D&D talk

[SpaceYeti]

I have a friend from back home who I frequently discuss the most recent antics of my D&D group with. I figure we wouldn't be the only people who would find it fun or funny, so here's a copy of last night's IM exchange, edited to protect identities and with irrelevant things edited out.

Before you read "Shazaar" are a homebrew race that serve the purpose of innocent people for the heroes to save in this particular campaign. The campaign worl is a a bunch of floating islands over a vast ocean (I got the idea from Spyro, bot Avatar), and "The Angers" is a group of NPC adventurers I sort of resurrected in this campaign, so this guy knows who they are from that, plus I told him about their soon to occure resurrection in this campaign.

Okay, so here it is;

SpaceYeti: D&D was fucking hilarious tonight!

Him: sweet, what happened?

SpaceYeti: Last time, we stopped half-way through the dungeon, so we picked up from there. Sparrow continued to have good luck with the attacks made against him, and it seemed like the intended difficulty in the encounters was actually how difficult the encounters really were.
However, remember how I told you about the elevator in the back of the cave the goblins were in, which lead down to the slave pens and the mine?

Him: yeah

SpaceYeti: It could hold two people at a time.
There were four people around tonight. Cataclysm the Spirit-Person Paladin, Sparrow the Elf Ranger, Arowen the Tiefling Wizard, And Shardon the Halfling Sorcerer.

Him: SHARDON
chaos sorcerer?

SpaceYeti: Storm Sorcerer.
The two married people who play, their 9 year old son was playing him.

Him: i think storm sorcerer is cool

SpaceYeti: He did decently considering his age.
Him: i mean mechanically it's probably the worst? but its still cool

SpaceYeti: I like the flavor.

Him: right, i agree
my favorite flavor of sorcerer is the one who goes through the phases
that MAY be worse than storm
cosmic?
i feel like the complete mag sorcerer builds were fuckin cooler than dragondick or chaos sorcerer, flavor wise

SpaceYeti: Anyway, so they go at this elevator board rig-up in the back of the cave. Sparrow and Cata are on it, and Sparrow figures out how to make it work, so they lower about 15 feet, to the slave pen.
They were, but they weren't as mechanically good.
But oh fucking well.
I rarely play a class based on mechanical efficiency anyhow.

Him: i almost never do
i do it on pure flavor, which is why i am so in favor of reskinning for flavor

SpaceYeti: Agreed.
Anyhow, so the two magicies are at the top of the 15 foot hole, and the two on the board that lowered see a group of goblins just at the edge of their light source. A fight takes off ALMOST immediately.
Just before the goblins close in or the two dudes have time to get off the board and out of the way for the casties to get down, Arowen decides to slide down on one of the ropes.
K, whatever, a wall and a rope, I figure DC 10.
She rolls a 2.
Fails by five or more, and falls.

Him: haha

SpaceYeti: Onto Sparrow.

Him: in your face, wizard! and ranger!

SpaceYeti: He decides to catch her, and succeeds the athletics check to negate the damage.
But he decides that was stupid and immediately drops her to be helpless in his square as he fights off a bunch of goblins.

Him: hahaha

SpaceYeti: The new guy seems smarter than the wizard, and doesn't jump down right away.

Him: whaaat, the ranger will catch you, why not ruin everyones turn
damn you new guy, not being a dick!

SpaceYeti: Haha.
So they're doing alright, I'm rolling between average and low, so it's easy pickings for them.
Guess what Shardon decides to do?!

Him: jump down the hole?

SpaceYeti: He tried to ride a rope down to help!

Him: fuck yeah

SpaceYeti: Not a big deal.
He had slightly more than a 50% chance of success, and they needed help, so why not?!
Well, they hadn't made room for him yet!
And he ALSO rolled a 2!

Him: that's why you were supposed to jump down the hole immediately!
no room, prone people, take away the rangers actions

SpaceYeti: He fell, also into Sparrow's square.

Him: hahaha, awesome
ELF HELP ME

SpaceYeti: So the ranger is fighting off the goblins with two prone casties at his feat, and he decides to take yet more for the team and have an opportunity attack almost hit him as he makes room for one of them to stand up.
By the time the second prone casty gets to stand up, the fight is in the bag and he never even got to make an attack roll.

Him: doh
why didn't they just cast from the top of the hole?
that seems better?

SpaceYeti: They couldn't hit any goblins without them getting cover... which is crippling, apparently.
Him: i guess

SpaceYeti: I'm also curious why Sparrow didn't just make the elevator go back up and announce "They know we're here", or something.

Him: that is also an option
everyone being stuck in the hole is the worst option, i think

SpaceYeti: Definitely, but it's the one they went with!
Him: did it seem like they regretted that in any way?

SpaceYeti: They thought it was hilarious, and so did I, and Sparrow especially regretted it, and they all knew it was dumb (e3xcept maybe the 9 year old), but oh well, that's what happened.

Him: haah right

SpaceYeti: The best part is when the second casty fell down, Sparrow didn't even bother catching him.

Him: seems awesome
hahaha
hey fucker, charity ran out

SpaceYeti: So then they're in the main slave p[en area looking at the slaves in the giant cage, trying to see how to get it open (it looked like just bars that ran from the ceiling to the floor).
So then they ask the two goblins they captured to open it, and they said only "Master" could open it.

Him: master goblin?
DAVID BOWIE?
THE GOBLIN KING?

SpaceYeti: They asked where Master was, and they pointed down the cave, then at a door the opposite direction, and said "Either in the mine or in that room".
haha!
So they decide to bust down the door and raid the room.
The wizard casting thunder wave tipped off the goblins in the room that invaders were around, so they were ready.

Him: it was hilarious how anfro imprinted on that spell
CONTROL, AKA D10S INTO THE WALL

SpaceYeti: However, they also thunder-waved the door into the room, killing a minion and kounking a Skullcleaver in the face with door.
Haha, yes.
The classic control striking maneuver!

Him: that sounds awesome
thunderwave IS a good spell
but anfros obsession with it was weird
the best wizard at-will is gates of pain
i forget the real name of it

SpaceYeti: Dagger square?

Him: that spell that has the persistent zone that i was blasting guys through with the dwarven mordenkraad wizard
no, cloud of daggers is good too

SpaceYeti: Yes, that spell rules.

Him: the gates of pain!
its in the complete mag.

SpaceYeti: The one that attacks everyone that comes near it.

Him: yes
pillars of fuck you

SpaceYeti: Yeah, that's easily the best.

Him: i'm awesome at naming spells

SpaceYeti: You should work for Wizards.

Him: i'm not groggy enough
MY VERISIMILITUDE~

SpaceYeti: Anyway, this fight goes mostly smoothly for the PCs, though it's drawn out with the goblin area of fuck PCs Darkness.

Him: oh yeah
i fucking hate that goblin man
that thing is a dick, the zone is too good
between -2 to hit and +2 to defense it's just a big fuck you.

SpaceYeti: I just figure the -2 it tells you to give people IS the -2 from hitting things in cover, and it's not as bad.

Him: that makes it better, yes
not giving effectively +4 to defense makes it probably fine

SpaceYeti: Yes.

Him: the BIG problem, in my experience using it, is when you use the bonebreakers with that leader

SpaceYeti: They still miss more anyhow.

Him: because some bad rolls once the bonebreakers are bloodied makes the encounter brutal and unfair

SpaceYeti: Right.

Him: they can be raging around with huge damage for way too long, and usually are.

SpaceYeti: There was only one Skullcleaver.

Him: right

SpaceYeti: And I think he missed every attack he made after he got bloodied, which was one.
Anyway, they kill every goblin in there except the boss, who they make open the cage and they get the slaves out and then replace them with him. I dunno why they put him in the cage only he can open, but whatever.
Then they rest.

Him: haha wait

SpaceYeti: Oh, did I mention the goblin minions that ran away down the tunnel?!

Him: they put him in the cage only he can open?

SpaceYeti: Yes.

Him: whats to stop him from opening it in their plan?
the honor system?
actually, why did they not kill him?

SpaceYeti: In their plan? Maybe they assume he can't reach the level that's directly outside the bars?

Him: i mean what's the premise, like, shittier goblins are dicks who should die, but the leader can live because he'll stay in a cage for no reason?

SpaceYeti: So that he could open the cage... but they could have totally killed him then!
Anyway, so the goblin slavers down the cave (A warrior, a skullcleaver, and a handful of minions) make their way back to the main area there, and the boss is left alive to cast his hexes and area of fuck PCs from behind bars the PCs can't get behind themselves!

Him: hahahaha
awesome

SpaceYeti: However, they have two ranged DPR plus a wizard, so as soon as the skullcleaver gets killed, the boss was next, and it was easy pickings from there. brb, thirsty.

Him: man i am kinda bummed

SpaceYeti: With all but two insignificant goblins dead and all the slaves freed (including down the mine where the other goblins came from), the PCs escort the slaves back to their village a few miles away (but it takes them a bunch of days because they have to take a long time getting from island to island.

SpaceYeti: Okay, so the group goes to the Shazaar village and meet the Angers, who have already saved most of the other people in the village, and are glad to see another group of heroes.
They have a pickle.
There's this dungeon thingy that requires two groups to go in, because certain things need to be done at the same time in different paths.
And some of the Shazaar slaves were taken there by the goblin slavers.
In fact, some of the goblins did go there, but the slavers took the slaves somewhere else.
But they don't know that.
The island they're going to is named Tegosh, a name that Arowen rolled a history check to know the story behind, as it's kind of a big one.
There were once two dragon brothers who were fighting over territory.
Long story short, one brother was caged in Tegosh, the other running rampant in that floating island area for centuries.
Nobody knows what happened to the one who won the fight, but for some reason you need two groups to go into two different doors and do things at the same time in order to get inside.

