The real irony of the 'shopkeep for 20 years' problem.

[Cynic]

Maybe because levelling up is supposed to be a "reward"? IE, level 1 is so painful that players are happy when they leave.

What the hell?

Why are you playing it if it is so painful?

I'm sorry isn't the whole aspect of the game to enjoy it?

Even if the view at the top of the mountain is refreshing after the hard-ass climb up it. I still want to enjoy the hard-ass climb by looking at the scenary.

That wasn't the best analogy but, fvck, you enjoy it from day one. not day ten. That's utter bullshit.

[Koumei]

In this instance, you're not hiking up the mountain. Instead, you're crawling through the cave complex to get to the top of the mountain from the inside. The view includes:
*darkness
*bat shit

Whereas the smart people here just take a helicopter to the top and enjoy the view from there.

[Draco_Argentum]

Its the group's game, not the DM's. If they want to start at level 5 and he wants level 1 rule -1 comes into play.

[MartinHarper]

Wait, so by putting up with annoying shit for several sessions (or in the case of 4E, ten years), you get rewarded by a game that is finally enjoyable?

I didn't say it was a good reason. I'm just speculating about what the original d&d designers may have been thinking. Regardless, 3e makes it easy to start at whatever level you want, and 4e has explicit rules for it.

[Roy]

I almost always start at at least level 3. Most often 3-5, sometimes higher depending. Level 1 and 2 is just get randomly killed in 1-2 hits by some peon, which leads to disposable character syndrome. Seeing as disposable character syndrome is essentially the antithesis of roleplay, and I like my roleplay I prefer skipping the random crap to get to the good parts where I can still die of course, but not from some random pointless mook so that I can actually get attached to my characters and play them well.

If that takes an x years later thing, so be it. Though I'd prefer to go with something like 'you are already accomplished at what you do, have fought before...' so that if I want to play a human or similar short lived race I can do so without starting middle aged or something. If age penalties aren't being applied it doesn't matter, but -1 all physical stats for a completely arbitrary reason also annoys me.

I'm speaking of 3.5 here. 4.0... well let's just say I really don't like it at all and will not be playing it and leave it at that.

[Kaelik]

I didn't say it was a good reason. I'm just speculating about what the original d&d designers may have been thinking. Regardless, 3e makes it easy to start at whatever level you want, and 4e has explicit rules for it.

This is an odd statement. The way you say it implies that 3.5 doesn't have explicit rules for starting at higher level, and that those rules aren't much better then 4E too.

[RandomCasualty2]

Hey, I hate level 1 as much as the next guy. It's boring and your opponents are bland and typical. I've done so many lame kill the orc/goblins/kobolds quests that I'd prefer not to see level 1 for some time.

But, if that's what the DM is running then you shouldn't sign up for the game at all. It's really being a jerk if you try to join the game and then immediately try to derail it by doing something different.

That'd be like joining a D&D game and all the players getting together and saying "Look, we don't want to play D&D, lets play Shadowrun instead."

Chances are your DM is just going to quit and let one of you guys run it instead.

[Kaelik]

Hey, I hate level 1 as much as the next guy. It's boring and your opponents are bland and typical. I've done so many lame kill the orc/goblins/kobolds quests that I'd prefer not to see level 1 for some time.

But, if that's what the DM is running then you shouldn't sign up for the game at all. It's really being a jerk if you try to join the game and then immediately try to derail it by doing something different.

That'd be like joining a D&D game and all the players getting together and saying "Look, we don't want to play D&D, lets play Shadowrun instead."

Chances are your DM is just going to quit and let one of you guys run it instead.

This is odd.

I would think the most common type of D&D game is one in which a bunch of friends who all know each other and all play D&D decide to get a game going, and then they decide on a DM and a level ect.

But every pro-DM is god poster seems to act like the DM just put up a poster somewhere that said: DMing level 1 game, you will never level up. I hate people who like XP!!

If a group gets together and then the guy they picked to DM says he's got this level 1 campaign. It is well within any kind of bounds to say: "Hey, I hate level 1, lets try level 10 instead." Especially because many of the other players might also feel the same way.

Hell the whole group could feel that way and they'd never know, because apparently no one is allowed to speak up about their own preferences in DM is god land.

[Roy]

Re: The DM is god talk. Personally, I have a hard time getting it, though I think that stems from my perspective. From my view, it is me the player picking the DM, not the DM picking the player. This is because where I game, I can peruse many DMs offering a variety of concepts and show interest in the ones that suit me while ignoring the ones I do not like. For example, I despise low magic games. So I can just view the list of offers, and ignore those. Other people like them, that's cool - they have a DM for their needs, and I have one for mine.

