3 Very Different Campaigns

[howandwhy99]

Number 3 for the win! But I can't imagine playing it under 3.5 rules. Even 1E ad&d wasn't built for 1st level starts for all new characters. OD&D can, but I know of no other.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Personally - and this is my opinion since it was asked for - wouldn't play in a game like this at all simply because of the character creation rules.

A). + LA races are already fairly balanced by their LA. To add further penalties across the board is too broad for me. Either allow them or don't, but don't penalize the poor guy who wants to play a Aasimar or Tiefling or Drow. They get beat up enough because of their LA.

B). I find it rediculous to have to "buy" the use of books. Either allow them or don't. I'll gladly play in a game that allows me to use anything. I'll gladly play in a game that allows CORE + Complete. I'll gladly play in a CORE only game. It doesn't really matter to me. But just pick a system and use it. Don't make people pay just because they want to use a new book. Either allow it, or don't!

C). This should probably be a subset of point B ... but that paragraph was getting long enough. I find it even more rediculous that you buy an option from a book rather than the whole book. The fact that you pay per feat, per PrC, per class option, per spell, per whatever just seems silly, personally. Again, if the book is balanced enough for you to allow it at all, then just use it! If the book isn't balanced enough to not want it in your game, then don't use it! But please, just make a hard and fast rule already!

Anyway, I've passed up games before and this is one I would pass up. If I did play, I'd feel like I'd always have to play CORE anyway because the whole buying thing doesn't make sense to me. So, I'd be frustrated.

But, if it works for your game, then cool! And like your game, my games always review character sheets with a fine tooth comb, too. I agree that it isn't all that hard, and we enjoy character building and discussing character options/motivations.

 

[Masquerade]

Most likely to play in 1, but there are minor things I dislike about each of them, all of which earlier posters have thoroughly pointed out already.

Death Penalty: TPK or bust. When you get to -10 you take a "time out" until the battle is over. You cannot be healed until all nearby enemies are dead. People are still very pissed when they die, especially at the beginning of battle.

I like this rule. I think I may play with the idea of using it in my own game.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Your character creation rules for all campaigns seem pretty ridiculous to me.

Ditto. Of the four, only the third has characters die normally, so I'd choose that one. It's ultra-harsh, though, making new characters come in at 1st if the group is of any significant level.

 

[maggot]

1. They're ridiculously complicated. They require either: 1) that the DM trusts his players when they say they've used Character Creation Method X, or 2) that the DM personally vets each new character to ensure compliance. If the DM actually trusts his players, then why doesn't he trust them enough to create balanced characters using all available splat-books?

I think there is a huge difference between (1) trusting that your players follow a set of rules for character generation, and (2) trusting that your players have th same concept of "balanced" as you do.

The first is a matter of cheating. If I run a "core only" campaign, I don't need to check that the character sheets are "core only" any more than I would have to check to make sure you aren't lying about your available cash or that crit you confirmed. If you are the type to cheat like that, I'm not playing with you.

The second is an entirely different deal. I've met people who consider more than one pretige class as "cheesy" and other people who can't build a character without three or four prestige classes.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think I'd enjoy playing an any of those games. I've been playing for 17 years and only witnessed PC death (except in 1 off games) about a dozen times in all those years. It seems that players die to often in your games for them to even be anywhere near heroic.

Gack? Really? Good grief, I've whacked 21 PC's in the last 17 MONTHS. Hrm, not even that long since last session was number 68 in a weekly game. Pretty close I think. I can't imagine a more boring game than playing on God mode where you can be as stupid as you want and never die and knowing that even when the baddy rolls that critical with a power attacking great axe, the DM is going to "accidentally" bump the table to change the roll.

Different strokes I guess.

Takasi, most of those look fine. I do kinda like the "time out" rule. Although, to be honest, my bunch is kind of enjoying the fact that they are getting to test drive so many different characters in my WLD game. How do you deal with someone wanting to switch out a PC for a new one?

 

[wildstarsreach]

Sorry - I should have been more specific.

1. They're ridiculously complicated. They require either: 1) that the DM trusts his players when they say they've used Character Creation Method X, or 2) that the DM personally vets each new character to ensure compliance. If the DM actually trusts his players, then why doesn't he trust them enough to create balanced characters using all available splat-books?

2. They do not favor all classes equally. As mentioned in another thread on a similar topic, it was pointed out that a "properly chosen" Core + 1 cleric is going to be lightyears ahead of, say, a "properly chosen" Core + 3 fighter. Combine that with the fighter having fewer "character build points" (sacrificed to open up those +3 books), and there's an even greater disparity in power.