Him: how did the group take that news?

SpaceYeti: So after getting the village High Priest to upgrade their armor or weapon (one thing each), they rested a night and left in the morning.
They thought it sounded exciting and interesting.
They get to meet a dragon or find ancient dragon magic, or something!

Him: both awesome things if you ask me!

SpaceYeti: When they get there, they discover a sort of dungeony idiom thing, which is red orbs stuck into the two doors.
Investigating shows there to be no way to open the doors physically.
Arcane investigation reveals that touching the two robs simultaneously opens the doors.
orbs*
These orbs are found in different rooms along each path, an obstacle needing overcome and they still need to be touched simultaneously.
Oh, did I mention that when they made characters, I suggested investing in athletics and acrobatics, because the floating island may require jumping and climbing, and stuff?

Him: no you didn’t, but that makes sense

SpaceYeti: Guess how many characters are good at those things in the party.
Him: NONE
or one

SpaceYeti: Sparrow trained in Acrobatics and athletics, has a +5 Dex modifier, but no Str mod, and nobody else trained either.
Him: that was who i assumed would take it, in the "one" case
as that guy seems to be your best player

SpaceYeti: He is.
So the first room is basically just a hallway that widens then shortens before another door with an orb.
Sparrow passively sees the lines in the floor of the trap door.
Guess how they dealt with the trap door!

Him: they set it off!

SpaceYeti: Sparrow AND Cata stepped on it!

Him: haha WHY?
Sparrow saw the trap!

SpaceYeti: I don't know!
So Sparrow, with his higher Reflex, stopped himself from falling in, but the Paladin wasn't so fortunate. He took the 20 foot spill like a champ.

Him: WHERES YOUR GOD NOW?!

SpaceYeti: Anyway, they use their rope and get up the hole, and Sparrow does a jump from the hallway to the ledge where the hallway widens, and gets ready to touch the orb. Tiny Jim tells them to yell when they're ready, as they have been ready, and they get to the next room.
The next room had some traps with plates in the ground to activate, but Sparrow saw the plates and showed the group how to avoid them.
The next room was the best.
It was simply a hallway that immediately had a 90 degree turn, another turn 40 feet later, another turn, and then another, so it was shaped like a U... the angle was down, though.
So a 40 foot drop, hallway, and a 40 foot climb to the next door.
Good thing the group trained athletics!

Him: haha right
my favorite part of this story so far is how they just go ahead and activate the pit trap the ranger spots
not out of any particular reason either

SpaceYeti: Nope.
With TWO people!
Why did they need to risk two people?!

Him: why did they need to risk any?

SpaceYeti: I dunno!

Him: this wasnt even a retarded "MAYBE THERE'S TREASURE IN THE TRAP" thing either
which i can KIND OF see
i mean, people die in pit traps

SpaceYeti: Nope, just a straight "Let's step on it together!"

Him: in that case you set it off with, i dunno, not your feet though

SpaceYeti: Right.
So the first one down is the one who's best at climbing, Cata and Shardon holding the rope for him to climb down.
Oh, I forgot to mention something important. In the last room, they found 8 dead goblins.
At the bottom of this pit, there are two dead goblins.
Sparrow goes down the hallway and sees the next climb.
The DCs aren't too high, so the real trick is figuring out how to keep the rope up so they could climb it down.
Guess what resource they've found and they decide to use to hold the rope up!]

Him: pit spikes?

SpaceYeti: There were not spikes in the pit.

Him: goblin corpses?

SpaceYeti: YES!

Him: thats a classic dumb retard move

SpaceYeti: They tie the rope to a goblin, and stack them squared of.

Him: thats a horrible idea
what makes them think goblin corpses are a good anchor?

SpaceYeti: It's a lot of weight there, and holds up under the weight of the Tiefling and the Halfling, who make it safely to the bottom.

Him: i foresee the paladin having a problem

SpaceYeti: Ten corpses, all at least 30 pounds, 300 pounds of resistance... it's all they could think of.
I would have used a GRAPPLING HOOK, but whatever.

Him: yeah.
me too
grappling hook plus rope
bring rope with you
don't fall down with no way back up

SpaceYeti: They have a shit ton of rope.

Him: how many dungeons has this group delved over their short career?

SpaceYeti: And Sparrow specifically has not only grappling hooks, but special grappling hook arrows.

Him: i dont just mean in this campaign

SpaceYeti: This is the second, at second level.

Him: hahaha, grappling hook arrows are WAY less cool than uh, smelly goblin corpses

SpaceYeti: Oh... a bunch. At least 20.

Him: so they have literally no excuse for this dungeon dumbness

SpaceYeti: Right, but it's hilarious anyhow.
So Cata gets over the goblins, grabs the rope, lowers himself slowly down the lip of the pit, puts his weight on the rope, and immediately falls down, bringing the rope and half the corpses with him.
He rolled a 1, right off the bat.

Him: hahaha
maybe he should have taken athletics

SpaceYeti: Sparrow, ever the team player, catches him, taking half the damage. He also rolled to reduce the fall by 10 feet, so he's Mr. Team Player VIP of this session by far.

Him: right
other than his initial pit trap choice

SpaceYeti: Other than that, yeah!
So now they spend a good half hour trying to figure out how to get up the other side.
Sparrow, for some reason, doesn't think his grappling arrows will work here. I dunno why.

Him: i hesitate to wonder what exactly he thinks they are for

SpaceYeti: So he uses a normal arrow and shoots a rope into the ceiling with a nat 20.
Wait for it!
He climbs part way up, and the arrow breaks, and he falls, and Cata catches him for half the damage.

Him: hahaha what

SpaceYeti: So he tries the same thing AGAIN, and it works again!

Him: why would he think the arrow would hold his weight??
why not the grappling arrows?

SpaceYeti: Wait for it!
He climbs this rope before the arrow could break, making it to the top!

Him: hooray!

SpaceYeti: And uses his grappling hook to toss at the hanging rope to retrieve the rope!

Him: hahahaha
well, at least he used it for something

SpaceYeti: I almost face-palmed.
He's inventive, even if he can't see the obvious answers.

Him: yeah, i'll give him that

SpaceYeti: This next door has handles, so he ties the rope to them and Arowen is the first to climb up.

Him: why not just use a piton and anchor the rope to like, the ground

SpaceYeti: Oh, did I mention she fell the last ten feet on her way down?

Him: instead of a thing that may swing open

SpaceYeti: He tied the door handles so that if they came open, it wouldn't open much, and it would still support the climber.
So Arowen climbs most of the way up... then rolls one of her famous falling twos.

Him: haha

SpaceYeti: Cata catches her for half the damage, and she tries again. And falls again!

Him: can i ask you
why didn't sparrow pull her up?

SpaceYeti: After this second fall, Sparrow pulls Cata up!
And they work as a team to pull the other two up.

Him: well, at least they eventually got it

SpaceYeti: Yes, that was my favorite room.
Oh, all the time, Tiny Jim was hollering down the hall for them to hurry up, because his team was already a room ahead and they needed them to touch another orb thingy at the right time.

Him: haha, awesome

SpaceYeti: The next room is simple. A circular room with a five foot ledge and a 20 foot pit with an orb in the bottom... the pit was filled with water.
Cata says he can just sink down there and hit it, and they can pull him back to the surface with rope. No biggy.
Did I mention if they touch the orb at a different time than the other group, they take a d6 lightning damage?

Him: hahahaha
oh man, awesome

SpaceYeti: So they shout back at Jim "Now!", and Cata jumps in and touches the orb... ignoring the fact that Jim has to run out however far he had to come in their hallway to be able to shout at them, then into his just as far before his team could hear him.
So a few minutes later Jim shouts at them angry for getting the wizardess of his group shocked again.

Him: haha, yes

SpaceYeti: He asks who can keep a beat, tells them to keep it for a count of twenty, and then Cata should hit it.
Both Jim and they keep the rhythm, and they open the next door.

Him: see that was my immediate plan
count to some number.

SpaceYeti: The next door leads to the room the Goblins got to. The goblins can't figure out how to keep going, as there's no obvious door or anything, just a room roughly shaped like an L.\
So the goblins immediately attack, for some reason, and it's basically just a fight, except the group didn't react quickly enough and the fight took place on the ledge around the pool.
This means Cata can only tank one end, the other skullcleaver having his way with Sparrow.

Him: man, these guys are like a fuckin tragedy

SpaceYeti: Agreedo.
Ironically, Cata got hit twice while his skullcleaver was bloodied, and Sparrow was untouched.
Still, that downed Cata, since he had already taken a bunch of damage and only healed most of it, and I rolled pretty high.

Him: that sounds bad

SpaceYeti: They were the only goblins left at that point, though, and each hovering around ten HPs.
They got downed, Cata got up, and they spent some healing surges to get back to Go-mode.
That's when we called it a night.

 

[Trebuchet]

Sorry, Yeti, as much as I like you and also RPGs, this had too much blow-by-blow and game mechanics for me. I have for years been the person who writes up summaries of our games, and they are much shorter. By group consensus, they include only the most memorable combat moments, like a great cleave that goes through six enemies, or an improvised weapon that should never have worked.

I see now why you said once that your games get their drama and character development from combat sequences, which is why I read the whole thing. I was curious how you did that. You definitely have a different style of DMing than I am used to, though that isn't meant as a criticism.