This also means I have little incentive to endure any power tripping, as not being forced to deal with a DM I do not want to means that well... I'm not forced to deal with a DM I do not want to.

With most people I've noticed, it's more like there are *insert small number of games* which naturally leads to a lot more of having to deal with the good and the bad or not gaming at all. Not that my games are flawless - in fact they end up with a different and comparable set of issues. Just that having more variety available does largely prevent this issue.

It's a difference in format from what I've seen - tabletop you have to take whoever's around and hope you like them. I do play by post, where there's more variety (but it's also slow as hell, and has a very high game implosion rate... thus the differences I mentioned and their effects).

If it were possible to have access to a variety of games, and play tabletop, it would be win/win - in theory at least.

[RandomCasualty2]

If a group gets together and then the guy they picked to DM says he's got this level 1 campaign. It is well within any kind of bounds to say: "Hey, I hate level 1, lets try level 10 instead." Especially because many of the other players might also feel the same way.

Hell the whole group could feel that way and they'd never know, because apparently no one is allowed to speak up about their own preferences in DM is god land.

People are allowed to speak up. I mean, it's fine to ask the DM if you can do a higher level game instead.

It's another thing entirely for him to say "no" and instead of quitting the game, you try to pull a dick move like running a shop for 20 years to increase your character power.

Nobody is forcing you to play in the game, The DM isn't holding a gun to your head and saying you have to play. Similarly, you shouldnt' try to hold a gun to the DM's head and force him to run higher level. If you want to do high level so bad, you can offer to DM and then the players who apparently would rather play high level, would play in your game instead of the low level game the other DM was proposing.

About low level versus high level, many DMs, especially 3E DMs were afraid of high level because they just didn't know the game well enough. If you want to do any kind of mid to high level in 3.5, you must be an expert DM. You need to know and prepare for all the tricks that high level casters can throw at you, because if you fail one, your quest may well be completely ruined. You forget about locate object and dimension door. It could well be game over as the PCs skip the entire dungeon. And that's a big problem in 3.5, due to the preparation involved. In a rules lite game like BESM or something, it's a lot easier to just go with the flow and wing it. In a rules heavy game like 3.5 with tons of options, you need to prepare. Your contingencies better be at least 10 moves ahead or your adventure is fucked. Seriously.

I think a lot of the reason they simplified 4E the way they did is that they realized that not many peopel wanted to DM high levels. If you want to DM for skiled players, you've got to be a DMing god. It's much akin to the problem of keeping out hackers in modern computer security situations. The hackers have all day to think about how to beat your system, and pretty much if they want to, they'll find a loophole to destroy your adventure. You're probably not going to be able to keep track of all those options that spellcasters have.

Most DMs just didn't even have that level of skill. I've been DMing for over 10 years and honestly I don't want to deal with all that shit. So I nerf a lot of the disruptive magic. Not 4E style nerf, but I tone it down some, so it's not just a game of "Did the DM forget to ward against X?"

I can't imagine a newbie DM even thinking of running a 3E game at mid to high levels. I really can't. His plots are going to get cracked wide open and he's just not going to have any fun. So I don't blame a lot of DMs for wanting to run low level, despite how boring it is. Most DMs just don't know the rules well enough to handle a high level game. Even with all the experience I've got, I wouldn't stand a chance against a rules ninja like Frank or K in a RAW high level game.

[Kaelik]

Well no one is ever going to play in a RAW high level game because then you seriously do have a shit ton of characters that all have +400 to Saves, +400 to AC, +400 to attack and damage, Infinite spells per day, +400 to spellcasting stat, ect. as soon as you hit level 9.

But yes, playing at higher levels does require competence and rules knowledge. Of course if you don't have them after reading the books, you aren't going to get them without playing at that level and seeing it happen.

But this is silly, you talk about shopkeeping for 20 years, that's something that pretty much requires full support from the entire party to do. So the only way it even comes up is when every single player in the group doesn't want to deal with that shit.

You talk about: No one is forcing you to play the game. No, and no one is forcing you to DM it either. So you can get down of your high horse and go sit at home, or you can DM a game that the group wants.

[RandomCasualty2]

You talk about: No one is forcing you to play the game. No, and no one is forcing you to DM it either. So you can get down of your high horse and go sit at home, or you can DM a game that the group wants.

Nope that's true. And in suhc a situation where the group basically tried to turn the campaign into something it wasn't, I'd just quit and let them elect a new DM. Let them be the one who has to deal with a problematic player trying to fuck up their plans.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I like level 1. I even like level 0.

That doesn't mean that every game should start there, but there are certainly plenty of fun low-level adventures to be had. I don't mind my character getting pwnd by four commoners or a ghoul.

