Limiting the scope of your campaign

[Rothnoran]

I started playing D&D in 1979 when the system (and I would guess RPG's in general) were far more limited in scope then they are today. Now, with the bombardment of Books, PDF's and all manner of supplement there are literally thousands (well hundreds for sure) of "classes" and "prestige classes", feats, spells, items of equipment etc. The vast majority of which is stiff that someone came up with thinking it was a cool idea but is really kind of stupid. For example, in AEG's "Wilds" book they have the "Master of the Desert Nomads" prestige class. This concept essentially says if your character meets the requirements they become a MASTER of the desert nomads? What a silly idea. I could see a character, after years of play and interaction withe the desert nomads perhaps becoming a chieftain among them or some such. Do you see my point though?


I have seen many posts by people complaining about what the rules can and can not do or about individuals who want to use some rules and not others or by GM's who are frazzled by all the material out there and trying to integrate it into their game. My though is this: A given campaign is not going to nor should it ever be able to, encompass the whole sweep of what is available in the RPG universe. Instead, I believe that taking a minimalist approach provides a better game experience. Start with one culture. That society is going to have very limited numbers of classes and prestige classes and only those that fit within the cultural norm. To this end, if your campaign has humans, elves, dwarves etc etc. there should be some classes/prestige classes that are only available to humans, and some only open to dwarves and so on. Also, the number of spells should be limited. Also, prestige classes should be logical out-growths of the core classes for that culture.


When it comes to magic, it is unlikely that ANY culture will have developed every spell that is available out there. The spells that are available should be ones that fit the mind set of the cultures practitioners. In a culture that is good, and life affirming, Necormantic spells should not even appear on the common list of spells.


In my campaign I have limited play to one medium sized state that believes in only 2 gods (a good god and an evil god). The church is strong and what magic is available is controlled by the church. Classes are specific to the culture. There are three spell casting classes: Adepts (arcane scholars of the church who have 1st to 6th level spells), Ob-Rue (Cleric/Monks with 1st - 9th level spells) and Sin-Rue (Paladins with 1st to 4th level spells). There is not a whole lot of overlap between the spell lists and the number of spells are campaign specific (there is only a total of 70 or so spells making up the complete Adept spell list). I have also limited the number of feats available to the players and only allowed those specific to the campaign.


I took the time and effort to make a campaign book with all the info the players need and after a few months of play, all the players finally started leaving all their other books at home. I no longer get requests about "can I get this feat" or "can I go into such and such a prestige class" indeed, there is very little Multi-classing in the game because the idea of freely switching between professions is not very realistic to begin with (when you consider that the average arcane spell caster spends most of his childhood studying to become a spell user, how likely is it that a warrior is going to just "pick up" a level or two in wizard?).


I guess I am just interested in hearing other people opinion on the glut of possibilities (both useful and extremely stupid) out there and how you deal with them?


Thanks for your time.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

I started playing D&D in 1979 when the system (and I would guess RPG's in general) were far more limited in scope then they are today. Now, with the bombardment of Books, PDF's and all manner of supplement there are literally thousands (well hundreds for sure) of "classes" and "prestige classes", feats, spells, items of equipment etc. The vast majority of which is stiff that someone came up with thinking it was a cool idea but is really kind of stupid. For example, in AEG's "Wilds" book they have the "Master of the Desert Nomads" prestige class. This concept essentially says if your character meets the requirements they become a MASTER of the desert nomads? What a silly idea. I could see a character, after years of play and interaction withe the desert nomads perhaps becoming a chieftain among them or some such. Do you see my point though?

In a word, yes!

I think that the rules should be used in conjunction with the storytelling. If you have rules on your own, then it can be pretty daft - like (as you mention later on) a fighter killing a bear in a cave and suddenly learning how to cast spells. (I've got nothing against multi-classing, but I think that if a fighter wants to multi-class into being a wizard, the GM should give them a scenario where they track down a wizard and become his apprentice, after which they'll gain the spells).

I have seen many posts by people complaining about what the rules can and can not do or about individuals who want to use some rules and not others or by GM's who are frazzled by all the material out there and trying to integrate it into their game. My though is this: A given campaign is not going to nor should it ever be able to, encompass the whole sweep of what is available in the RPG universe. Instead, I believe that taking a minimalist approach provides a better game experience. Start with one culture. That society is going to have very limited numbers of classes and prestige classes and only those that fit within the cultural norm. To this end, if your campaign has humans, elves, dwarves etc etc. there should be some classes/prestige classes that are only available to humans, and some only open to dwarves and so on. Also, the number of spells should be limited. Also, prestige classes should be logical out-growths of the core classes for that culture.

I think that's a good idea.

My personal feeling is that the rules are like a toolbox that offer every conceivable element a GM might want in a gameworld - but that when a GM is creating a game setting they should select only those rules that they need for their particular setting.

