D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[Lanefan]

Agreed. Quite a few posters seem to be coming from a background where they design a campaign setting for weeks/months, and then look for players to fill the table.

Well, yes; to me that's always been the default way to do it.

Recruiting players first and then spending weeks/months designing the campaign risks those players losing interest, or finding something else to do instead, in the meantime.

The "weeks/months designing the campaign piece" is, to me, essential; while I can quite well start out with a town, a dungeon, and nothing more, I've learned the hard way that long-term internal consistency is way easier to maintain if the setting's framework and history is in place before the puck is dropped.

 

[Lanefan]

Such as?

I mean, is it affecting my character? I don't know how the DM adding new classes, species or monsters or whatever directly affects me. If he's adding a new rule (such as critical fumbles) that might warrant a discussion, but that's more a rule change than an addition. You're going to have to really stretch to find something added to the game that ruins what I already have.

Example: I add a PC-playable Necromancer class. You-as-player have always thought the very idea of playable Necromancers to be dumb as hell; and while you yourself might never choose to play one there's a very real chance someone else might. Now what.

 

[Remathilis]

Example: I add a PC-playable Necromancer class. You-as-player have always thought the very idea of playable Necromancers to be dumb as hell; and while you yourself might never choose to play one there's a very real chance someone else might. Now what.

Well...

As long as the player isn't doing it for griefing purposes, (ie to specifically screw with the PC paladin) the why should I care? I'm not playing it and I'm the player has as much right to play what they want as I do.

The only time I can see an issue is when a player chooses an option specifically to be a problem. The kender who steals from the party or the necromancer who marches his undead into town. That's less a problem with the option and more of the player using the option as an excuse to be a jerk. As long as your are abiding to the Wheaton Rule, you can be a drow elf necromancer/warlock for all I care.

(And to that point, problems know no class or species. Some of the worst problem PCs I ever saw were clerics, mages and thieves).

 

[Yaarel]

Well, yes; to me that's always been the default way to do it.

Recruiting players first and then spending weeks/months designing the campaign risks those players losing interest, or finding something else to do instead, in the meantime.

The "weeks/months designing the campaign piece" is, to me, essential; while I can quite well start out with a town, a dungeon, and nothing more, I've learned the hard way that long-term internal consistency is way easier to maintain if the setting's framework and history is in place before the puck is dropped.

Fair enough. When someone purchases an official setting, someone else did the "weeks/months designing" for it.

My experience with old school was, rotating DMs with players pick the next "module". As the local lores from modules accumulated the setting kinda happened by itself as a byproduct. But then future characters would continue to participate in this now established and expanding setting.

 

[TwoSix]

The "weeks/months designing the campaign piece" is, to me, essential; while I can quite well start out with a town, a dungeon, and nothing more, I've learned the hard way that long-term internal consistency is way easier to maintain if the setting's framework and history is in place before the puck is dropped.

But you can surely understand that long-term consistency isn't vital when you're only planning on running for maybe 20-25 sessions before the game ends and the next GM takes over?