[Cynic]

You talk about: No one is forcing you to play the game. No, and no one is forcing you to DM it either. So you can get down of your high horse and go sit at home, or you can DM a game that the group wants.

Nope that's true. And in suhc a situation where the group basically tried to turn the campaign into something it wasn't, I'd just quit and let them elect a new DM. Let them be the one who has to deal with a problematic player trying to fuck up their plans.

RC2: You are a very complicated fvcker indeed.

I say that because you ignore your one tenets and philosophies.

At one point you talk about being a team player and other times you completely ignore this and say something like the above quote where you suggest the aforementioned act like a dickwad.

And if you do want to talk about fvcking with the campaign then I must ask, "What campaign?"

It's level 1. You have just begun the game. What campaign. You haven't built a story yet. You might have. It's possible to have done that. But to have built the proper rapport between the player characters rather than the players is yet to happen.
~

So I must ask just one question in the end.

What the fvck?

[Kaelik]

You talk about: No one is forcing you to play the game. No, and no one is forcing you to DM it either. So you can get down of your high horse and go sit at home, or you can DM a game that the group wants.

Nope that's true. And in suhc a situation where the group basically tried to turn the campaign into something it wasn't, I'd just quit and let them elect a new DM. Let them be the one who has to deal with a problematic player trying to fuck up their plans.

[shouting] THERE IS NO PROBLEMATIC PLAYER! [/shouting]

All the players agree that they don't want a level 1 game. That's why they all agreed to shop keep for 20 years. All of the players hate your game. They want you to stop DMing.

This is the point:

RC The Unfailing God DM: Level 1 guys.
Players (all of them): Let's play some other level.
RCTUGDM: No. Level 1 or I'm going home.
Players: Okay, bye.

See now if someone sensible (IE not you) was in that situation, they might either DM a game that doesn't start at level 1, or they might say, "okay guys, but I wanted to DM level 1, so if we are playing some other level, then I don't want to DM that and I'll just be a player instead."

[MartinHarper]

RC, are you saying "quit" to mean "quit as DM" or "quit playing"? I'd guess the first.

[Judging__Eagle]

After a lot of the sort of info that 'escalated' the power on the PC side was made known in my gaming group, we've tended to have a sort of 'gentleman's agreement'.

The PCs won't try to have +infinite to many things, and the DM won't try to then 'challenge' the group.

That of course means that sometimes a character needs to be rebuilt, since it does things that weren't expected.

On the other hand, our group seriously tries to let people play monsters at level 1, since they want the "flavour" of being a winged fanged clawed creature, and don't give a shit about the mechanics.

[RandomCasualty2]

RC, are you saying "quit" to mean "quit as DM" or "quit playing"? I'd guess the first.

Yeah quit as DM. If I'm running a game and nobody wants to play the game I'm running, then I'll probably quit and let them run the game. I don't have a problem being a PC.

No point running for PCs who aren't enjoying the game.

See now if someone sensible (IE not you) was in that situation, they might either DM a game that doesn't start at level 1, or they might say, "okay guys, but I wanted to DM level 1, so if we are playing some other level, then I don't want to DM that and I'll just be a player instead."

That's in fact exactly what I said above. I'd quit being a DM if they didn't want to play the game I had created and let someone else handle it. But presumably if I have this group together that had level 1 characters, then I'm assuming they agreed to play in the first place.

I mean, I'm going to tell them. Ok, we're going to play a level 1 quest, show up with a level 1 character on Tuesday night and we'll play. So if they happen to show up and then explicitly don't want to play level 1, I'm going to look at them funny. They can just as easily say they don't want to play before I go through the trouble of making a quest.

[Crissa]

If the DM wants to play a level 1 game and no one else does, then the DM probably isn't going to DM their game... He doesn't have to any more than they have to play it.

But why isn't acceptable to say, 'We play a 1st level adventure and then shopkeep for twenty years and pick up at a higher level?' That's like, two adventures with one set of backstory. I'm okay with that, if the DM isn't okay with that, he'll say so. Like, 'My setting doesn't fit that level of character' or 'I don't like playing with characters above level X' or whatever.

When you sit down to a game, the details have been hammered out to get you to the table. Bringing up stuff at that point is inappropriate.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty2]

If the DM wants to play a level 1 game and no one else does, then the DM probably isn't going to DM their game... He doesn't have to any more than they have to play it.

But why isn't acceptable to say, 'We play a 1st level adventure and then shopkeep for twenty years and pick up at a higher level?' That's like, two adventures with one set of backstory. I'm okay with that, if the DM isn't okay with that, he'll say so. Like, 'My setting doesn't fit that level of character' or 'I don't like playing with characters above level X' or whatever.

