but because he's done it before, he won't admit to making a mess of things. Every new DM (and he is new-again) makes mistakes, the challenge here is getting him to own up to his. Try to get him to accept that he's playing a whole different game from what he's used to and should take his time in getting to know 3.5ed. If at all possible, get him to totally ditch everything 2e. It's not the same game anymore and as you've seen, introducing 2e elements like training just causes problems. Core with a harsh "RAW-only" attitude might be a good start for the next campaign (where you all make brand new characters). You're headed for a long downward spiral of arbitrary houserules and trying to "fix" the game when it's the DM that's broken.
danielinthewolvesden 01-11-07, 02:04 AM	We've discussed this, but hey, it's not entirely in character for my Lawful Good 'Peacemaker' Cleric to let Lucan run rampant for two weeks, and I almost guarentee there will be a storm or some sort of event that causes us to keep chase ;) . Sure it is. As your LG cleric has a high Wisdom and realizes that the choice is not between "let Lucan run rampant for two weeks" and training; it's between "dying then coming back as Spawn, allowing let Lucan to run even MORE rampant for months" and training. Having your PC die and become spawn will not slow the BBEG down much. All it will do is doom any chance of the rest of the party stopping him, and he'll get stronger.
BW0222 01-11-07, 02:20 PM	LordHell, Well, you should have communicated with the players and DM a lot more prior to starting the campaign. Your DM might allow anything, but if you talk to your players as adults with things such as "Well.. we could, but [name] is new to 3.x, so I think it would be better for everyone if we just all made core class/race characters." You can also have a word with everyone to say, "Ok, we have newbies, watch the power-gaming and min-maxing." The other DM mistakes, bad CRs, inconsistance rulings, etc. the DM is likely only going to learn from experience. I'd recommend taking him out for coffee and just giving him a list of things which you enjoy and don't enjoy about the campaign. Let everyone else do so one-on-one and let him learn. I'd also recommend having a more experienced person DM him outside of this campaign, maybe sit down and go over a few of the more complex rules stuff -- such as the CR system -- or invite him to some RPGA or other local games. Give him some idea of how other campaigns work and then sit down with him an objectively dissect those campaigns/modules or DMing styles. Ask what he liked or didn't like about it? Ask what he would do (and let him know what you could do) to change that. Chances are he is already noticing problems with his campaign. However, he might not understand specifically why they are problems or ways of dealing with it. However, you are likely going to have to bear through this campaign. If folks aren't enjoying it, then politely agree on a point to end the campaign and come up with a plan to start another. Maybe with a break to spell off (and give some training) to the DM.
Stormbrand 01-14-07, 11:58 AM	Training rules are actually unrealistic - experience does more for improvement in real life as well. Needing lessons to gain from what you have already learned the hard way is a rather silly concept. All involved know that training is stifling the party and therefore the game. The rule was erased for a damn good reason. The best approach the DM can take with the artificer is to say "I am sorry, I made a mistake and am having difficulty with that character. I'm afraid he will need to be changed." Either he needs a new character, or could keep that one rehashed as a wizard or something? Perhaps keeping an eye out for artificer-esque prestige classes?