I thought it was bold of you (and nice) to include a 9-year-old. Any younger and he couldn't have held his own, I suspect. I am curious how you modified things to include him, and what you saw about his strengths and weaknesses. Did it make it much harder to run the game?

 

[SpaceYeti]

Too much game mechanics? I barely mentioned them? Besides a few DCs and their pertinent skills, I don't think I mentioned any game mechanics, but I could simply be forgetting. This isn't really a summary I wrote so much as a line by line discussion of the game I had with my friend about half an hour after the game ended. I'll see what I can do about shortening it in the future, and I understand if someone wouldn't want to read the wall of text. I posted it when I was bored and expected it to be one of those things you read when you get bored anyhow.

All that aside; Drama and character development partially from combat. Combat definitely plays a role in it, but outside of combat is where most of the character personality really comes out, in their interactions with NPCs. I'm kind of curious how someone could DM in a way that the players's characters don't develop, or at least display, their personality at least a little in combat. How does that work?

Mostly I had his mother help him, and I tried to keep the game flowing so he wouldn't wonder off. I tried to keep him involved and let him know his character was doing cool things. Mostly I just did what I normally do, though. It was obvious he didn't understand a lot of what was going on, so I simply tried not to overwhelm him.

 

[Trebuchet]

Besides a few DCs and their pertinent skills, I don't think I mentioned any game mechanics.

Yep, those are the ones. We really don't include any of those things in the notes of our games, preferring instead to convert them to more cinematic language. We have a lot of politics and prophesies, and tactics get mentioned far more than DCs. We have plenty of trash talk, and some of us deliberately play weaknesses in battle (my character comes unglued at the first sign of a wight, for example). And we try to act out the fact that dismembered bodies are upsetting to anyone who isn't messed up in the head. We have a party member who is that messed up, and three of the others are working to fix that. The only numbers tend to be descriptions of the enemy (4 hill giants, or a 20-foot-tall zombie spider). To describe a successful acrobatics check, it isn't "succeeded on a DC 26 climb up a statue to overcome the enemy's superior cover" but rather "scrambled up the statue to get a better aim from above."

Again, none of this is meant as criticism. It is just to explain why I thought you had game mechanics in your text, when you didn't think so.

None of us will remember the die rolls or DCs, but we remember making the decision to shoot an enemy in the back to keep him from reporting our location. Or the enemies we didn't kill, because they hadn't done anything to deserve death.

The one exception to die rolls is Thunder Wave. Every time our paladin gets surrounded by a group of enemies, my character casts Thunder Wave on the lot of them, and usually hits some enemies. Not once, in the whole campaign, has she hit the paladin. So now it is a running joke that he is immune to thunder attacks, and enemies don't even try it anymore.

I'm kind of curious how someone could DM in a way that the players's characters don't develop, or at least display, their personality at least a little in combat. How does that work?

Yes, of course the personalities are displayed in combat. Our paladin is heedless and rushes in regardless of provoking attacks of opportunity, and our mad ranger repeatedly puts herself in harm's way to protect my wizard (because they are romantically involved). And some characters hoard action points and dailies, while others run through them. But none of this development comes from moving figures around a map and rolling dice, or using powers that slow or daze the opponent. Killing someone (or not) matters to the characters. Whether they used Holy Smite or Path of the Blade to do it doesn't make much difference.

It was obvious he didn't understand a lot of what was going on, so I simply tried not to overwhelm him.

How did he handle waiting for his turn in combat? Did he do any actual role-playing? Did any of the content upset him? Were there any topics you had to avoid? Our combats can be quite bloody, with everyone dripping with gore at the end, or people screaming for mercy, or demons escorting high-level villains from their lives, or evil characters torturing victims, or similarly disturbing things. We also do have some sexual content in some campaigns, though not all. We keep most of the action off-screen, but there are implications of all kinds of stuff, because the characters are consenting adults. If we had a kid in the party, we'd have to decide what could stay in the description. (I am really interested in this because at some point I'll be gaming with kids.)

 

[sti_lin]

I played D&D in highschool with some friends but that ended in college, now my outlet for the fantasy world is WOW, its way better than D&D IMO

 

[Trebuchet]

I played D&D in highschool with some friends but that ended in college, now my outlet for the fantasy world is WOW, its way better than D&D IMO

In what way? I haven't played WOW.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I played D&D in highschool with some friends but that ended in college, now my outlet for the fantasy world is WOW, its way better than D&D IMO

Better than D&D? How is that even possible? They're different platforms.

 

[sti_lin]

Well d&d was good but the mainly speech based game was lacking more stimulation of visuals besides picture representation of static characters (monster compendium). True one can picture the scenes in your head but the details are usually not created like you experience in a virtual world such as wow. I wish wow was around when we were playing d&d. Wow involves the fantasy world and gives it life that d&d needed. Wow was my first mmorpg and when I started playing it in 2004 I was enveloped by it.

I can make a list of pros and cons but I would just suggest those d&d loves check it out. They have rpg realms where people are encouraged to actually role play as well and not just play the game from some external perspective.

Of course this is all my own .02

Biggest negative to wow is the monthly fee but that fee guarantees new content so it's reasonable. It's like paying for a good DM

 

[sti_lin]

If u decide to check out wow, join my realm detheroc and I will be happy to help u get started in the economy etc

 

[Cognisant]

And now for something completely different.

The mage's apprentice walks into the shop, "Good sir has my order arrived yet?"
"Lets see, an amulet of greater fire resistance, two bangles of greater fire resistance, eight rings of fire resistance, yes it's all here, but may I ask what this is all for, do you intend to cloak yourself in fire with a spell or something?"
"Not exactly, I'm going on a field trip to the elemental planes and I hear the fire elementals are HOT!"

Just for pun

 

[SpaceYeti]

I have played WoW. I finally quit after this latest expansion. I do appreciate the offer, but the two things are difficult to compare. I mean, if you don't like imagining or are bad at it, I could definitely see how WoW is more appealing, but a chunk of the appeal of D&D is hanging out with friends at the same time. Your actions aren't limited by programmed actions, they're limited by your imagination. Further, as DM, you can create a world however you desire it, as opposed to having a selection dependent entirely on the game itself. I mean, yeah, WoW is a good MMORPG. It leads the way, any more. However, D&D and WoW are simply different things. It's like comparing playing basketball to playing a basketball video game. There's nothing wrong or innately superior to either, but the differences are obvious.

 

[sti_lin]

I have played WoW. I finally quit after this latest expansion. I do appreciate the offer, but the two things are difficult to compare. I mean, if you don't like imagining or are bad at it, I could definitely see how WoW is more appealing, but a chunk of the appeal of D&D is hanging out with friends at the same time. Your actions aren't limited by programmed actions, they're limited by your imagination. Further, as DM, you can create a world however you desire it, as opposed to having a selection dependent entirely on the game itself. I mean, yeah, WoW is a good MMORPG. It leads the way, any more. However, D&D and WoW are simply different things. It's like comparing playing basketball to playing a basketball video game. There's nothing wrong or innately superior to either, but the differences are obvious.

You make good and valid points. Obviously my input was to provide an alternate for others out there who do play d&d and are not aware of good electronic supplements or replacements for d&d. I am not here to convert any one . For me wow > d&d. Want to make the pros and cons list?

As fars as being in the same room hanging out, many of my old d&d friends now have LAN parties at each others houses playing wow or use ventrillo and in game chat to play separately. I fill my d&d void that wow doesn't fill by reading fantasy novels. Whatever floats your Twinkie

 

[sti_lin]

The problems with d&d are a lack of structure and truly the gaming experience is heavily dependent upon the gm. Everyone wants to be god mode and everyone wants make up too much, all of this I know varies with who you are playing with so maybe my perspective is jaded.

DM- I shoot u with armor piercing arrow
Player- my magic armor armor can't be pierced
DM- the arrow is enchanted with dispel magic
Player- my armor has a 5 yd dispel aura dispelling the arrow in flight

Lol reminiscing d&d days

 

[SpaceYeti]

Sounds to me like your DM sucked. If we're ever in the same area, you're invited to my games.

 

[Trebuchet]

I can see where WOW would be good if you like visuals provided for you. But that wouldn't appeal to me so much. My DM (and husband) is good at the cinematic stuff.

We have very visual pencil and paper games, not all D&D, and I have strong visual memories of that time when the power plant exploded and we had to run for it (Traveller), or when we got poisoned desserts at a posh restaurant and left a tip anyway (RuneQuest). When I think of our games, I remember them more like a movie. Maybe our soundtrack helps.

I completely agree with Yeti, that D&D and WOW are two different things. D&D is definitely about hanging out with friends, as well as improvisational acting. It is an act of shared creation. If you are spending your time arguing with your DM about whether your armor stops the arrow, that is missing the fun stuff. (Unless that is what you like. Rules lawyers have their place!)

So, Yeti, I looked over your campaign notes (briefly, not in depth) and saw you have a pacifist. I played one of those once, and he pretty much failed as a character. I tried everything to keep him from failing but he fought me the whole way and I created a new character. I don't think I'll play anymore INFPs, since my other attempt wasn't great either. How is your pacifist doing?

I like the idea of legacy items. Sometimes we have those and sometimes not, but it sounds like you really work on those, which is cool.

 

[Jah]

anybody seen this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqXqK3ZlqWI

(and the podcasts leading up to it ? )

 

[SpaceYeti]

So, Yeti, I looked over your campaign notes (briefly, not in depth) and saw you have a pacifist. I played one of those once, and he pretty much failed as a character. I tried everything to keep him from failing but he fought me the whole way and I created a new character. I don't think I'll play anymore INFPs, since my other attempt wasn't great either. How is your pacifist doing?