When you sit down to a game, the details have been hammered out to get you to the table. Bringing up stuff at that point is inappropriate.

Yeah sure if all the details are hammered out before you come to the table, then that's fine. But at that point, you're not really playing shopkeep for 20 years, you're just starting out at level whatever with more wealth. So it's equivalent to the PCs saying, "Can we start at level X with more wealth instead of playing at level 1?"

And that's fine if you ask that before the game and the DM agrees to it.

What isn't fine is actually agreeing to play a level 1 game with the intention that you and the rest of the PCs are going to play shopkeep for 20 years as soon as the game starts as a nasty surprise for your DM. That's just being an ass.

[Amra]

Actually, I agree completely with RC. There are two sets of responsibilities here; the DM has to inform the players of what he or she intends before putting in the work to write the scenario; it isn't the players' fault if you haven't told them up front that you want to start at Level Whatever and it turns out nobody wants to do that. By the same token, it's the players' responsibility to let the DM know whether or not they're up for playing a game from Level Whatever when you tell them.

If the players have agreed to the DM's proposed game, but then show up and say "We open a grocery store and stay in it while we level up" then they are indeed being a bunch of asshats. If the DM has created a scenario at Level Whatever without securing the general agreement of the group, or tries to railroad his players into a game they're all agreed they don't want, then he's being an asshat.

When I'm setting up a game, I'll ask my players:

1) What level I should start at
2) What "theme", if any, we're going to run the campaign under - doing a set of adventures on a pirate ship, flying around the planes in a hollowed-out moon, defending a colony of unique outsized hippogriffs from the depredations of Orcish trappers, working for the D&D equivalent of the Mob, whatever
3) What the general craziness level of the game is going to be; do we want to play something low-magic and gritty or high-magic rocket-tag
4) What their next character concepts are.

The last one can be important to negotiate and can go around the houses several times. Before anyone shouts "Oo, railroad DM, telling players what characters they can have!", remember that nothing says "asshole" like the Secretly Evil PC (TM) in a party full of Paladins and exalted Ascetic types.

Actually, something does, and that's letting the player do it.

I won't run a game where the raison d'etre of one of the characters is to screw over the rest of the group; not unless everybody's OK with that. I sometimes also run across the scenario where one person's character concept is going to render another's completely redundant and then I'll warn both players that it's going to happen and let them decide between themselves whether either of them wants to change.

Thankfully, I've never encountered a situation where a player was so completely intractable that we couldn't reach a reasonable compromise.

Sure, if I've got an idea that's really cool that I'd really like to run with then I'll make my pitch to the group and make it hard, but if they don't want to play it there are a million other ideas. You've got to tell people what you're planning (unless they say right up front that they're cool with whatever you do) or you're a dick. And someone who agrees to it and then tries to shaft your game because they were actually never happy with it; that person is a dick, right there.

In the extremely unlikely event that I ever get to sit on the other side of a DM's screen, I'd sincerely hope that whoever's in the big chair extends me a similar degree of courtesy.

[Psychic Robot]

Please post your review of ToB.

[Amra]

Um... are you sure? I know I said I might but on reflection I might get looked at sternly for chewing up space better reserved for more pressing concerns. It's *huge*, north of 35,000 words even with all the contets tables and the chapters on how to create a martial adept stripped out, covering every single maneuver in the book. Probably everyone here who's interested in Tome of Battle has already got the book, or read reviews of bits of it here that are similar in tone. I can't say for certain, but memory seems to recall that Judging Eagle reviewed a lot of it.

The review currently lives on a gaming-group-members-only wiki I use to detail the game world my characters play in, and which the players use to make weekly notes and link events to the calendar so we can go back and construct a time-line if it has been a while since we last ran a particular set of characters. The point of writing it in the first place was that some of my players are lacking in rules-fu but wanted to use it, so I thought I'd give them a leg up in choosing their maneuvers.

I'd send you a link and a login, but it ain't my server

If it'd actually be useful to anyone - or if folks just enjoy watching others froth rabidly at the keyboard - then I'll go ahead and post it, formatting nightmares notwithstanding.

[Judging__Eagle]

No, I didn't review shit about ToB.

It was Draco Arg....something-something. I'd remember doing that much work. Plus I don't own the book, only a viewable version of it; if ya know what I mean.

Draco actually dissected nearly every maneuver and school and rated them based on the context of everything else that goes on in the game. Then went on and did the same for the classes and PrCs. Did an excellent job proving how much shit ToB was.

I just came up with a lame nick name for it.

[Amra]

I vaguely remember it, although I also remember that I didn't agree with some of the conclusions. I can't find it now though; was it on bbboy?