D&D 3E/3.5 3rd Edition Revisited - Better play with the power of hindsight?

Thomas Shey

Legend
That's all fair, Cerebrim. I was mostly just noting that, like its broader application (do onto others as you'd have them do onto you) "Run the game you'd like to play in" is one of those things that looks good at first glance but only really works if you and your players want very much the same things; otherwise as you say there's some compromise things you have to make to make both you and they happy, and one needs to be aware of it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Edgar Ironpelt

Adventurer
"Run the game you'd like to play in" is what I try for too - and if Cerebrim wouldn't like the games I try to run, that's another piece of evidence for the shortcomings of that position.
 

Edgar Ironpelt

Adventurer
I think you are describing a particularly subjective experience.
Maybe so, but limited and subjective as my experience may be, I've still encountered many more GMs who say "Players want more challenge, and it's my job to give it to them!" than players who say "We want more challenge, and it's the GM's job to give that to us!"

In fact, I've only encountered players of that sort on-line, never face-to-face. I have encountered players who want less favoritism shown to them by the GM for the sake of world-consistency, but that's a different matter, even if it also results in a harder, more challenging game.

And when I GM and see the players joyously knocking down the opposition I've set up, there's sometimes a little voice whispering in the back of my mind "I'm annoyed and bored by this, so the players must be bored too. Really, they must be. Even though they appear to be having fun, they must actually want more challenge. So go ahead and give that to them. Do it! They'll thank you for it."

I do my best to ignore that voice, because I know it's the one on my left shoulder, with horns and a pitchfork.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
I can see cases where I'd want more challenge than provided, but I suspect for the most part I'd tend to avoid games that was likely to be the case for other reasons.
 

CapnZapp

Legend

Started a new thread re: one of the tangents of what's discussed here.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
3E did many things right.

But two things mean I'm never going back:

* The martial - caster divide

* The complex way you build NPCs
The NPC issue was only bad(at least for me) when making high level spellcasters. Recently, though, I tried ChatGPT and asked it to make a few high level 3.5e wizards, giving it a few criteria to make sure were included. It did a pretty decent job at it. Decent enough that I would only need to make some tweaks to be usable.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I miss a lot of things.

A major decision point in your mid levels. 5E really could split subclasses into two choice points: one at start taking you up to (say) 11th level, and then a new choice point taking from 12th to 20th level.

The main benefit would not necessarily be the character customization, but the very existence of a choice point here would put some greatly needed focus on high-level play. People would discuss playing at 14th or 17th level much more, which the game would be much better for.
Yeah. I did like the concept of the epic destiny that 4e added when you reached high levels.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
You know, I once quit a campaign as a player because I thought we were leveling too fast and gaining too much treasure for it to be fun.

I think you are describing a particularly subjective experience. My general theory on RPGs is to be the GM I would want to have as a player; and to be the player I would want to have as a GM. As such, the idea here that I'm doing anything as a GM that I wouldn't enjoy as a player just doesn't sit well with me.

I mean, as a player I enjoy games like "Slay the Spire". Why would I want a distinctively different experience in my TTRPGs?
Slay the Spire is a fun game!!

When it comes to magic items, I went back to old school where they were more powerful, but less common. I hated that 3e wanted me to hand out 5 gimpy items to each PC, rather than one really cool item with 4 or 5 abilities that fit a theme.

Once I stopped handing out all the small candy items and started putting in the fewer good items, suddenly my players became really exited about finding magic items again.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Slay the Spire is a fun game!!

When it comes to magic items, I went back to old school where they were more powerful, but less common. I hated that 3e wanted me to hand out 5 gimpy items to each PC, rather than one really cool item with 4 or 5 abilities that fit a theme.

Once I stopped handing out all the small candy items and started putting in the fewer good items, suddenly my players became really exited about finding magic items again.
I never had problems about getting my 3e Era players excited about magic items. What I missed was the 1e Era excitement about finding gold.
 

I never had problems about getting my 3e Era players excited about magic items. What I missed was the 1e Era excitement about finding gold.
Primeval Thule (the Pathfinder version, written by Rich Baker) has an optional rule to use gold and treasure for XP, at the same ratio as 1e. I have imported it in my 3.0 games, and it works very well in a "standard" campaign.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top