I've been asked to run a 3.5 game, which I am very happy to do. I like running games and 3.5 is my favorite edition of D&D. I put the event on Meetup and have four players signed up at this point. I'd like one more, just in case. But five is my limit because I feel it's difficult for everyone to be involved when there's too many of them at the table.
I was very clear in the posting - core races and classes only, no level adjusted characters, no splat books. That's how I like to run my games since it puts everyone on a level playing field. Another reason for that is it doesn't make the game difficult in terms of world interaction. A group of exotic races is very difficult to have show up in the rural villages without being burned alive. I'm good but I don't like having to make very large changes so they can simply play a game.
Every single one of them has asked for an exception. They want something from a splat book. They want a non-core race. They want this, they want that. I added the PHB 2 to the approved book list as a possible way to compromise but I'm beginning to wonder if that's going to work since half the classes are variations of ones from splat books.
There's someone I really wish I could talk to about this since he's got experience with, shall we say, diverse groups. But that's not possible. It leaves me on my own to figure this out.
What I want to do is put the line in the sand. Core classes, core races, no level adjusted characters, no splat books. If they don't want to follow those rules then they can find another GM. It could mean that there's no game because they want to play these variants and I can accept that. The game is no fun if everyone is not having fun. If they're not having fun because of the character limitations then why play? If I'm not having fun because of all the extra work I have to do to make the game run then why play?
I've been sick the last couple of days and haven't answered the latest round of questions. There's no rush since the game is still weeks away from Session Zero. I'd rather not answer when I'm not feeling well. That's a way to misstate things or make other mistakes in communication.
I would have considered running this past the GM in my 5e game but we don't meet again until the week before the 3.5 game and I'm not going make a special effort to contact him. I may not like his style but another experienced GM is another experienced GM.
There's far fewer GMs than there are players. Far, far fewer. You would think that these players would be happy to have someone willing to run a game and to accept that I have rules. The fact that they're not doing so makes me wonder if that's going to carry over into gaming.
As I said I'm not feeling well at the moment so I'm not making any decisions. I'm mulling them over and what the options are that might make everyone happy. I don't even know what kind of game they want to play. If they're going for the hack-and-slash then I could make it work since the role play aspect is far less important. If they do want the role play aspect and the odd characters then there's a problem, at least for me.
Players don't really know what goes into running a game. There's a lot of work on the GM side unless they're strictly running modules with no deviations. When I was running before I'd be thinking about the next game I would be running when I was driving home from the game that just finished. Literally there wasn't a day when I wasn't thinking about the games. I'd be making maps, working with plot hooks, reading back to find out what I could drop on them going forward, etc.
Players are characters in the story. The GM is the rest of the world. It does center around the PCs but there's a lot to center around them.
So back to my dilemma. I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that they read the rules and are still asking for exceptions. That's kind of disrespectful in my opinion.
Give me some comments with yours, both as players and GMs. I'd like some outside viewpoints.
No comments:
Post a Comment