I like the idea of legacy items. Sometimes we have those and sometimes not, but it sounds like you really work on those, which is cool.

That's actually my old campaign. I have a whole new blog for my newer campaign which I thought I replaced the link in my signature with. I was apparently wrong about that, though. The pacifist mostly just came to realize the necessity of violence. While she was never gun-ho about it, she stopped getting mad about the group getting into fights, especially considering most of them happened because they got attacked.

I just plain like legacy items. I like having an item each character has which they don't have to worry about replacing. It's not about bonuses or power, they simply have a connection with that item.

Here; http://gnomeskulls.wordpress.com/

I'll try to pop that into my sig. Either way, I'm also running a "Not everyone's here" campaign which I'm actually enjoying more than that one. I should get to writing about what's happening on them, but I simply haven't had much time.

 

[Trebuchet]

I don't know if you've played GURPS at all, but it has an option called "Signature Gear" which lets a player create something like your legacy items. It costs points, but if the DM allows that option, it is an agreement not to destroy it or take it away permanently. I like them too, in any game system.

We also have a "not everyone's here" campaign, but it isn't really an on-going story so much as a bunch of little one-evening mini campaigns with recurring characters. They can get awfully silly, and aren't usually as interesting as the main campaign, but it is nice to have a relaxed and flexible game sometimes. My husband had to be out of town a few weeks ago, so I ran a little game rather than skipping it entirely. Aside from my husband, I'm the only one who is really interested in DM-ing, so it was me or nothing. I'm not terribly good at it, but I have experienced players who are forgiving and wanted me to succeed, which makes all the difference. Sure, they figured out all the secrets in about two minutes, but at least it was funny.

I looked at your blog, and agree with your "Sandbox" article. You do have to keep some control on the player options, though, or they are suddenly off in some region you didn't even come up with a name for, demanding to know the form of government and the major imports and exports. But you can do that by setting it on an island, or a spaceship, or some other naturally bounded world, which can be as big as the DM has time to make it. As I am not a very experienced DM, I tend to run short campaigns in small but detailed worlds. My husband is happy to let us run around an entire galactic sector with a hyper-advanced ship and our own spy ring. So I think knowing your limits as a DM matters as much as letting go of control of the plot.

The one thing I really like about 4th edition is the balance. Yes, even though my character is a wizard. I tried playing a druid in 3.5 and it was so frustrating that it was always "not as good as a real cleric." I just think 4E is way too light on interactions and skill descriptions. Sure, we are good at flavor text and being creative. But the loving work that went into the 4E game design - in the WOTC books - was all combat powers and items, and not really talky interactions. I am not sure if 3.5 encouraged interaction more, or just allowed it more, but it had more.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I don't know if you've played GURPS at all, but it has an option called "Signature Gear" which lets a player create something like your legacy items. It costs points, but if the DM allows that option, it is an agreement not to destroy it or take it away permanently. I like them too, in any game system.

Frankly, permanently taking away any magical item should be a no-no all the time. Allowing something you'd want to take away like that should be avoided in the first place. I understand that sometimes it happens anyway, in which case a conversation between you and the player of the character with the item should be adult enough that the player willingly gives up the item.

I looked at your blog, and agree with your "Sandbox" article. You do have to keep some control on the player options, though, or they are suddenly off in some region you didn't even come up with a name for, demanding to know the form of government and the major imports and exports. But you can do that by setting it on an island, or a spaceship, or some other naturally bounded world, which can be as big as the DM has time to make it. As I am not a very experienced DM, I tend to run short campaigns in small but detailed worlds. My husband is happy to let us run around an entire galactic sector with a hyper-advanced ship and our own spy ring. So I think knowing your limits as a DM matters as much as letting go of control of the plot.

You could also have a list of the names of nations you didn't actually plan out, perhaps a roll of the die would determine the kind of government, etc. It's not so much about planning as it is ad hoc and flexibility. No, you should never have control over the players' actions, you should create a convincing plot-hook. If they ignore it, there will be in-universe consequences. That army outside the gates of their home town that they sneaked by to go figure out the political workings of their town's neighbors will eventually get into the city and kill everyone the group ever knew there, or most, or whatever. Ignoring the kobolds raiding the farms will eventually lead to their dragon master to consider it a weak target and personally demand sacrifices of food, virgins, treasure or whatever.

Besides that, you could also simply keep a list of things that may be happening in other places. It doesn't have to necessarily be a specific kingdom that has a particular problem, so much as the next kingdom they get to has one of your ideas as a problem, the idea being one you haven't implemented in a particular place.

Ultimately, if the players dismiss any and all plot hooks, why the hell do you play with those jerks? What are they playing for?

The one thing I really like about 4th edition is the balance. Yes, even though my character is a wizard. I tried playing a druid in 3.5 and it was so frustrating that it was always "not as good as a real cleric." I just think 4E is way too light on interactions and skill descriptions. Sure, we are good at flavor text and being creative. But the loving work that went into the 4E game design - in the WOTC books - was all combat powers and items, and not really talky interactions. I am not sure if 3.5 encouraged interaction more, or just allowed it more, but it had more.

How would a druid not be as good as a "real cleric"? Druids were probably the second best base class in the game, second only to wizards. They can do pretty much anything that anyone else can do, just with different fluff.

4E Is not innately light on social interactions or anything. Yes, the rules focus on combat, but that's because combat is the core mechanic of the game, and always has been. There are both skills and powers that contribute to social interactions. Just because some grognard might look at it and say "There are no good rules for handling social situations"... ignoring the skills, powers, suggested skill challenges, and the fact that any campaign, regardless of edition, includes only as much social interaction as the DM allows for, it doesn't mean he's correct. The argument has no legs to stand on. Just because some DMs might not include social interactions simply because the books don't suggest any (even though they do), that's not the fault of the game system, but the unimaginative DM who doesn't do it. This argument against 4E holds as much ground as the morons who say it's too much like an MMORPG.

Think about it this way; In 3rd edition, there were no rules saying a character would be at all penalized for being dead. Going by the rules exclusively, ignoring intent, means that no matter how many HPs you lose, you can keep going on forever. Players and DMs who aren't idiots realize the intent is that the game's "death" means the same things as real "death". Just because there aren't many rules for it (even though there actually are plenty, people simply ignore them), it doesn't mean the rules eliminate it as something you can do. The rules for 4E do not state that you cannot talk (Diplomacy, Intimidate), that you cannot get inventive in combat (It lists examples of swinging from chandeliers and flipping over tables to use as cover), or that you cannot have sex (No edition had rules for this, though the book of sucking and fucking, a third party book, created some), or anything like that, so why presume a lazy DM or player who doesn't include it has a valid point about the system itself?

 

[Trebuchet]

Frankly, permanently taking away any magical item should be a no-no all the time.

I don't think it's a no-no, but it is a pretty serious move. It hasn't happened much in our D&D games, but it happens all the time in Call of Cthulhu. SF games have their equivalent of magic items, too, mostly from ancient sites or parallel universes, and those are much rarer. We have had many happy sessions tracking down whoever took our stuff. And then, of course, you have the scene where the character has to sacrifice something important for whatever reason. Those are good, too. Bad stuff happening in the interest of plot seems okay to me, though I agree with you that the DM and player need to have an understanding about it.

You could also have a list of the names of nations you didn't actually plan out, perhaps a roll of the die would determine the kind of government, etc. It's not so much about planning as it is ad hoc and flexibility.

Oh, sure, but world consistency can get tricky if you just start making stuff up at random. You would not believe the economic, historical, and political analyses that happen in our games. Fortunately, our regular DM is brilliant at both making stuff up on the fly and keeping a big stash of stuff he can haul out if we start heading in an unexpected direction. If you are skilled at this, don't look down on those of us who are less skilled; instead be proud of learning it. I'm better than I was, but clearly not in your league yet.

Ultimately, if the players dismiss any and all plot hooks, why the hell do you play with those jerks? What are they playing for?

Actually, our group tries really hard to find and follow all plot hooks. Most of us provide character hooks, too, that make it easy to get one or more of us motivated. And our DM is great at making plot hooks. Usually we go exactly where he wants us to. As for me, I make the plot hooks really obvious and everyone goes along with them in a spirit of friendly cooperation. We don't have a single jerk in our group.

How would a druid not be as good as a "real cleric"? Druids were probably the second best base class in the game, second only to wizards. They can do pretty much anything that anyone else can do, just with different fluff.

I don't remember the details, as it was a while back, but druids got powers later than clerics, and it seems like they topped out earlier. Whatever the problem was, we all thought there were noticeable balance problems there.

4E Is not innately light on social interactions or anything.

You must be in a grumpy mood. I didn't say there are no interactions in 4E - of course the DM and players have to provide that. But in some way, it isn't as conducive to interaction as other systems. My guess is that the problem lies in the world building rather than the rules system, but whatever the problem is, I find 4E a more difficult environment to play out interactions than other systems. It doen't make us grognards or morons or lazy, or mean we gave up and decided to skip role-playing.

MegaTraveller, Mongoose Traveller, RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Falkenstein, and GURPS all seem to provide more context or support for role playing than 4E. You can chop vegetables with a dull knife, but it doesn't make you lazy if you yearn for a sharper one.

A lack of rules isn't the problem, I don't think. Maybe it is just the assumption that the way to get ahead in life is to find things to kill and take their stuff. We just don't enjoy that very much. We tend to return treasure if the heir can be tracked down (and yes, it is often offered as a reward after that). We are more excited to find an enemy's diary than their magic items. We spent a month in a drow city and didn't kill a single drow, though we thoroughly messed with their politics. We found a cart full of money and gave it back to the mercenaries whose paycheck it was. So when the rules and world-building are all about killing and looting the bodies, there is nothing wrong with that, but we find it hard to get excited about it. (Since the DM agrees, we generally end up playing the way we want to. This is about the system, not our game.)

