Rothnoran said:
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=110758
and note in particular the second post.
Limiting the scope of your campaign
- Thread starter Rothnoran
- Start date
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=110758
and note in particular the second post.
Ellie_the_Elf
First Post
I tend to be very liberal with what I'll allow in my campaign- the only things that I've ever actually banned are Frenzied Berserkers (after one of my PCs became one in a previous game, which resulted in some nasty player vs player with 2 pcs winding up dead) and evil characters (because I want to run a heroic game- in my latest campaign I've only allowed good characters).
In my latest campaign, I'm trying to regionalise a lot of stuff- from materials, items and spells to PrCs -so specific stuff is only available in certain areas or from certain groups, and almost any PrC has roleplaying requirements of one form or another. I'm also allowing only the spells from the PHB, FRCS and Magic of Faerun to be taken at level up, while new spells from other sources will be available to purchase on scrolls in specific areas. Some of the variant base classes are regional too, but if the PCs want to take them, I'll only require they spend some time in training with someone who has the class.
Other than that, I pretty much allow the players to do what they like PC-wise. To be honest, I've always had more problems caused by specific character concepts (lones wolves, non-combat characters and the like), than with anything from sourcebooks.
Ellie.
In my latest campaign, I'm trying to regionalise a lot of stuff- from materials, items and spells to PrCs -so specific stuff is only available in certain areas or from certain groups, and almost any PrC has roleplaying requirements of one form or another. I'm also allowing only the spells from the PHB, FRCS and Magic of Faerun to be taken at level up, while new spells from other sources will be available to purchase on scrolls in specific areas. Some of the variant base classes are regional too, but if the PCs want to take them, I'll only require they spend some time in training with someone who has the class.
Other than that, I pretty much allow the players to do what they like PC-wise. To be honest, I've always had more problems caused by specific character concepts (lones wolves, non-combat characters and the like), than with anything from sourcebooks.
Ellie.
Kanegrundar
Explorer
I tend to run a campaign that leans more towards the all-inclusive side of the spectrum. I don't allow everything, but I tend to let more in than I exclude. I like to let my players create any character that they want within reason. It's fun for them, and if they are having a good time then so am I. I do go through each new book I buy and decide if the new PrC's, feats, spells, etc are too powerful, too weak, etc, but beyond that I tend to either let it in, or make a judgement call when a player brings something new to the table.
Sure, it can make it tough sometimes to create a story that mixes all those elements together. That's all part of the fun for me. As long as my players are happy and keep coming back for more, I'm a happy DM.
Kane
Sure, it can make it tough sometimes to create a story that mixes all those elements together. That's all part of the fun for me. As long as my players are happy and keep coming back for more, I'm a happy DM.
Kane
Rothnoran
First Post
hong said:
OK but it is still pretty silly that you have to "prepare" a spell three times in order to cast it three times. How about, if you know a spell you can cast it...what "preparation" is required? We are working on a system where you have spell points based upon your Spell Craft skill (this makes Magic a skill...although one that takes a great deal of training). Your "magic" recharges constantly (we will probably use hours) so you don't have to "Rest" and "prepare".
shilsen
Adventurer
Rothnoran said:
No sillier than claiming that having one bullet should allow you to fire it three times. Read the description in the PHB (pg.178). When preparing a spell, what you do is pre-cast most of the spell beforehand and then complete it when needed. It's a simple and elegant system.
So you're like a battery? Sounds pretty silly - depending on perspective.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Rothnoran said:
You didn't mention it, but you probably already did it: A "Monsters List" listing all of the creatures that can be encountered in a given area, taken from whatever sources you choose to use. Unless you're talking about a planet-sized campaign world, you probably shouldn't be using all of the published monsters -- and even if you are talking about such a large world, with third-party sources, there are probably too many monsters for a coherent world.