When it comes to magic, it is unlikely that ANY culture will have developed every spell that is available out there. The spells that are available should be ones that fit the mind set of the cultures practitioners. In a culture that is good, and life affirming, Necormantic spells should not even appear on the common list of spells.

Yeah that sounds good. Necromantic spells might be either forbidden knowledge that the top wizards of a magic order know, but that they keep secret from the lower ranks, or else secret knowledge known only to particular death cults (who were prepared to do the immoral research needed to discover them).

In my campaign I have limited play to one medium sized state that believes in only 2 gods (a good god and an evil god). The church is strong and what magic is available is controlled by the church. Classes are specific to the culture. There are three spell casting classes: Adepts (arcane scholars of the church who have 1st to 6th level spells), Ob-Rue (Cleric/Monks with 1st - 9th level spells) and Sin-Rue (Paladins with 1st to 4th level spells). There is not a whole lot of overlap between the spell lists and the number of spells are campaign specific (there is only a total of 70 or so spells making up the complete Adept spell list). I have also limited the number of feats available to the players and only allowed those specific to the campaign.

That sounds pretty good. I've never like the world and his dog approach to religion since it can often end up with religion having no real impact on the game world or on the lives of its inhabitants (because there are loads of gods and everyone follows a different one). If you have only a few gods, especially with one of them being "official", then there are many more storytelling opportunities (wars, conversions, oppression and so on).

I took the time and effort to make a campaign book with all the info the players need and after a few months of play, all the players finally started leaving all their other books at home. I no longer get requests about "can I get this feat" or "can I go into such and such a prestige class" indeed, there is very little Multi-classing in the game because the idea of freely switching between professions is not very realistic to begin with (when you consider that the average arcane spell caster spends most of his childhood studying to become a spell user, how likely is it that a warrior is going to just "pick up" a level or two in wizard?).

With you there (as mentioned above).

I guess I am just interested in hearing other people opinion on the glut of possibilities (both useful and extremely stupid) out there and how you deal with them?

Well I don't do a D&D campaign, but with my own campaign - a superhero game set in my own game world - I've laid down quite a lot of restrictions about what does and does not fit into my game world.

Good post!

 

[Thanee]

I do that in a way, not too strict or with the same amount of detail you obviously do, but still.

A PrC, which basically means you are some high ranking member of a certain group, certainly requires to be that before being taken. Many of them actually do have it as a roleplaying requirement, too, like those where you need to have contact with the organisation, before you can become a member and obtain the PrC.

Also spells you can learn depend on who you learn them from and what spells would be reasonable for that person to have.

For example, a wizard in my PbP wanted to learn spells from an alchemist.

The list of available spells was: Alarm, Endure Elements, Grease, Unseen Servant, Floating Disk, Animate Rope, Enlarge Person, Expeditious Retreat, Jump, Magic Weapon.

Not all, but most are useful spells for an alchemist for various reasons, that's why he learned these.

Bye
Thanee

 

[DragonLancer]

The minimal approach is a good way to go. I wouldn't go as minimal as you've put your campaign, but I do like to keep new material to a minimum. For me, thats restricting new feats, spells, and especially PrC's.
I just don't like buying a new book and then not using most of it. I feel that it was a waste of money if I don't.

 

[Rothnoran]

The minimal approach is a good way to go. I wouldn't go as minimal as you've put your campaign, but I do like to keep new material to a minimum. For me, thats restricting new feats, spells, and especially PrC's.
I just don't like buying a new book and then not using most of it. I feel that it was a waste of money if I don't.

That is the thing of it as well...buying the new book. Of course the game companies are out there to make money and some books are very useful (like Green Ronin's "Mythic Vistas") but a lot of the books are just people banging out new PrC's, Feats and Spells...a lot of which make no sense. It would be like sitting down and saying wow, I think I will make a PrC based upon a person who can pitch penney's really good. I'll call it the Penny Pitcher...then I come up with a bunch of class skills based around the theme (3rd level can pitch nickels, dimes at 5th and quarters at 7th etc.) Most of these PrC have so much overlap that you could take 5 or 6 out of any 10 and just strip them into new feats to make available for whatever the base class the PrC would follow.

You know, giving this some thought, it would almost be better to have something like the old Warhammer FRP system with career exits that just build a more focused "class" on top of your basic class. I think the New Gamma World and D20 Modern work this way.

 

[Morpheus]

The minimal approach is a good way to go. I wouldn't go as minimal as you've put your campaign, but I do like to keep new material to a minimum. For me, thats restricting new feats, spells, and especially PrC's.
I just don't like buying a new book and then not using most of it. I feel that it was a waste of money if I don't.