I had no idea there was a third-party book about sex in D&D. I am fascinated that it exists, but I think I'll pass. As you say, there really isn't a need for rules about that.

On an unrelated note, did you ever read DM of the Rings? It is a webcomic made from images of the movies, but the characters are all players. It is a dreadful campaign, but some of it is so funny my sides hurt.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Oh, sure, but world consistency can get tricky if you just start making stuff up at random. You would not believe the economic, historical, and political analyses that happen in our games. Fortunately, our regular DM is brilliant at both making stuff up on the fly and keeping a big stash of stuff he can haul out if we start heading in an unexpected direction. If you are skilled at this, don't look down on those of us who are less skilled; instead be proud of learning it. I'm better than I was, but clearly not in your league yet.

The consistency will remain fine so long as you keep notes. For me, for some reason, I can keep political intrigues and who knows what all in my head without needing notes, but if you ask me the name of the guy who knows who paid the assassin band to attack the group, I'll have to dig through my notes until I find it or just say "I don't remember, let's call him Jim".

Actually, our group tries really hard to find and follow all plot hooks. Most of us provide character hooks, too, that make it easy to get one or more of us motivated. And our DM is great at making plot hooks. Usually we go exactly where he wants us to. As for me, I make the plot hooks really obvious and everyone goes along with them in a spirit of friendly cooperation. We don't have a single jerk in our group.

Then you'd have no problems!

I don't remember the details, as it was a while back, but druids got powers later than clerics, and it seems like they topped out earlier. Whatever the problem was, we all thought there were noticeable balance problems there.

Now that I'm thinking about it, Clerics may have been number 2 on the power scale, after wizards. Either way, druids and clerics were so close that it didn't really matter. Clerics were better at healing, but that was it.

You must be in a grumpy mood. I didn't say there are no interactions in 4E - of course the DM and players have to provide that. But in some way, it isn't as conducive to interaction as other systems. My guess is that the problem lies in the world building rather than the rules system, but whatever the problem is, I find 4E a more difficult environment to play out interactions than other systems. It doen't make us grognards or morons or lazy, or mean we gave up and decided to skip role-playing.

I couldn't tell you why. I'd have to watch the game to figure out why that might be, for your group, and that's not realistic.

MegaTraveller, Mongoose Traveller, RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Falkenstein, and GURPS all seem to provide more context or support for role playing than 4E. You can chop vegetables with a dull knife, but it doesn't make you lazy if you yearn for a sharper one.

Part of the reason I like D&D, all editions I've played, is that it has combat in the bag, and social and political stuff is whatever you want it to be. I hate rules that specify exactly what your social capabilities are, because then you have to play with the rules in order for your character to have the very personality you want to play. Personality should not be part of the game system, in my fairly humble opinion.

A lack of rules isn't the problem, I don't think. Maybe it is just the assumption that the way to get ahead in life is to find things to kill and take their stuff. We just don't enjoy that very much. We tend to return treasure if the heir can be tracked down (and yes, it is often offered as a reward after that). We are more excited to find an enemy's diary than their magic items. We spent a month in a drow city and didn't kill a single drow, though we thoroughly messed with their politics. We found a cart full of money and gave it back to the mercenaries whose paycheck it was. So when the rules and world-building are all about killing and looting the bodies, there is nothing wrong with that, but we find it hard to get excited about it. (Since the DM agrees, we generally end up playing the way we want to. This is about the system, not our game.)

Well, I can understand that, but the rules anymore primarily dictate the kind of money characters should have at certain levels, and does not necessarily say where it should come from or how they acquire it. Sure, taking the money from people you just faught is still totally there, but not of necessity.

I had no idea there was a third-party book about sex in D&D. I am fascinated that it exists, but I think I'll pass. As you say, there really isn't a need for rules about that.

Well, our games have adult content, but not particularly detailed. We got a copy of the book, but never actually used it.

On an unrelated note, did you ever read DM of the Rings? It is a webcomic made from images of the movies, but the characters are all players. It is a dreadful campaign, but some of it is so funny my sides hurt.

I love that comic!

 

[Trebuchet]

Then you'd have no problems!

Not having any jerks in our group, and everyone cooperating to follow the plot hooks, certainly leads to fun and successful games. But if you think that will solve all the problems, then you must have solved all the rest so long ago you don't remember them.

The DM's dad just died, and so did a player's dad, within a few weeks of each other. Two of the players do amateur theater, and one has to travel a lot on business. So we often play with one or more person missing. This works out fine, but requires adaptation.

The player who travels a lot is obsessed with character sheets and has a hard time tracking play if all the numbers don't line up (and for her, there is always some question about AC or Stealth or whatever). We have to gently get her back on track, and sometimes remind her what is going on. Also, she has a hard time getting her courage up about doing dramatic things, so she dithers a lot, and we have to really push her to do anything memorable.

We have a little girl, and no babysitter for game nights, so we do get interrupted sometimes if she can't sleep or wants water or something.

In other words, real life causes problems. But we do our best to tolerate each other and play past it, and at least we have very few problems, I'll go that far.

I'd have to watch the game to figure out why that might be, for your group, and that's not realistic.

No, but it would be fun.

Part of the reason I like D&D, all editions I've played, is that it has combat in the bag, and social and political stuff is whatever you want it to be. I hate rules that specify exactly what your social capabilities are, because then you have to play with the rules in order for your character to have the very personality you want to play. Personality should not be part of the game system, in my fairly humble opinion.

I am obviously not making myself clear, because you keep making the same point. Of the other systems I mentioned, only GURPS has any rules for personality, and mostly that is a system of rewarding the players for taking on challenges, like acrophobia or overconfidence. It doesn't define the personalities.

Falkenstein and RuneQuest have some form of Social or Financial Status as a stat, which basically allows some people to be more wealthy than another, or have a patent of nobility, but in a balanced game, the others will end up with more Strength or Charisma or something. I had a dandy time once with a character who was smart, but hopeless at money. Of course, money and patents of nobility can be handed out later, as DM rewards, as needed.

But my favorite system, MegaTraveller (the Shattered Imperium), has a wonderful history and society. There are no fewer than seven sides in the Imperium, with non-Imperial enemies and allies on all sides, assorted races, differing philosophies, different levels of technology, spies, battle armor, military bases, and ancient sites. There are different rulers in each area, different dangers, pirates, high tech worlds, and mining asteroid pits. You can create any kind of setting and choose any kind of political maneuvering, and there is enough of a world to support it and have everyone on the same page. Dungeon crawls work just as well in space. The DM can give the players a ship to start with (probably with a mortgage attached) or make them work for their passage. Anyone can play anything, without it becoming chaotic. Plus, as a bonus, you can have ship-to-ship combat as well as melee and ranged combat.

D&D 4E feels a bit stifling to me, but it's not because it has too few rules about personality and politics. I think it has too little world building to support it. We play in Forgotten Realms, and the 3.5 books were much better.

[The rules do] not necessarily say where [the money] should come from or how they acquire it.

A good point. We mostly go to the king (two of us swore fealty to him) and tell him we need more money for fortifications and roads.

Well, our games have adult content, but not particularly detailed.

Ours varies, depending on the tastes of the characters. Some have a lot of adult content, while others have basically zero. Our 4E campaign has some, but it is low key. However, as we are all adults, we feel we can play out what we want without a rule book. None of us actually has a sword or starship, so those need rules, but we do have relationships.

 

[Orja]

Hey guys, you seem to be pretty experienced with D&D, do you mind if I derail you a little here?

I have never played before, but my boyfriend (INTJ) and an older friend of his (INTP) asked me to DM for them and the INTP's adult son and the son's friend. They have all played before, so everyone should get along, know the rules, and be nice. I am reading all I can, but while I need to know the game mechanics, I also need to know what people prefer and dislike in a game. I mean, what do you find most annoying from a DM and what do you enjoy the most? They are so excited and I think it will be fun too, so I don't want it be so bad the first time that we never try it again. Any advice? Please and Thank you!

 

[Trebuchet]

Hey guys, you seem to be pretty experienced with D&D, do you mind if I derail you a little here?

I have never played before, but my boyfriend (INTJ) and an older friend of his (INTP) asked me to DM for them and the INTP's adult son and the son's friend. They have all played before, so everyone should get along, know the rules, and be nice. I am reading all I can, but while I need to know the game mechanics, I also need to know what people prefer and dislike in a game. I mean, what do you find most annoying from a DM and what do you enjoy the most? They are so excited and I think it will be fun too, so I don't want it be so bad the first time that we never try it again. Any advice? Please and Thank you!

Are you, by chance, an experienced writer or other kind of storyteller? Being a DM is fun, but hard work, and you have to be able to improvise stories. Steal shamelessly. If you use a SF movie plot in a fantasy story, most people won't notice. If they do, just grin mysteriously. It isn't a problem.

Many gaming groups have a sort of adversarial relationship between players and DM, where they try to outwit each other. I don't recommend that unless it sounds like a lot of fun to everyone.

Creating plot hooks is sometimes a challenge. As Yeti pointed out, the players are supposed to find the plot hooks and go after them, even if they are kind of thin, so be obvious rather than subtle about where the game starts.

Keep your first game short. Like, 1-3 sessions of a couple of hours each. It can be tiring work, and the DM wears out faster than the players. If you can wrap up a complete little story in a few sessions, you will have a lot to build on the next time, too, and not get bogged down trying to keep the same characters. Let them know it will be short, and not to bother with extremely extensive background.

