A perfect world?

[roytheodd]

I'm in the process of getting together all the elements for my next game and it got me thinking of a lot of my past games. This, in turn, got me wondering just how many DMs have ever been so satisfied with what they've got that they've quit monkeying with things. I find that with every single campaign I run I always tinker under the hood by changing the setting, the class/race combos, the PC races, the Prestige Classes (in 3rd Ed.), etc. and that I've never really felt done. There is always something new to try, especially with the OGL in existence. Are there any DMs out there who've ever reached a point where they quit tinkering?

 

[boothbey]

I think the world would end if I stopped tinkering. The campaign world, classes, stories, npcs. Of course, if I stopped tinkering, I might have to face the real world...and we wouldn't want that at all.

 

[Umbran]

In terms of available classes, races, and rules I generally don't tinker much. If I add options open to the players after the start, the players tend to get a little annoyed.

I don't consider plots and NPCs part of the game world per se. They are more of a part of the campaign storyline than the world, and if the campaign storyline ever becomes static, of course that campaign ends. So these things always recieve tinkering.

 

[seasong]

Depends on what you mean by 'tinker'.

Once I make a definite decision about something in one of my settings, it becomes canon... but there's never a point at which I refuse to add a new town in some obscure little part of the world that the PCs are visiting, just because I hadn't thought of it before.