I am currently doing an Eberron campaign set in Sharn. Although not as limiting as yours, it does allow me to have a handle on the type of adventures and encounters without having to resort to too much handwaving. The players get plenty of choices as far as their characters are concerned, however.

 

[Rothnoran]

I do that in a way, not too strict or with the same amount of detail you obviously do, but still.

A PrC, which basically means you are some high ranking member of a certain group, certainly requires to be that before being taken. Many of them actually do have it as a roleplaying requirement, too, like those where you need to have contact with the organisation, before you can become a member and obtain the PrC.

Absolutely. And PrC's should be logical outgrowths of the available standard classes.

Also spells you can learn depend on who you learn them from and what spells would be reasonable for that person to have.

For example, a wizard in my PbP wanted to learn spells from an alchemist.

The list of available spells was: Alarm, Endure Elements, Grease, Unseen Servant, Floating Disk, Animate Rope, Enlarge Person, Expeditious Retreat, Jump, Magic Weapon.

Not all, but most are useful spells for an alchemist for various reasons, that's why he learned these.

...right, the spells make sense from the perspective of the character, not just for the game mechanic and the obvious benefits of in game use.

Thanks for your reply Thanee

 

[Rothnoran]

I am currently doing an Eberron campaign set in Sharn. Although not as limiting as yours, it does allow me to have a handle on the type of adventures and encounters without having to resort to too much handwaving. The players get plenty of choices as far as their characters are concerned, however.

I looked at Eberron and it was a bit to "high fantasy" for my taste. It looks like the system has had a lot of work put into it but it also struck me as to open-ended. I prefer a more "low-fantasy" game. The other night during my game session I was describing a typical serf house and barn. One of my players suddenly says "so these guys are like living in the dark ages?" and another player piped in with "they are almost like a few hundred years behind the people in the towns". To me this was great because the Urban folk are similar to the Roman republic and the rural folk are more like iron age Celts. I would rather have my players make these types of connections and have these types of discussions the to spout off the states of various creatures they encounter (I don't use any of the standard creatures) or the relative merits of one PrC over another.

But it looks like you do tend to agree with the idea of limiting the scope of your campaign.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

The concept is a very good one from the DM's perspective because it doesn't require you to constantly check new books for material. Focus can be a very good thing. With the right style of campaign, it works very well. I'm not sure it saves time in some respects because it just shifts it from reviewing the latest WotC splatbook to writing up more background. But it sounds like it's more enjoyable for you, which is good.

Where it runs counter to player motivation is "gaming fashion." Getting a feat out of a book for a character is "gaming fashion." Players like to customize their character and be unique. (I've known some that wanted to be really unique.) I've been thinking for a while that paring down a game world and creating my own handbook like you've done would be excellent. What I think I would also do however is to encourage PCs to come to me when they want something special for their character and design it together.

The advantage of the approach you're describing is intrinsic story development vs. extrinsic. In other words you're focusing your players down and encouraging them to grow based on what you've provided instead of materials written by someone else. Glad to hear your group responded.

Who were the worst holdouts and why? Who took to it the best?

 

[Buttercup]

I guess I am just interested in hearing other people opinion on the glut of possibilities (both useful and extremely stupid) out there and how you deal with them?

The last campaign I ran, I used quite a few different sources. Problem was, I just don't have predictable amounts of free time between sessions, and I was having difficulty maintaining a believable and fun (for me at least) campaign world using the smorgasbord approach. So when one player moved away and two others could no longer play consistently due to child care issues, I killed the campaign.

My present campaign is set in Freeport and uses that book, the SRD, the Bastion Press Alchemy & Herbalists book for one player who wanted to be a Rogue with high ranks in the Alchemist skill and a three spells that I've run across which I liked. I also exclude resurection of any kind, evil spells, Harm & Haste spells and prestige classes. I've found that limiting things like this makes running a campaign much more manageable for me.

In the meantime, I'm working on my homebrew world as I have time, and once we play through Freeport (I'm guessing we'll end at 12th to 15th level around this time next year) I'll break it out and we'll start anew. In this homebrew I will be seriously limiting the number of available options, because like Rothmoran I think it's the right thing to do for many reasons.

Characters will start out as Experts, Warriors, Aristocrats or Adepts and will eventually have access to Rogue, Bard, Sorcerer and Fighter classes as they encounter them in-game. Notice there are no clerics. I plan on changing the Sorcerer to a sort of domain system, and allow healing to be one possible domain they could select. Then too, Adepts have healing spells, so they're still covered. I'm still thinking all of this through, so what I actually end up with may well look radically different from what I'm presently considering.

I'm not unhappy having access to so many rules, but I don't see how a campaign can have any focus if they're all included. The beauty of the D20 system is that it allows tinkerers like me to select only the bits and pieces that work for us and discard the rest.