Limiting the scope of your campaign

[Piratecat]

I think some exclusion is essential. I tend to prefer some inclusiveness myself, but that's because the true gems of the d20 systems are spread out between different books and different authors. My real concern is not putting in multiple rule systems for the same basic thing. I don't want three ways of handling ley lines, for instance. . . but I'm happy to have a NPC using a class from the Miniatures Handbook if it fits my vision of them.

 

[Rothnoran]

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.

I agree 100%. Players want to be able to customize their characters...and should be able to. I just insist that it fit within the "game world". Clearly, a player may want to be a Shadow Dancer, but in my world there are none. What I have to do then is help the player see that through skill and feat choices they can create a Rogue withe the flavor of the shadow dancer. This makes their character even more unique then if I simply allowed the Shadow Dancer PrC. Of course they would not get a pet shadow or be able to teleport through shadow...but my feeling is that if they only wanted the PrC for the gaudy trapping then it was probably a bad idea to begin with.

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. .

Not even necessarily what "I" have provided, but what the "world" provides. I try to make them understand that their characters are (from their perspective) real and living in a real world.

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

That's a great question. One player we call Little Sean (I am Big Sean...I an 6'5 and go 300lb) plays a Rogue named Gazi. He was the toughest to bring into the concept primarily for two reasons. First, he plays a lot of Ever Quest and DAoC, which of course is all about leveling, getting new powers and killing stuff. And second, he was also playing in another game initially where the "meta" game kind of held sway so the players were not so much interested in the "game world" as the "game mechanic". After several weeks of him saying "On page xx of the PHB it says blah blah blah" to which I would say "Does it say that in the Rothnoran Handbook?" He eventually came to understand that the Rothnoran book was a guide to the world Gazi lived in and all its possibilities...even those he could create for himself. Actually, Little Sean is probably the best Role-Player in my group and now that I have gotten him to stop thinking about the game mechanic its great to watch him interact with players and NPC's. In fact, we recently finished a story line that ran at a pace of 1 day game time per session. There were times when the players were separated into different rooms with me going back and forth and it was inspiring to leave a room and come back 20 min later and the two or three players in that room were still conversing and sharing information in character.

The people that took to it the best were individuals who had not role played in a while or who had not yet used the D20 system. We try to focus on the Role Playing and it is not uncommon for us to go several sessions without any combat. I think having only a set specific amount of rules helps the people to ignore the game mechanic.

 

[Rothnoran]

I think some exclusion is essential. I tend to prefer some inclusiveness myself, but that's because the true gems of the d20 systems are spread out between different books and different authors. My real concern is not putting in multiple rule systems for the same basic thing. I don't want three ways of handling ley lines, for instance. . . but I'm happy to have a NPC using a class from the Miniatures Handbook if it fits my vision of them.

You have hit the nail on the head. Certainly choosing different parts of various supplements is the way to go. They make it easy to put together a game world (why do the work of writing up class X when someone else has something like it that you can use of modify). The hard part sometimes is knowing what works and making your players understand that just because you included one thing from a particular book, it does not mean that the whole book is open for use.

Actually, a funny thing that often comes up in my Rothnoran campaign is that we modify things for game balance as we play (because you never know how something will work until you actually use it). Because of this, and the fact that I hand out copies of the rules so that each player only needs the Rule Set for the game, and because I constantly update my rules but only have been printing rule books as needed for new players who have joined (I print in color and there is a lot of artwork)...<----Long sentence Where was I..oh yeah, at this point, at any given session there are three or four different editions of the Rothnoran Rule Set at the table so I hear cracks from one player to another like "...you can't find it because you still have Edition 2.c Beta". I have been slowly getting all of the rules up on the web and of course I always have the most up to date rules, but it does get funny sometimes.

 

[Psion]

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?

Hmmm. Picture this. A mechanic is sitting in the garage. You drive your car in. You need... your spark plugs changed.

Picture, if you will, that the mechanic turns, open his big red case of SNAP ON[TM] tools and says "how am I going to use ALL these tools on your car?"

The answer is, of course, that he's not. The is going to use the tools that he needs.

But refusing to use the tools that make his job easier would be just as silly.

I'll leave deciphering this analogy to the reader.

 

[Ibram]

Like most of the other posters I have a campaing book (around 80 pages worth of background material, modifed core classes, new classes, house rules, feats, and spells). I like to think of campaing books and filters, that is I take things that I've liked from other books I've read and put them in for my players to use. All my players understand that if its not in my campaing book then its not in my world (and cannot be used). I would be willing to make exceptions to this if the player brought me a new feat or spell but I very much doubt that I would allow a new class or PrC.