3. They are not balanced across all "archetypes." Take, for instance, someone who wants to run a straight brute barbarian. He really doesn't need much more than what is present in the PHB and, maybe, one extra book for fun. Contrast this, however, with someone who wants to run a light fighter: good, solid, balanced feats for this style have appeared in three separate books. Either he closes himself off to one or more of these options and tries to make a sub-supported archetype work, or he suffers the reduction in build points.

4. They make no correction for scale. A cleric who chooses, for instance, the Spell Compendium as his +1 source (and gains access to potentially hundreds of spells) pays the same price as someone who wants exactly 1 feat from a non-PHB book and otherwise is a pure Core character.

Does that help to explain my position?

EDIT: And Campaign 4 wasn't posted yet when I started on my response to the first three; you can assume that my comments don't apply to that campaign.

1: Okay, on the surface that may be so but from practical execution, it isn't. The DM does trust us to do that. You know, even the best players still sometimes make mistakes and abuse the rules. We are all human after all though some might be half-orcs.

2: Again, on the surface there might be an imbalance. There isn't, we have 4 of 8 of the players who might do the wonkie or strange builds but as a group we don't go to the extremes that cause problems. Also the unlocks unlock specific feats, spells, classes, races, PrC's, ect. This is based similar to something the RPGA uses.

3: I'll admit that I would probably build a better character at a 25 pt buy with 3 unlocks than a 32 pt buy with core only but only marginally so. One of my favorite characters who died when the entire party was outclassed was a sub-optimal greek style fighter. He was a 28 pt buy and we hadn't gotten high enough to buy any unloks that would have worked within the flavor that I was going for. We play for entertainment. Sometimes being as effective as possible isn't entertaining.

4: Nope, one spell per unlock. The right spell can be invaluable to the character and or party benefit. You are not required to spend unlocks. You just have options.

I'm going to say that your misinterpretation of our campaigns as rediculas is not fair. You should take some time or give what you think would not be a rediculas campaign. I have been playing for almost 30 years and have found this to be a fair and balanced campaign since we aren't playing a one up campaign against the other players. It's a cooperative campaign.

 

[takasi]

I'm going to say that your misinterpretation of our campaigns as rediculas is not fair. You should take some time or give what you think would not be a rediculas campaign.

No need to get defensive. All feedback is appreciated.

 

[takasi]

A). + LA races are already fairly balanced by their LA. To add further penalties across the board is too broad for me. Either allow them or don't, but don't penalize the poor guy who wants to play a Aasimar or Tiefling or Drow. They get beat up enough because of their LA.

To clarify, they are paying for the level adjustment with the smaller stat buy. This is only for the 10 player game. There is no other penalty for playing the LA race. In other words, there is no level adjustment. No xp penalty. A drow will be at the same level as the rest of the party, they just need to start with slightly less point buy.

B). I find it rediculous to have to "buy" the use of books. Either allow them or don't. I'll gladly play in a game that allows me to use anything. I'll gladly play in a game that allows CORE + Complete. I'll gladly play in a CORE only game. It doesn't really matter to me. But just pick a system and use it. Don't make people pay just because they want to use a new book. Either allow it, or don't!

Instead of seeing it as a "penalty" for picking and choosing from splat books, I see it more as a small reward for players who keep it simple. There is usually more variety in ability points when using 4d6 drop the lowest or other random stat generation.

C). This should probably be a subset of point B ... but that paragraph was getting long enough. I find it even more rediculous that you buy an option from a book rather than the whole book. The fact that you pay per feat, per PrC, per class option, per spell, per whatever just seems silly, personally. Again, if the book is balanced enough for you to allow it at all, then just use it! If the book isn't balanced enough to not want it in your game, then don't use it! But please, just make a hard and fast rule already!

One of the primary issues we had with our previous campaign (32 point buy, all WotC books allowed with some minor restrictions as you suggest) is that books like the Spell Compendium completely change the dynamic of the game (especially for clerics). It's a lot of work for a DM to keep on top of new stat books. It's much easier to review one new thing than it is to review a thousand.

The system was inspired by the RPGA. I believe they unlock per item, not per book.

 

[Qualidar]

I think I would just avoid playing in these games. 3d6 down the line? "expansion slots"? starting all new characters at 1st level?!? Is this even fun? It seems way too litigious to me. We're playing GAMES, here, people. What are you adding here but red tape? It seems like the choice between evils, not the selection of the best game.

I realize that your aim seems to be making it simpler for the DM, but that's sacrificing a great deal of player enjoyment for a pretty lazy goal, IMHO.

~Qualidar~