I played a great DnD game ... with only the 3 core books!

[Von Ether]

I'm in shock!

I walked into a one-shot game with some friends and found out the only game they could agree on playing was DnD (no shock, there.)

The guy who wanted to DM, though, must have been planning this all week becasue he set down some fairly strict guidelines for character creation. First was that we could be humans and half-elven teenagers only, the demi-races were insular and only dealt with the villages when trading. The second was that we could use the 3 core rule books only. We also had to spend at least one skill point in a Craft/Knowledge/or Profession skill to demonstrate the livelihood our parents were teaching us. (though I spent two points, one on Seamanship and another on gambling), and we had a limited supply of arms and armor handed to us, instead of being bought.

And while we did have a minor out of game argument between some players (personality issues), the players exhibited some surprising tendcies by sticking to the guidelines (no whinning about what they were missing from "X" book, WotC or otherwise) and the guys playing fighter types acutally discussed who was taking what feats so there would be some inherent teamwork invovled. As per ususal with this group, no one took cleric.

With that in mind, character creation for the whole group took an hour (including a snacks run) and I introduced more people (who've played DnD 3.x for years) to the "starting packages" in the class entries. (In hindsight, I have to admit things still could have gotten a little complicated since no one thought about using the PrCs in the DMG. And I did learn later our wizard PC was a 0/0 something.)

From there, our group decided to find out who was stealing from the town's mayor, even though he told us to go home. Even his law-abiding son couldn't resist the lure of adventure (paladin). The sons of the herbalist and alchemist (sorcerer and wizard) micheviously tried to spook us more by hiding their Presitdigation spells from us when they made reptilian tracks glow in the dark.

The odd boy from the hut far from the village (the ranger) also got to say "I told you so" when the rest of us ran for our stolen weapons laid out in a hut. The "hut" was set on fire by some local kobolds (the thieves). We chased them only long enough to get a few corpses for proof of our grand adventure and enough damage from a few well-hidden pit traps.

All in all, a quick fun game that people are already asking for the GM to continue as a campaign. Compared to the last DnD game I was in where we were allowed all the races and any book with the "Dungeons and Dragons" logo, it got to the point where I quit because the game felt more like a grind with endless rules debates and a GM who felt like he had to throw armies at us as a balanced "encounter." I guess my take aways from this are:

* It's hard to beat a focused concept and players willing to work with the concept
* Less can be more
* Players don't have to be indulged with dozens of options to be entertained

 

[delericho]

* It's hard to beat a focused concept and players willing to work with the concept
* Less can be more
* Players don't have to be indulged with dozens of options to be entertained

Three of those truths that are obvious to everyone when they're stated, but very easy to forget in practice.

I basically run all my campaigns using core rules only, because I am the guy in the group who builds the collection of sourcebooks, I don't host the game, and my back would never forgive me for carrying all the books that could reasonably be 'needed' for a game. And, simply, the game works very well without supplements.

That said, I don't think using a small, carefully selected array of supplements harms the game, either, and can add to it greatly. It's all down to the group involved, and how they tackle such things.

Either way, core rules only, or stacked high with supplements, good games should be celebrated.

 

[Crothian]

THe number of books rarely matters, but the more books being used does take a better DM and better players. Some people just cannot handle the choices and need to be limited. And that's great that the game supports that and allows for so many types of games.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Personally, I ran and participated in several campaigns that worked just fine with only the Core Books and one setting books. No other stuff was needed.

My current group, on the other hand, seems to be overly enarmoured of all sorts of Complete Whatsits supplements. While I usually let them play their alternate core classes, prestige classes, and whatever else they dig up, I refuse to read these books - too much effort for too little gain.

Really, for those occassions when I want just about any character concept be possible, I will just be using GURPS - that has all the flexibility I will ever need, and only in two books, too.

The whole point of D&D is that characters are limited to a small number of small archetypes - so why do away with that?

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Crothain is right. It is not the amount of books you use that matter. What matter is the imagination of the GM and the ingenuity and sometimes humor that the players put into the game.

 

[Akrasia]

Some of the best D&D games I have ever played have been with just one book -- The Rules Cylcopedia!

 

[Jupp]

And I always thought that a good game session is not rated by the amount of books used but by the story and the ability of the DM...seems I am not alone with that discovery I think the more books are used the harder it will be to concentrate on the story instead of the hundreds of options/feats/abilities/blablabla each character has.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yep -- agree with this thought. My own camapign uses the core rules (and FRCS, but that's mostly for setting background). While I do allow additions from other sources, they are one spell, feat, or PrC at a time, individually approved -- which encourages players to only pursue those things which really fit their character.

There's so much mileage in the core material you really don't need much more.

 

[LostSoul]

I played a great game back in 2000 with only the Player's Handbook. The others hadn't come out yet.

 

[Blackivarr]

I have had plenty of great games using all of 3.+ and various suppliments. Often I have to overule a feat combo here and a spell there just for the sake of game balance. Thats OK, we dont argue (much) DM's rule is law..........but some of the best games I think were good ol' 1+2e. I used to show up to DM with just a notebook, cuz we just all knew the rules. No real maps, no minis, no gameboard. It was just about interpreting dice rolls, not outflanking your PC's on a chessboard.

I find that in my Scarred Lands game, most of the stuff that comes out has at least some merrit. You just have to be careful to keep it in check. It's here to stay...embrace it and roleplay through it's flaws.


-Blackivarr