3 Very Different Campaigns

[takasi]

3d6 down the line?

This isn't a lazy DM decision, it's for a challenge. In that campaign the players can earn near characters with 4d6 drop the lowest if they can survive a few levels with a 3d6 down the line.

"expansion slots"? starting all new characters at 1st level?!? Is this even fun? It seems way too litigious to me.

D&D is litigious by nature. For us fun can go hand in hand with rules.

Expansions are more fun than core for some. Many may not find them as "fun" as picking from a number of books, but I find it to be a fair compromise.

Starting at 1st level is not about laziness, it's about challenge. It also changes the dynamics of the game. In stories, not every adventuring companion is even with one another.

From a mechanics perspective it isn't that bad either. At low levels it's very easy to catch up. At higher levels you have access to raise dead, resurrection, etc; this significantly increases their value.

What are you adding here but red tape?

Variety. We have played other ways, and even now we have three very different campaigns running simultaneously.

I don't see why you consider option 3 as laziness. For the first 2 the goal isn't laziness; the goal is a compromise of options in the name of efficiency. If we were lazy we would just say "core only" (and probably only run one campaign, leaving some players unable to play).

 

[Nonlethal Force]

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.

Okay, so if I am reading this right then a +1 LA character only pays with the lower stat buy. So an Aasimar cleric 2 would be an ECL 2 and not and ECL 3 character. If that's what you mean ... then I suppose the system is better than I first read it. If that is correct, I'll take back my earlier critique. I'm still not sure it's balanced, but it's closer than how I first read it.

Regarding the books ... RPGA guidelines or not ... I still don't like them. I don't play in RPGA games because most of them are so picky that they seem to be assuming distrust. It is almost as if they assume that everyone is out to "win" (How do you do that, anyway) so they have to make people pay for trying new things in case they might be broken. Bah. I play with friends. We can discuss things and if they are broken we can deal with it. My players feel free to remind me of a special rule if I happen to forget it because I don't remember the content of all the books I allow. {CORE, Complete (sans CPsi), XPH, Draconomicon, BoED, MotP (with 3.5 updates when needed), and Dragon Magic. I think that's the list.} But then again I trust my player's sense of brokenness and their faithfulness to the group if they do stumble upon a broken combo.

I also realize not all games are that way. Personally, I hate micromanaging beyond reviewing character sheets. (And that I do because it is fun, not to check for mistakes!) But I am lucky to game with people who just want to have fun and not break the game.

 

[Nikosandros]

Hmmm... and for those who don't play with the RPGA, what is an expansion slot?

 

[wildstarsreach]

Hmmm... and for those who don't play with the RPGA, what is an expansion slot?

An expansion slot is where you can choose a feat, race, class, spell, PrC, ect beyond what is in the core books.

 

[wildstarsreach]

Okay, so if I am reading this right then a +1 LA character only pays with the lower stat buy. So an Aasimar cleric 2 would be an ECL 2 and not and ECL 3 character. If that's what you mean ... then I suppose the system is better than I first read it. If that is correct, I'll take back my earlier critique. I'm still not sure it's balanced, but it's closer than how I first read it.

Regarding the books ... RPGA guidelines or not ... I still don't like them. I don't play in RPGA games because most of them are so picky that they seem to be assuming distrust. It is almost as if they assume that everyone is out to "win" (How do you do that, anyway) so they have to make people pay for trying new things in case they might be broken. Bah. I play with friends. We can discuss things and if they are broken we can deal with it. My players feel free to remind me of a special rule if I happen to forget it because I don't remember the content of all the books I allow. {CORE, Complete (sans CPsi), XPH, Draconomicon, BoED, MotP (with 3.5 updates when needed), and Dragon Magic. I think that's the list.} But then again I trust my player's sense of brokenness and their faithfulness to the group if they do stumble upon a broken combo.

I also realize not all games are that way. Personally, I hate micromanaging beyond reviewing character sheets. (And that I do because it is fun, not to check for mistakes!) But I am lucky to game with people who just want to have fun and not break the game.

Since I was playing in the 70's, I have found that the DM's who did at least keep up with what their PC's had generally ran the better games. Is this micromanaging, no. It makes the players carefully choose what they want with their cahracter. Most who didn't ran things on the fly and made decisions that more often screwed over at some point all the players.

Those few that limit everything may as well play by themselves. They are just writing a book for all intents and purposes.

But thanks for being more open.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

First, in defense of the RPGA, all of the campaigns do not use "expansion slots." The most popular campaign, Living Greyhawk, simply has a list of non-core material allowed at creation (some new base classes, most new domains), allowed after level 3 (most of the complete stuff), and that you may gain access to in an adventure (most everything else WotC that isn't setting specific). IMO, that's a much better system than the expansion slot system.

Second, I think the implementation of the expansion slot idea is a little bit lacking. First, based on other messages, it doesn't seem clear how it is implemented. To me, it reads like an expansion slot would be a single non-core feat, class, spell, or prestige class. Other posters seem to be under the impression that an expansion slot is an entire book of options.

Assuming that I'm correct, the expansion slot system looks to be really hard on fighters who will at the very least have to carefully plan their non-core feats to all come at odd levels. This will probably prevent some combos from ever being usefully available. (Curiously, it also prevents a single-classed fighter from ever gaining the PHB II's weapon supremacy feat--since it requires fighter 18 and fighters get two feats at 18th level and one at 20th level but none at 19th level where they would get the expansion slot, the earliest a fighter could take Weapon Supremacy by those rules is 21st level).