Some background is useful. If you know the name of a character's old enemy or ally, you can introduce them as a plot device, which is always fun.

Make up lots of extra characters, each with a name and a brief physical description, so if they ask the innkeeper where to find the farrier, and you don't have a farrier, you can check your list and say "Russell the Farrier is a bald guy at the edge of town, who doesn't say much. He overcharges, but his work is good."

Try to have a clear role for each character. In D&D, that is usually easy. But it does mean you have to set up each encounter or combat with something for the talky person, the sneaky person, the magic person, the fighting person, etc. Some people will have multiple roles, which is good. Our usual DM insists everyone have an interaction skill (Diplomacy, Streetwise, Intimidate, etc. - look for the charisma-based skills) so that everyone feels they can speak up without being out of character.

Keep it very simple for your first time as a DM. Have a good idea what the bad guy is up to and don't worry too much if they go in the wrong order. A classic thing is to have, say, three things they have to obtain or fight or learn, in different places, which can be in whatever order. A lot of the enemies in the Monster Manual are seriously overpowered, so consider cutting their HP in half for easier fights. The characters have healing surges, so don't be afraid to hit them, though. And make them use up their powerful daily spells to defeat the bad guy. It should be challenging, just not impossible.

Don't get too caught up in your own narrative. Your opening should be only a couple of minutes long before you let them start asking questions and talking. Let them know what their quest is, and a couple of options about where to start, and let them wander around.

If the players start to get off-topic, or wander away from the story, gently redirect them by asking what they plan to do, or put the next part of your story where they have decided to go.

If you have fun, they'll have fun. Don't be too judgmental toward yourself. As long as you get a reaction from the players, you are doing it right, whether it is laughter or anxiety. There will be things you wish you had done differently, or better, but role-playing is an in-the-moment activity, and you have to just let mistakes go.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Hey guys, you seem to be pretty experienced with D&D, do you mind if I derail you a little here?

I have never played before, but my boyfriend (INTJ) and an older friend of his (INTP) asked me to DM for them and the INTP's adult son and the son's friend. They have all played before, so everyone should get along, know the rules, and be nice. I am reading all I can, but while I need to know the game mechanics, I also need to know what people prefer and dislike in a game. I mean, what do you find most annoying from a DM and what do you enjoy the most? They are so excited and I think it will be fun too, so I don't want it be so bad the first time that we never try it again. Any advice? Please and Thank you!

Wow... frankly, there's a lot of stuff I could say or people I could quote or cite. Ultimately, it depends on what your group is looking for. Ask the players what they're looking for, I'd suggest. High magic, mysteries, frontier exploration, political intrigue, to what degree on each count, and, essentially, what kind of game environment do they want.

However, it's your first time EVER, so start small. Whatever sort of stuff they want, keep it localized to a particular city outside of some ancient ruins, or in one particular dwarven boarder settlement, or whatever. I don't even know where to start. Do you have any more specific questions?

 

[Orja]

@Trebuchet: Thank you very much, that was incredibly helpful. I don't have any manuals outside the player's handbook (v4). Looking up bits and pieces can be hard and that really helped me to visualize things.

I did have some specific questions:
Are there good resources for stealing maps, and I know I need a grid, should I make it small to be more like realistic-sized paces, or do people travel faster than that? Oh, and are there any plot points or creatures that get annoying or that are more fun?

Also,. while the first session will probably consist mainly of making characters, I did have some ideas for the general story, maybe I could run them by you guys...
I have thought of it like a choose-your-own-adventure story but with less death. I wanted to start them out in a village at the foot of the mountains. The villagers would claim that outlying farms were being raided, but with no survivors they can only speculate as to the culprits. I'd want them to explore the caves and find evidence of goblins, but then run into a kobold. If they are less than combative in their approach toward him, he will eventually bring in more kobolds and together they would all defeat the goblins (I'd throw in a nilbog leader at the end battle to make it interesting). If they make a bad first impression on him, they'll have both the kobolds and goblins to fight and they'll have to spend some time running and finding something to give a tactical advantage to ultimately win/survive. I'm still trying to think of ways to throw in puzzles and whatnot too, but in general, does it sound interesting enough for a first go?

Also, do I really need to know all the rules, characters, and such right away? What rules and stats must I be fully versed in to begin?

 

[Trebuchet]

Are there good resources for stealing maps, and I know I need a grid, should I make it small to be more like realistic-sized paces, or do people travel faster than that?

I am assuming you are playing D&D 4E, which does require maps. I don't know of a good place to steal them, as I have not looked. You don't need a map of the whole place, just each location where they are fighting. So maybe you need a big cave, a little cave, a town hall, and main street. A road with some trees or a pond nearby, and rocks for an ambush, is easy to make, and provides a lot of tension for little work. Just ask them how quiet they are trying to be as they walk along, and watch the paranoia mount. Closed doors are great, too. They have to check for traps, or pick the locks, and they can't see past the doors to know what they will face. Some have squeaky hinges, too.

Rooms or caves with niches in the walls provide places for players to duck into, and maybe be surprised by something else that had the same idea. You can provide some high ground, too, including stairs or dining tables. Obstacles can be fun.

The standard map grid is 1x1 inch, and you can make cardstock minis if you don't have any. Just cut little strips (I think .5x3 inches) and fold them in half with a cartoon or word on it. If they don't stand well, tape them to a coin. Everyone can make their own, but you might want to make a dozen each of goblins and kobolds, each with a number on it, and then you can secretly know who is a minion and who isn't.

As for traveling between locations, aside from a road encounter here and there, I wouldn't spend time on every quarter mile of road.

Oh, and are there any plot points or creatures that get annoying or that are more fun?

It depends entirely on the group and the DM. Anything can be fun. I think fun things include something powerful enough to be a threat, and interesting enough that maybe they can capture and interrogate an enemy, or find a diary. The enemy's hideout is always a great place to put information and give some character to the enemy.

Annoying things also depend on the group, but overly complex puzzles that have to be solved in a particular order are often annoying. Also, don't have a lot of NPCs with similar names. We have a Varun, Vidriar, and Valthrun we are dealing with, all sages. Sigh.

Be sure you have some kind of reward. Treasure from the goblins, including magic items, of course, and gold from the village elders. Do a version of the scene where Luke and Han get medals.

I wanted to start them out in a village at the foot of the mountains. The villagers would claim that outlying farms were being raided, but with no survivors they can only speculate as to the culprits. I'd want them to explore the caves and find evidence of goblins, but then run into a kobold. If they are less than combative in their approach toward him, he will eventually bring in more kobolds and together they would all defeat the goblins (I'd throw in a nilbog leader at the end battle to make it interesting). If they make a bad first impression on him, they'll have both the kobolds and goblins to fight and they'll have to spend some time running and finding something to give a tactical advantage to ultimately win/survive. I'm still trying to think of ways to throw in puzzles and whatnot too, but in general, does it sound interesting enough for a first go?

Sounds good. It is often better to let the players handle things on their own, and use allies as a source for weapons, armor, intelligence, potions, places to rest, and general preparation for battle. If the diplomacy is successful and they work with the kobolds, you might want their allies to be so outclassed by the goblins that they don't dare enter the fight. Then you don't have to play strategy on both sides, and they can't lean on you during the fight.

Also, do I really need to know all the rules, characters, and such right away? What rules and stats must I be fully versed in to begin?

It sounds like a first level story, so you don't need to know everything. Know the basic rules for each of the character classes being played. Be very sure you know the fighting styles of the enemies, and have a way to track their HP. You need to understand how combat works, so try a sample one on your own, to keep it flowing smoothly. For example, you need to know how flanking works, and if you have a rogue then make sure you understand sneak attacks. Rangers can quarry the enemy. You need to understand opportunity attacks, and how they apply in both melee and ranged combat. I suspect you can ignore difficult terrain, but a player might use a power that creates it, so check on that. There are also combat statuses, like dazed, or slowed, and you should at least have the list handy, if not memorized.

You need to know movement, too. How does running work, teleportation if you have an eladrin character, and stuff like that. Also, look at the races of each character to find out what their racial advantages and disadvantages is. For example, some can see in the dark, others in dim light.

Mostly you need to know your own story. The characters will ask questions, like how long ago did the raids start, and how powerful were the people who checked it out. Decide if the villagers know the location of the caves, and if anyone has explored them. Figure out how long the kobolds and goblins have lived there, and if they tend to be friendly with each other.

 

[Orja]

Thank you again. I will plan out some details and begin studying. We plan to start this weekend.. wish me luck!

 

[SpaceYeti]

Are there good resources for stealing maps, and I know I need a grid, should I make it small to be more like realistic-sized paces, or do people travel faster than that? Oh, and are there any plot points or creatures that get annoying or that are more fun?

I would check online. Just google up some gridded maps of whatever. I use a battle grid for maps the characters move over, which dry erase markers can make any kind of terrain, building, or whatever, and anything about an inch or smaller can be used as figures. For other maps I just use grid paper. I almost never draw out city maps, simply noting the location of important places relative to each-other with some road names leading from one to the other. The grid spaces are an inch by an inch, each representing a five foot square.

And, yeah, that last question depends entirely on your group's tastes. I have a friend who will get sucked into basically any story if there's a hot chick his character can try to flirt with and totally screw up doing, who's related to the greater plot in some way.

Generally, one roll wins/loses are no fun. Skill challenges are a really good idea, but do not inform your PCs when they enter one. Further, it's generally your characters who initiate one. They say they want to try something, ask them how, ask them for rolls for whichever steps they describe, never even hinting that there's some sort of skill challenge mechanic behind it. When skill challenges are seamless, they work FAR better.

