Clarifying the Prestige Class Concept (something WotC should have done with the rev.)

[Wombat]

Well no one has printed a PrC off of JoeBob's Ultimate D&D Website and tried to use it yet, so I suppose I can safely say they have to be from a reputable publisher (or ok'd by me; and I won't turn down anything for any reason other than ludicrously unbalancing mechanics). Most publishers have a good QA process with playtesters at least as smart as I am. For the most part, I can't say something is unbalanced until I have seen it played out.

As for world-specific stuff, the Red Wizard can be fitted into any world by changing the flavor text and class name. Not a prob.


It may lead to messy characters, but I can let the players dig their own holes. Certainly there is the expectation that they come up with good RP reasons for the choices they make, so I suppose that's an artificial barrier I put in. Obviously I'm not going to let a d20 Modern or OA character into my medieval fantasy game. But if it's mideval fantasy, I can and will work it in.

I'm sure that makes it easier for you as a DM, both in designing the adventure, tying the players to the setting, and coming up with encounters. But again, the question is, "who is the game for?" The extra DM leg-work is worth it, IMO, to let the players have their way most (read: not all) of the time.

Well, for one thing, it may just be that no one wants to take levels in those 12 PrC's because they suck (as most do, IMO, from a mechanics perspective; especially WotC's, but that is purely my subjective opinion). And while you have proven that your players are willing to live with your rules, you haven't shown that the game is actually funner for them.

First up, thanks for the confidence in my abilities as a GM

All my players love the game they are in. I have had zero complaints, zero requests for more PrCs, and zero requests for extra Core Classes. So the game appears to be "funner" for my group at least.

More does not necessarily equal better -- I know this comes as a shock to many people, but sometimes there is such a thing as Too Many Choices. By allowing so many different classes, prestige classes, spells, and all the rest without vetting leads to a lot of confusion. I have seen many campaigns like this in the years I have gamed -- such campaigns are a hopeless mess of unrelated characters and activities rather than acheiving any cohesive world view.

I'm not here to stop your campaign. If you are happy with it, I should just leave it at that. By extension, I think my campaign is fantastic for me & mine and that by adding more material to it the world would be lessened, not enhanced.

 

[Halivar]

First up, thanks for the confidence in my abilities as a GM

Ack! No personal dig intended. I promise. I apologize if it sounded that way.

The choice, I suppose, depends on the style of gameplay. As for me and mine, I certainly don't think any old thing should find it's way into a game. The only point I was trying to make was that I thought the emphasis of the game ought to be on the players and not on my story. It is my hope that my story can adapt to fit player reactions and career choices.

In a way, it sort of reminds me of those old video games where it seems like you have this whole world to explore, but there are these artificial barriers keeping you from just going out there and exploring it. You know, you try to walk over the mountain, but you just sort of hit this invisible wall? Eventually, I get older and understand that video game programmers can't just code an infinitely large world. But a DM can, in a way, and so I generally default to permitting it.

Of course, everybody's got that one player that, every time he asks a question, "can I do this?" you want to answer "NO" just because you know he's going to try to cheese with it. Permissiveness has limits too, to be sure, but I try to take that on a person-by-person basis. By and large the folks I game with think about mechanics and appropriateness as much (if not more) than I do.