Core Rules Only

[Roadkill101]

I'd have no problem playing in a, Core rules only, campaign as Quasqueton defined. And to echo Olgar Shiverstone, there's enough in the core books to run with for years.

 

[IcyCool]

Yes, why wouldn't I?

I come to a game with the mentality of "I'm here to play."

I don't come to a game with the mentality of "I'm here to play a fiendish half-dragon Gelatinous Cube Warlock of Legend, and woe betide any power tripping GM who tells me otherwise!"

I've run into alot of that latter type (though not that specific combination of absurdity). I believe it is called the "Entitlement Mentality".

 

[Remathilis]

I've debated running a truly "generic" Core-Only game, will little or no outside stuff. Even using the "core pantheon" of deities.

As long as the DM lets us know ahead of time he wants to be core-only I'd be fine (however, he should keep to his end too; don't use wacky monsters out of MM3, don't make True Necromancer NPCs, etc). It should be just as much a challenge for the DM to keep to a limited rule-set as the players, otherwise your just being greedy.

 

[Aeric]

I'd play the Sailor Moon RPG if the gamemaster was of acceptable skill!

Of course, my definition of "acceptable" may be a little higher than most....

 

[Rystil Arden]

Misunderstood what? There are things in the Wizards own books that can break the game.

Agreed completely. In fact, if a GM tried to tell me "I allow anything printed by WotC in their books or web enhancements, with no restrictions. There is nothing put out by WotC that can break your game" I would be briefly tempted to prove her wrong and then overcome the temptation and likely never game with her again (it would depend on if she was a fantastic GM *and* all the players were willing to play fair and self-censor themselves away from the broken things to which the GM was blind).

 

[Allandaros]

I'm shortly going to be playing in a game which will probably be 3.5e, and it'll be my first time doing so.

I'd prefer it if it were the corebooks, just so that I don't get even more confused and bewildered by all these new rules.

"But wait...why is the fighter's AC worse than the mage's? And where's THAC0 listed on my char sheet?"

 

[Quasqueton]

Is Core Rules Only considered a "restriction"?

Quasqueton

 

[Crothian]

Is Core Rules Only considered a "restriction"?

I do consider it a restriction. Restriction for me though is not a bad word.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Is Core Rules Only considered a "restriction"?

Quasqueton

Absolutely. You yourself used the word in the first post. For me, the minimum level I would expect before I considered it to be shackling my creativity would be "Core Rules accepted without question (possibly with a few specific exceptions). Everything else you have to ask me on a case-by-case basis. I'll look over it and either accept it or give a well-thought-out reason why I don't accept it, of which 'I don't think I can judge the effect this will have on game balance, so I'm going to not allow it to be safe' is an acceptable response."

That said, I would still play in a core-rules only game with a good GM--I would just have less fun than I would if I was allowed to try more creative character concepts.

 

[Doug McCrae]

With errata?