 

[Mythmere1]

There's another side to all of this, though ... the player side. The DM creates the world, but the players tell the story. Yes, there should be some limitations based on cultural consistency and game balance; yes, the DM should keep his head above water in the sea of secondary material. However, it's my belief that if you aren't as welcoming as possible to the sort of character a player wants to be, you're showing the signs of weak DMing. I always try to make it possible for a player to achieve his vision of a character, with as much respect as I demand for my vision of a campaign setting.

I personally don't like campaigns where the game is sculpted down to a nubbin for the DM's "art." I'm not accusing anyone on this post of necesarily doing that, but I'm wary of the "it's your world and yours alone" viewpoint that many DMs have. I think there's a step up to a higher plane of "it's our world." I suspect (putting words in his mouth) that that's what Piratecat meant when he said, "some inclusion is essential."

 

[Rothnoran]

Hmmm. Picture this. A mechanic is sitting in the garage. You drive your car in. You need... your spark plugs changed.

Picture, if you will, that the mechanic turns, open his big red case of SNAP ON[TM] tools and says "how am I going to use ALL these tools on your car?"

The answer is, of course, that he's not. The is going to use the tools that he needs.

But refusing to use the tools that make his job easier would be just as silly.

I'll leave deciphering this analogy to the reader.

And with any luck, the poor mechanic has not bought 15 different tool kits, with each kit only having one or two unique items. Instead, he has his unique tool kit with only one (or two if worried about breakage) of each of the tools he needs.

 

[Buttercup]

My real concern is not putting in multiple rule systems for the same basic thing. I don't want three ways of handling ley lines, for instance....

So which version of handling ley lines do you prefer? Enquiring minds want to know!

 

[Rothnoran]

There's another side to all of this, though ... the player side. The DM creates the world, but the players tell the story. Yes, there should be some limitations based on cultural consistency and game balance; yes, the DM should keep his head above water in the sea of secondary material. However, it's my belief that if you aren't as welcoming as possible to the sort of character a player wants to be, you're showing the signs of weak DMing. I always try to make it possible for a player to achieve his vision of a character, with as much respect as I demand for my vision of a campaign setting.

I personally don't like campaigns where the game is sculpted down to a nubbin for the DM's "art." I'm not accusing anyone on this post of necesarily doing that, but I'm wary of the "it's your world and yours alone" viewpoint that many DMs have. I think there's a step up to a higher plane of "it's our world." I suspect (putting words in his mouth) that that's what Piratecat meant when he said, "some inclusion is essential."

The game world only lives because of the players in it and indeed some times GMs may forget that (I am sure we have all played in games where the GM walked you around while all you really did was roll dice). But I am not talking about limiting what your players can do so much as providing them with a more realistic setting that encourages to discover what is possible in that world.

The fellow I mentioned before (little Sean) was surprised that his rogue, Gazi, could spent time training with the local militia and become proficient in the use of the spear and learn some feats that go with reach weapons. Now, when combat occurs, he is able to stand behind the warriors left shoulder and help in a meaningful way. Additionally, he and another character are training in a feat that will let them fight together as a team giving them both benefits. These ideas are realistic for the game world...Sean ( who chose the Sneak Thief Rogue template) was initially dismayed to learn that he had no "back-stabbing" ability. But the idea of Rogues who train to be able to mortally harm people with a special back-stab did not fit. Back-Stabbing can be learned as a feat, but you would have to find some true scoundrel to train you in such an art.

 

[Rothnoran]

Like most of the other posters I have a campaing book (around 80 pages worth of background material, modifed core classes, new classes, house rules, feats, and spells). I like to think of campaing books and filters, that is I take things that I've liked from other books I've read and put them in for my players to use. All my players understand that if its not in my campaing book then its not in my world (and cannot be used). I would be willing to make exceptions to this if the player brought me a new feat or spell but I very much doubt that I would allow a new class or PrC.

My "Campaign" book has grown into a monstrosity of 246 double sided, 2 column pages. Of course, we modified the combat system and several other things. Eventually the SRD, modified for my campaign, all the feats available, all the spells and a tone of other stuff have made it into the book. One nice benefit of this is that the players really do not need to bring any other book to the game.


Currently we are converting to a Point based magic system because after some discussion, none of my players are happy with the rather silly concept of "memorizing" spells that fade from your memory.