Also,. while the first session will probably consist mainly of making characters, I did have some ideas for the general story, maybe I could run them by you guys...

Go ahead!

I have thought of it like a choose-your-own-adventure story but with less death. I wanted to start them out in a village at the foot of the mountains. The villagers would claim that outlying farms were being raided, but with no survivors they can only speculate as to the culprits. I'd want them to explore the caves and find evidence of goblins, but then run into a kobold. If they are less than combative in their approach toward him, he will eventually bring in more kobolds and together they would all defeat the goblins (I'd throw in a nilbog leader at the end battle to make it interesting). If they make a bad first impression on him, they'll have both the kobolds and goblins to fight and they'll have to spend some time running and finding something to give a tactical advantage to ultimately win/survive. I'm still trying to think of ways to throw in puzzles and whatnot too, but in general, does it sound interesting enough for a first go?

Sounds good so far. Feel free to experiment. Even simple puzzles can be really rewarding. If you read my first post, you'll see things as simple as a pit trap and a few obvious drops can lead to enough challenge for fun. However, make sure you do not penalize the PCs for choosing diplomacy over fighting. If your characters diplomacize the Kobalds, make sure they get just as much xp as if they did not diplomacize. I normally treat diplomatic encounters the same, XP-wise, as combat encounters, just make sure it's more challenging to get the reward for diplomacizing than simply RPing a few sentences at someone.

Also, do I really need to know all the rules, characters, and such right away? What rules and stats must I be fully versed in to begin?

Know the rules that govern what you're trying to do inasfar as you can, and expand on that as you continue. Nobody knows every rule, even very experiences DMs. I've made plenty of bad calls, just try to make up for it with more frequent good ones.

 

[Orja]

Thank you! I hadn't realized they could get XP for things other than combat. I'll have to find a way to work that in. And they can get it for solving puzzles and the like too?

 

[SpaceYeti]

Yes; puzzles, or basically anything that somehow challenges them, can (and I think should) reward XP. Another of the biggest things I've learned about DMing is to not punish the players or their characters, especially for being clever enough to find a way around a challenge you planned. Punishment is not fun, especially when it happens because you're doing something well.

 

[eagor]

Yes; puzzles, or basically anything that somehow challenges them, can (and I think should) reward XP. Another of the biggest things I've learned about DMing is to not punish the players or their characters, especially for being clever enough to find a way around a challenge you planned. Punishment is not fun, especially when it happens because you're doing something well.

true punishment if there is any is usually dealt by other pc's

also i would suggest that you be flexible with the rules

as the saying goes "these aren't rules more like guidelines"

also if you don't mind my asking what version are you all playing?

 

[Orja]

. Punishment is not fun, especially when it happens because you're doing something well.

I never thought about punishing anyone for anything. Is expected at times? I wouldn't know where to begin.

what version are you all playing?

I'm playing v4. Though I haven't played yet. Today's game was cancelled because we all have colds. Just as well as it gives me time to read the manuals (I finally got the DM guide and the Monster one).

 

[eagor]

I never thought about punishing anyone for anything. Is expected at times? I wouldn't know where to begin.


I'm playing v4. Though I haven't played yet. Today's game was cancelled because we all have colds. Just as well as it gives me time to read the manuals (I finally got the DM guide and the Monster one).

i'm sorry, not for the cancel though for the version, in my opinion 4e was terrible, but like you said you're new so i won't hold it against you'

i would suggest however that you try 3e, 3.5 or even AD&D when your done with this campaign, just to see what you prefer.

 

[Trebuchet]

So how did the game go this weekend, Orja? (Ours was really funny.)

 

[SpaceYeti]

I never thought about punishing anyone for anything. Is expected at times? I wouldn't know where to begin.

NO! No, I'm saying not to. Some DMs get it in their mind that players need to be punished for whatever reason. Don't be that DM.

 

[SpaceYeti]

i'm sorry, not for the cancel though for the version, in my opinion 4e was terrible, but like you said you're new so i won't hold it against you'

i would suggest however that you try 3e, 3.5 or even AD&D when your done with this campaign, just to see what you prefer.

Not to turn this into a thread about edition wars, but why is 4th bad?

 

[eagor]

whenever i play 4e i can't have any fun because of all the structure and it completely rail lines you, while in three there are so many options and variables that you could do shit like make an effective front line rogue. in 4 with all the paragon paths and ability pool to choose from it's all too structured and far too generic, it doesn't leave you any room to just go nuts once in a while.

that and monks go from coolest to shittiest character in a snap, in 3 you can do spinning kicks and other acrobatic nonsense, in 4 you can only do that if you have an ability for it or make a basic attack with no bonuses.

 

[Trebuchet]

it's all too structured and far too generic, it doesn't leave you any room to just go nuts once in a while.

I am sure Yeti will disagree (because he has said so before) but I have some sympathy for this point of view. We had a really funny game last weekend because the DM doesn't care about the rules as much as he cares about the story and characters. We had our most memorable fight in ages, but we didn't use a map or miniatures, and we used a giant door as the best improvised weapon I've seen since we started 4e. We went, as you say, nuts.

Actually, I have to admit we hardly ever use an actual map and minis anymore. We simplified the rules a lot to speed things up.

 

[eagor]

really? when i played AD&D we never used minis or maps, there really wasn't a point to it since the battle mechanics were so simple. plus it seems you were going nuts in gameplay which is easy enough to do, but my problem is i can't make crazy combos work like rogue/paladins or wizard/druids. i think it was stated best by a friend of mine "3 is the book while 4 is the movie based off the book", and we all know how that works out.

 

[Trebuchet]

What do you mean by combo? Two players in a combat working together or a multiclass?

We never used maps before 4e either, because we didn't need them. Sometimes we lined up a bunch do d20's vs our heroic d6's, with random household goods for terrain, especially for the epic battles. But they were on the carpet, not a map. If there were only 5 or 6 enemies, it was easy to track in our heads, but an actual war started to require props. We didn't worry too much about the mechanics. To flank, we'd say, "Can I get behind him to flank?" and the DM would roll or decide how it looked in his head, and say something like "if you don't mind provoking two opportunity attacks," and we could decide. 4e made that more complicated.

 

[eagor]

yes i do mean multiclass also i know exactly what you mean, at the very most we got loose leaf and drew up a quick battle ground,

 

[SpaceYeti]

I can agree with the multiclassing being needlessly restrictive, but I'd say a single class being viable and balanced makes up for that. Try taking a Fighter from level 1 to 20 without multiclassing in 3.5 and you have an underpowered twirp. A wizard with no multiclassing? A one-man army, capable of taking on any number of level 20 fighters taking minimal if any damage. Character balance is important to me.

All your other complaints don't seem to have anything to do with the actual rules, though, so I could neither agree nor disagree.

 

[Trebuchet]

Well, eagor's comment that there is no room to just go nuts once in a while seems like an (admittedly vague) complaint about the rules. I know they work well for you, and maybe you don't have any desire for anyone to just go nuts, but I think I know exactly what eagor means, and I agree that the rules in 4e are generic and inadequate.

I've been searching for an example, but it is hard to come up with a good one. Maybe these will do for now.

4e has no knowledge or profession skills. As far as I can tell, those don't affect combat, so Wizards didn't worry about the rules. So if you want your character to be a carpenter, a gem-cutter, a butcher, a blacksmith, and a wheelwright, go ahead and write that in. Of course the DM could decline to allow it, but then the DM has to come up with house rules that maintain balance. The printed rules just don't cover it. As players, we keep a lid on it ourselves, but that is because we are pretty experienced players. If we were new to it, we might have some problems.

My character is a journeyman carpenter and apprentice mason, which I like to use in game. I have to be careful, though. I let her build basic brick walls and have some awareness of masonry terminology and practices, but nothing more. I don't hesitate to let her build, repair, or evaluate wooden stuff. I don't let her do anything with leather beyond cutting strips for bindings.

Last weekend, we had to get past a radiant-fire breathing dragon statue, which was on the other side of a giant door, we decided the door must be radiant-fire proof. My character pulled out a screwdriver and improvised a bunch of handles, then pulled out the hinges so we could use it as a shield for the whole party. This was funny, so the DM went with it. It was not covered in any rules, we didn't have an official skill challenge, or check the equipment list for screwdrivers. We didn't spend time calculating how we could get it down the corridor based on the map. We just ran for it. It was much more cinematic without a map. In other words, we went nuts.

Here's another limitation. We play in Faerun, which had a lot of history and background in 3.5. 4e doesn't. Take the drow. I have an eladrin character who should hate all drow, but for story reasons she doesn't. We met a drow NPC and she has a sort of casual affair going with him. The background on the drow just says their society is totally evil and sadistic and there is nothing good about them. They can't cooperate, keep their word, or respect anyone else. Except, of course, for a few outcasts who leave their society behind and seek redemption. (For the record, the drow is not a good guy. He isn't Drizzt. This isn't some Twilight thing with sparkly drow. He is ambitious and untrustworthy, but he cooperates when it is in his interest, and is not evil just for the sake of evil. He is smart and has a good sense of humor, but he is also secretive and ruthless. In other words, you wouldn't recognize him from the 4e rulebooks.)

How can drow have powerful cities without people cooperating in some way? How can anyone be 100% evil? Why can't you have an interesting drow who isn't an outcast (which is what the rulebooks imply)? How could my character find anything appealing about a drow if all they do is betray others? Logically, there must be more to them than that. The sourcebooks sure don't give the DM much to work with, though. The assumption is that if good characters meet standard drow, they are just there to be killed for XP. Why bother with diplomacy, after all?

