Bribing Players during PCGen

[Wik]

(Another "house rule" question that came up during a pregame conversation...)

Okay. Let's assume that two character classes are perfectly balanced against one another, or pretty closely balanced. Let's assume that each class is equally viable to the game, and that the game will run just fine if both classes are present, neither is present, or only one is present (ie, the group is not goign to be hurt if they "don't have a cleric"). Let's also assume that players can choose from either class during PC generation.

Is it right, or let's say "Moral" to say "if you play class A, I will give you an extra benefit over class b?"

***

To be more specific. Let's say I'm making a lower-magic D&D game using 4e rules, and I want to encourage martial characters and barbarians as the main PC roles. Is it generally right to say "if you play one of these characters, you will get a free feat"? And then also apply a penalty to Arcane characters (in the sense of "arcane characters are mistrusted by the populace" sense, with some possible limitations on their powers as well)?

I mean, I realize it will help establish the world tone I want, but it is it right to essentially make one character choice obviously better than the others, which will perpetually punish players that don't "toe the line" with my preferred choices? In other words, if you want to play a non-martial character in my campaign, you will always be a feat behind those that chose a martial character.

Is this a good idea? What are some other ways you can weigh the party towards certain choices without nerfing those that go against the grain?

 

[Lanefan]

(Another "house rule" question that came up during a pregame conversation...)

Let's say I'm making a lower-magic D&D game using 4e rules, and I want to encourage martial characters and barbarians as the main PC roles. Is it generally right to say "if you play one of these characters, you will get a free feat"? And then also apply a penalty to Arcane characters (in the sense of "arcane characters are mistrusted by the populace" sense, with some possible limitations on their powers as well)?

I mean, I realize it will help establish the world tone I want, but it is it right to essentially make one character choice obviously better than the others, which will perpetually punish players that don't "toe the line" with my preferred choices? In other words, if you want to play a non-martial character in my campaign, you will always be a feat behind those that chose a martial character.

Is this a good idea? What are some other ways you can weigh the party towards certain choices without nerfing those that go against the grain?

Cultural and in-game RP disadvantages can go a long way. If you have training rules, just make it nigh-impossible for non-martial types to find training (and let the players know this going in, to be fair). Martial types are more trusted and thus in line to see more duty, and thus more reward, from the local realm. Caster types always get blamed if there's any trouble in town, even if they had nothing to do with it. And so on.

And, you also need to be ready for your preferences to go out the window. I was hoping my current campaign would be mostly-Human...hasn't happened. About the only influence I really have there is to make sure the vast majority of the party NPCs, henches, etc. are Human. But changing the rules, particularly in a 3e-4e situation where such things are more important, is probably overkill; at least from where I sit.

Lan-"or just make every magic weapon a wizardslayer"-efan

 

[Elric]

Is this a good idea? What are some other ways you can weigh the party towards certain choices without nerfing those that go against the grain?

Direct mechanical benefits probably aren't a good idea. If you don't mind having some of the other classes, saying "I'd like people to play [these classes] and stay away from [these other ones] unless you feel really strongly about it" might do the trick on its own (e.g., get you 4 out of 5 Martial/Barbarian PCs).

If you don't want anyone to play those classes, just ban them explicitly. There may be a coordination problem here, as you may be fine with one PC that doesn't fit the mold, but 2 or 3 people want to play PCs of those classes.

If so, you could hold an auction for the right to play the mold-breaking PC, the proceeds to go to the "provide food for gaming night" fund. One mechanism is the Vickrey auction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (everyone writes down the amount they'd pay to be the one to play the arcane character, then you reveal all of the pieces of paper and the person who wrote the highest number gets to play the arcane character, and pays $ equal to the bid of the second-highest person). Problem solved!

Edit- I realize that the above auction format doesn't have its usual nice property (that your strategy should be to bid your valuation), because players have an incentive to make each other pay more.

So a better thing to do would probably be a "sealed price, first-bid auction": everyone writes down a $ amount, then reveal them, and the winner pays his own bid.

 

[On Puget Sound]

" In this campaign you may only choose from the following classes:"

Better to disallow classes that don't fit your campaign, than to allow them but gimp them. Any choice you allow should be a choice you are comfortable with players choosing; otherwise it isn't really a choice because you will consciously or unconsciously punish the chooser for doing something you didn't want done.

Why? "You are all members of the Royal Guard, and the king distrusts mages." Or whatever.

 

[Wik]

However, is it really "gimping" a character by saying "Martial characters get this benefit - if you don't want to be a martial character, you don't get the benefit"? You are still, for example, playing a "by the book" wizard - you're just not getting that bonus feat that, by the book, you shouldn't have anyway.