The third campaign--3d6 down the line with even starting hit points rolled randomly, all replacement characters start at first level, seems to collect all of the worst ideas of 1e and put them in one convenient package. Definitely not interested--and even if I were, my character dying would prevent me from playing in any event. Play a first level character tagging along with an 8th level party? (And then, of course, have to create a new first level character after every other battle when he got caught in a stray AoE spell). No way. I'd rather play another player's cohort.

 

[takasi]

Second, I think the implementation of the expansion slot idea is a little bit lacking. First, based on other messages, it doesn't seem clear how it is implemented. To me, it reads like an expansion slot would be a single non-core feat, class, spell, or prestige class. Other posters seem to be under the impression that an expansion slot is an entire book of options.

It is the former. You are correct.

Assuming that I'm correct, the expansion slot system looks to be really hard on fighters who will at the very least have to carefully plan their non-core feats to all come at odd levels. This will probably prevent some combos from ever being usefully available. (Curiously, it also prevents a single-classed fighter from ever gaining the PHB II's weapon supremacy feat--since it requires fighter 18 and fighters get two feats at 18th level and one at 20th level but none at 19th level where they would get the expansion slot, the earliest a fighter could take Weapon Supremacy by those rules is 21st level).

To clarify, you can purchase expansion before you qualify for them. For example, a fighter can unlock weapon supremacy at first level.

Again, the system is not in place to balance all classes, it's there to give the DM a heads up on what he needs to research and be able to adjudicate in game. It curbs the tendancy of power gamers (with the size of our group we have many) to turn their sheets into a laundry list of spells, feats and wonky class/race combos.

The third campaign--3d6 down the line with even starting hit points rolled randomly, all replacement characters start at first level, seems to collect all of the worst ideas of 1e and put them in one convenient package. Definitely not interested--and even if I were, my character dying would prevent me from playing in any event. Play a first level character tagging along with an 8th level party? (And then, of course, have to create a new first level character after every other battle when he got caught in a stray AoE spell). No way. I'd rather play another player's cohort.

By 8th level characters can raise the cash to have an NPC raise an 8th level player.

I should also add that this campaign is less combat oriented (more roleplay and courtly intrigue) and the xp progression is lower than raw while the scale for gaining xp at lower levels, however, is significantly higher than raw.

 

[Seeten]

I would not be interested in playing in any of these games, not a fan of the character generation systems. That said, I dont think they'd be any less fun, just less fun for me. Other people have fun differently, and such.

 

[Aaron L]

Wow, are you playing D&D to have fun, or as an exercise in accounting?

I'd get so confused and frustrated trying to make a character based on those Byzantine requirements it would sap any kind of enjoyment I might otherwise derive from the game. I want to make characters based on the vision I have of the character, not on some aritrary metagame rules on what supplements I am allowed to use from trading in options for stat generation methods.


Also, Just one of the reasons I'd never play an RPGA game.


Wow.


I would never in a million years touch this game with a ten meter cattle prod. But then again, as I remember it, you run games with character actions dictated by committee as some kind of hyper litigious communal wargame anyway, so I would stay away regardless.

 

[Qualidar]

OK, I was probably a bit harsher than I intended, above. My laziness comment was in reaction to my reading that the reason for gimping PC choices was due to a desire to keep the DM's workload down, and not to create additional challenges. If the point is adding challenge, then I guess the motives are pure. That said, every house rule you have on that list strikes me as a negative addition to the game, in that it seems to limit and curb the PCs at every turn. Perhaps your group of players needs that sort of framework, but I'm not used to that. My normal MO is saying yes to all those possibilities, as long as they run it by me first and I approve it (and if there's a problem later, I take that approval back).

This isn't a lazy DM decision, it's for a challenge. In that campaign the players can earn near characters with 4d6 drop the lowest if they can survive a few levels with a 3d6 down the line.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that they start with crappy characters, and then if they survive they get to increase that character's abilities? Or do they survive and then get the privilege of rolling up a better character?

D&D is litigious by nature. For us fun can go hand in hand with rules.

Well, sure it's litigious. That's my point: you're tacking on a whole lot more rules, and I wouldn't enjoy having to play under the rules you're adding in. That's obviously my own opinion. I'm not expressing this as some sort of universal gaming truth.

Starting at 1st level is not about laziness, it's about challenge. It also changes the dynamics of the game.

I'm just picturing myself sitting there at the table as a 1st level character while 9 other PCs in their early teens fight something appropriate for their level. It doesn't strike me as fun. Do you introduce new players to the game with this method?

In stories, not every adventuring companion is even with one another.

That's true, but the point of a game isn't to conform to established literary story-telling techniques, it's to have fun. I do agree that not everyone is the same level in stories. In the past editions I've done the start at 1st level thing, and later I changed it to half the standard party level. In 3.5 I start replacement characters at average party level -1. I do see where your coming from, but I just think you're taking it too far.

(Everything he said)

That's my take on it, too. I have a very uninformed negative stance on the RPGA style of play, and this whole discussion is tilting it further into the negative. It seems like a wholly different play experience than what I call D&D.

Again, the system is not in place to balance all classes, it's there to give the DM a heads up on what he needs to research and be able to adjudicate in game. It curbs the tendancy of power gamers (with the size of our group we have many) to turn their sheets into a laundry list of spells, feats and wonky class/race combos.

Well, that's unfortunate. Are you in some position that you can't whittle it down to just the players who have a playstyle you enjoy? It seems a lot of these rules are an attempt to handle an unreasonable workload put on the DM by having too many players.

I should also add that this campaign is less combat oriented (more roleplay and courtly intrigue) and the xp progression is lower than raw while the scale for gaining xp at lower levels, however, is significantly higher than raw.

That would certainly mitigate my complaints on leveling a bit.

My 2 cents, YMMV,
~Qualidar~