 

[eagor]

I can agree with the multiclassing being needlessly restrictive, but I'd say a single class being viable and balanced makes up for that. Try taking a Fighter from level 1 to 20 without multiclassing in 3.5 and you have an underpowered twirp. A wizard with no multiclassing? A one-man army, capable of taking on any number of level 20 fighters taking minimal if any damage. Character balance is important to me.

All your other complaints don't seem to have anything to do with the actual rules, though, so I could neither agree nor disagree.

really? i never found it difficult to make a powerful straight fighter even at level 20, do you have a class preference? because if so that might make it difficult for you to make good fighters.

or it could be that you're just not using the bonus feats adequately, for example what kind of fighter are you making? there are three basic archetypes called the "juggernaut" the "wall" and the "striker".

also you have to realize that the fighter is literally the most versatile character in the game, even if you don't multiclass the variety of combat based feats give you a plethra of choices when it comes to fighting, even to the point of replicating other combat/semi-combat based classes. with that said when pitting a fighter against a wizard it really depends on the strategy you implement.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Well, eagor's comment that there is no room to just go nuts once in a while seems like an (admittedly vague) complaint about the rules. I know they work well for you, and mae you don't have any desire for anyone to just go nuts, but I think I know exactly what eagor means, and I agree that the rules in 4e are generic and inadequate.

Inadequate for what? What are you trying to do that the rules do not permit you to do?

4e has no knowledge or profession skills. As far as I can tell, those don't affect combat, so Wizards didn't worry about the rules. So if you want your character to be a carpenter, a gem-cutter, a butcher, a blacksmith, and a wheelwright, go ahead and write that in. Of course the DM could decline to allow it, but then the DM has to come up with house rules that maintain balance. The printed rules just don't cover it. As players, we keep a lid on it ourselves, but that is because we are pretty experienced players. If we were new to it, we might have sohttp://intpforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=281760me problems.

It has the skills "Arcana", "Religion", "Nature", "Dungeoneering", and "History", all of which are the same as knowledge skills, plus other uses, and Healing, Streetwise, and Diplomacy have their uses for information having/acquiring, too. The "no knowledge skill" complaint is entirely unfounded.

The "no profession skills" complaint, on the other hand, is entirely founded, as there are none in fourth edition. However, I[]=bling, and be more effective in combat, OR I can learn to paint... decisions, decisions." They removed that problem entirely, by making your ability to craft and have professions entirely dependent upon role playing. Imagine that, role playing in a role playing game! If you absolutely must track your skill level in some way, your DM can determine any applicable rules.

My character is a journeyman carpenter and apprentice mason, which I like to use in game. I have to be careful, though. I let her build basic brick walls and have some awareness of masonry terminology and practices, but nothing more. I don't hesitate to let her build, repair, or evaluate wooden stuff. I don't let her do anything with leather beyond cutting strips for bindings.

That is a good way of RPing the situation.

Last weekend, we had to get past a radiant-fire breathing dragon statue, which was on the other side of a giant door, we decided the door must be radiant-fire proof. My character pulled out a screwdriver and improvised a bunch of handles, then pulled out the hinges so we could use it as a shield for the whole party. This was funny, so the DM went with it. It was not covered in any rules, we didn't have an official skill challenge, or check the equipment list for screwdrivers. We didn't spend time calculating how we could get it down the corridor based on the map. We just ran for it. It was much more cinematic without a map. In other words, we went nuts.

No system either encourages nor dissuades that kind of activity.

Here's another limitation. We play in Faerun, which had a lot of history and background in 3.5. 4e doesn't. Take the drow. I have an eladrin character who should hate all drow, but for story reasons she doesn't. We met a drow NPC and she has a sort of casual affair going with him. The background on the drow just says their society is totally evil and sadistic and there is nothing good about them. They can't cooperate, keep their word, or respect anyone else. Except, of course, for a few outcasts who leave their society behind and seek redemption. (For the record, the drow is not a good guy. He isn't Drizzt. This isn't some Twilight thing with sparkly drow. He is ambitious and untrustworthy, but he cooperates when it is in his interest, and is not evil just for the sake of evil. He is smart and has a good sense of humor, but he is also secretive and ruthless. In other words, you wouldn't recognize him from the 4e rulebooks.)

So because the rulebooks do not tell you more about how societies operate... they, what, stop operating?

How can drow have powerful cities without people cooperating in some way? How can anyone be 100% evil? Why can't you have an interesting drow who isn't an outcast (which is what the rulebooks imply)? How could my character find anything appealing about a drow if all they do is betray others? Logically, there must be more to them than that. The sourcebooks sure don't give the DM much to work with, though. The assumption is that if good characters meet standard drow, they are just there to be for XP. Why bother with diplomacy, after all?

They give the DM plenty to work with. They simply don't spell it out. The DM creates the world the characters play in. Just because they aren't told exactly what every little critter acts exactly like doesn't mean the DM can't just have it act however he deems appropriate. Saying a society is evil doesn't mean everyone in the society murders and backstabs and otherwise operates in a way that would wreck the society in less than a generation, or else it's hardly a society at all.

 

[SpaceYeti]

really? i never found it difficult to make a powerful straight fighter even at level 20, do you have a class preference? because if so that might make it difficult for you to make good fighters.

or it could be that you're just not using the bonus feats adequately, for example what kind of fighter are you making? there are three basic archetypes called the "juggernaut" the "wall" and the "striker".

also you have to realize that the fighter is literally the most versatile character in the game, even if you don't multiclass the variety of combat based feats give you a plethra of choices when it comes to fighting, even to the point of replicating other combat/semi-combat based classes. with that said when pitting a fighter against a wizard it really depends on the strategy you implement.

No. No, a fighter is the worst class in the game. Claiming otherwise is just wrong. Visit the old charop boards if you don't believe me. The fighter got the short end of the stick.

 

[eagor]

i beg the differ, im not saying they are the greatest but they aren't the worst, that title my friend belongs to the paladin,

 

[Trebuchet]

Inadequate for what? What are you trying to do that the rules do not permit you to do?

I didn't say they didn't permit me to do something. I said they were inadequate. As I mentioned later in my post, profession skills are completely missing, so that keeping them balanced is a lot of bother. They tend to really matter in our games, and one of the players has a tendency to want it all their way, so that we have to waste a lot of time arguing over how many profession skills are reasonable and what they let a person do. 3.5 did this much better, and GURPS better still. I'm sure you think this is a failure of our DM to keep control, or something, but without a rule book, the player actually brings up fair questions that need answering, in a consistent way.

Paladins have two major stats, drawn from Strength, Charisma, and Wisdom. The available builds let you pick Strength and Wisdom, or Charisma and Wisdom. Our paladin wanted Strength and Charisma, which was not one of the builds. The rules let him do it, but the powers clearly favored the other two combinations, leaving the character weak by comparison, and where was the balance then? The DM tweaked things a bit, and it worked out, but frankly the system wasn't flexible enough to let him make the character he wanted by the book.

The "no profession skills" complaint, on the other hand, is entirely founded, as there are none in fourth edition. However, I[]=bling, and be more effective in combat, OR I can learn to paint... decisions, decisions." They removed that problem entirely, by making your ability to craft and have professions entirely dependent upon role playing. Imagine that, role playing in a role playing game! If you absolutely must track your skill level in some way, your DM can determine any applicable rules.

My point entirely. Why should the DM have to make up a bunch of extra rules, in a system that boasts of its amazing balance? And there is no need to be snide about role playing. Some people do that better, and certainly people do it differently, and you have to be able to mesh styles and skills in a group, or you won't have any players. Saying that role playing is the answer is no answer. If you are going to make the DM do all the world building and rules generation, and base the character skills on the players' role-playing skills, then why pay so much money for all those books?

No system either encourages nor dissuades that kind of activity.

Many systems encourage that kind of activity. 4e may not discourage it, but it certainly doesn't encourage it.

So because the rulebooks do not tell you more about how societies operate... they, what, stop operating?

Well, perhaps. One of the problems in every version of D&D has been a really shallow treatment of society, economics, morality, history, culture, etc. 4e is the worst so far. I am guessing you never played MegaTraveller in the Shattered Imperium. Now that was good world building. It had major problems, of course, but you could have an online discussion over the viability of piracy for months, because there was enough depth to actually get into it.

Saying a society is evil doesn't mean everyone in the society murders and backstabs and otherwise operates in a way that would wreck the society in less than a generation, or else it's hardly a society at all.

The sourcebooks do spell it out. The drow always murder and backstab at every opportunity, they don't have any relationships that aren't essentially slavery, they don't support their children in any noticeable way, their only pets are poisonous spiders, their only sports are blood sports, and their only crafts are weapons, torture implements, and cursed items. And it is hardly a society at all. We solved this, but it wasn't easy.

Of course the DM can rewrite stuff, but like I said before, why should he (or she)? What are the books for? Creating a whole society that is playable is a lot of hard work, and we like to use our limited gaming time actually playing, not rewriting crummy sourcebooks.

 

[SpaceYeti]

i beg the differ, im not saying they are the greatest but they aren't the worst, that title my friend belongs to the paladin,

I don't feel like arguing the point, because that would ignore the crux of the problem. Let's just assume paladins are worse off than fighters. Okay, so there's a class that sucks even more than the fighter. Does that somehow make the fighter sucking okay? Is it acceptable that a wizard or CoDzilla can handle any challenge, usually better than any other class assumed to be able to handle those situations very well, just because paladins suck even more than fighters?