I have player buy-in regarding races (I think most of my players would be behind me if I ran an all-human game, even). But I think to completely bar a character class (or group of classes, in this case) might be a bit overkill - and actually would go against what I want to establish. Instead, I sort of thought that by making those classes slightly weaker, and saying this from the outset, is a good way to do things without going too crazy.

After all, in a world with few mages, PC mages become more powerful (since there is likely to be fewer protections against magic in place) - so not getting that free feat isn't that big of a price.

As for RP disadvantages, am I in the minority in thinking that RP disadvantages actually make a character more enjoyable to play, and, therefore, more likely to appear in play? What I mean is, if you say "mages are hated in this game", don't you often see multiple mages pop up anyway?

 

[Elric]

After all, in a world with few mages, PC mages become more powerful (since there is likely to be fewer protections against magic in place) - so not getting that free feat isn't that big of a price.

There's little "protection against magic" in 4e in the first place. This is a big change from 3e in this regard.

As for RP disadvantages, am I in the minority in thinking that RP disadvantages actually make a character more enjoyable to play, and, therefore, more likely to appear in play? What I mean is, if you say "mages are hated in this game", don't you often see multiple mages pop up anyway?

If you choose an RP disadvantage ("I'm a general who has been exiled from his homeland. He returns to overthrow the king he once served, and is a hated and wanted man"), it should work better than if it's forced upon you because you want to play an arcane class.

 

[S'mon]

How about giving preferred classes an extra magic item of their level? Eg you want Martial PCs, so you give new 1st level Martial PCs a 1st level item of their choice. That won't have the long term balance issues of a free feat.

Edit: I like this idea so much I've just implemented it IMC.

 

[delericho]

To be more specific. Let's say I'm making a lower-magic D&D game using 4e rules, and I want to encourage martial characters and barbarians as the main PC roles.

To be honest, in this situation, I would just say "in this campaign only the following races and classes can be used..."

The key here is trust. My players know that when I impose a restriction of this sort, it is generally for good reason, and that I don't just pull these things to be awkward. They also know that they will get the chance to play that Half-dragon Warforged Ninja/Soulknife at some point, just not in the current campaign.

(Of course, trust goes both ways - I also trust my players not to go out of their way to 'break' the game, and don't impose restrictions without good reason.)

I don't really see any benefit in bribing players to play certain types, though. Either they would enjoy playing the character type anyway (in which case a bribe should be unnecessary), or they wouldn't anyway (in which case no bribe I am likely to offer is going to change their mind - if you hate playing Paladins, would one more feat really persuade you to do so?).

 

[Wik]

Del, the thing is, for the idea I had in mind, I was thinking I'd *want* to see Arcane, Primal, and Divine classes. I just wanted to see more Martial characters - and wondered if it's right to skew the results that way?

For what it's worth, I can't see it really being too much of a problem by saying "hey, guys, I'd prefer it if most of you stick with martial characters". Hell, most of my group now consists of martial or mostly-martial characters (only the paladin and bard are non-martial, and both of those are pretty low-key, magically speaking).

And S'mon, I actually really like that idea, and something sort of similar to that could work (except, one of the house rules I have a lot of player support behind is a "no magic items" rule!).

I remember, way back when in my 2e days, I wanted to run a game based on the romans. PCs were expected to use a roman sword and shield, and I heavily weighted the game in that direction by way of hints and strongly worded "suggestions". I envisioned a group of human fighters, all with the same weapons (I liked the idea of homogenous PCs, with their only differences being in RP quirks as opposed to mechanics). What I got was a huge variety of fighter types - which weakened the concept in my mind (it wasn't just a DM fiat game, either - but I really wanted the Roman soldier feel, and a bunch of celtic, germanic, and gladiatorial PCs sort of destroyed that vibe).

My current idea isn't nearly as tight as that, but I thought giving the PCs a benefit for "colouring within the lines" might be a nice touch.

I'm guessing the consensus, though, is that rewarding players for sticking within the campaign concept with "crunchy goodness" is a bad idea. What sort of way SHOULD you reward those players who stick within the campaign concept (while at the same time allowing those players who want to play a bit on the fringe of things to do so)?

 

[steenan]

In my oppinion, as long as you state what the bonuses and penalties are before players start creating characters, it is as fair as it can be. Character creation in any system that is rule-heavy is an exercise in compromise between the concept and the numbers. By using the house rules OP describes he just moves the balance point a little in a direction that fits his campaign concept, and the players still make their decisions freely. Nothing can be wrong with it.