RC
less is more
I agree in principle if not in practice. I don't allow PrCs or much past the PHB for a D&D game. My current D&D game has jedi, judges, mutants & aasimar paladins added because that is the game I wanted to run. Plain vanilla fantasy D&D gets a little too dull for me right now, but I don't want to delve into some other variant without modules to run. Most campaign settings/sourcebooks have no adventures and therefore little utility for me.
On the other hand, creating my own campaign book (of any length) feels more like work and less like play to me. I've tried it. I just don't see the need to reinvent the wheel right now. I've got more great material right now than I will probably use in a lifetime, so anything new has to be top quality to get my attention.
I do like the idea of starting the PCs out in the NPC classes from the DMG and then moving them the PHB classes as they gain experience. It makes the PCs something special, especially if the world isn't populated with people PHB classes.
I agree in principle if not in practice. I don't allow PrCs or much past the PHB for a D&D game. My current D&D game has jedi, judges, mutants & aasimar paladins added because that is the game I wanted to run. Plain vanilla fantasy D&D gets a little too dull for me right now, but I don't want to delve into some other variant without modules to run. Most campaign settings/sourcebooks have no adventures and therefore little utility for me.
On the other hand, creating my own campaign book (of any length) feels more like work and less like play to me. I've tried it. I just don't see the need to reinvent the wheel right now. I've got more great material right now than I will probably use in a lifetime, so anything new has to be top quality to get my attention.
I do like the idea of starting the PCs out in the NPC classes from the DMG and then moving them the PHB classes as they gain experience. It makes the PCs something special, especially if the world isn't populated with people PHB classes.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Buttercup said:
May I suggest substituting the Witch from Monte Cook's Arcana Uneartherd for the Sorcerer? This is one of the things that I am considering, as the Witch has a certain "feel" that the Sorcerer lacks (IMHO).
RC
Evilhalfling
Adventurer
I think it is ncessary, as the number of options in D&D make almost no sense, even with just the core books. I try to stay away from volumes of alternate rules, and just stick to regional changes, and changes that result from trying to logically unify the variety avalible.
TANGENT /
I did have a strange thought that there are two many non-human cultures in D&D and not enough human ones. small states with widely different languages, money and customs have been the rule throught most of history. The good technology spreads quickly, but the cultures remain seperate. just lookng at Europe, or reading the travels of Marco Polo are enormous insperation.
So imagine humanoids, humans and demihumans all living next to eacth other, mostly in seperate city states but some mixing occuring. Half breeds would be very common and prolly need some sort of system for mixing racial benifits and penalties.
/End Tangent
I think that limitations give a world more flavor and uniqueness, but remember to check with your players to makesure you don't restrict all favored concepts for example My group likes monks, they dont make much sense for historic european fantasy, So I still have to write up a story that explains there inclusion in the world.
TANGENT /
I did have a strange thought that there are two many non-human cultures in D&D and not enough human ones. small states with widely different languages, money and customs have been the rule throught most of history. The good technology spreads quickly, but the cultures remain seperate. just lookng at Europe, or reading the travels of Marco Polo are enormous insperation.
So imagine humanoids, humans and demihumans all living next to eacth other, mostly in seperate city states but some mixing occuring. Half breeds would be very common and prolly need some sort of system for mixing racial benifits and penalties.
/End Tangent
I think that limitations give a world more flavor and uniqueness, but remember to check with your players to makesure you don't restrict all favored concepts for example My group likes monks, they dont make much sense for historic european fantasy, So I still have to write up a story that explains there inclusion in the world.
nopantsyet
First Post
I have started moving away from restrictions for the most part because I really see no good point in keeping players from exploring any concept they like. While everything outside of core and a few other books is per DM review, it's mainly to work out how it fits into the world. I've taken sort of an Eberron approach to worldbuilding: there's a place for just about anything. So if somebody wants to play something that I haven't written into the setting, then I'll come up with a location and some background and then work with the player to flesh out the details. There are certainly some game options I definitely do not like, but when it comes down to it, I don't have to like the PCs. (And there have been those which I haven't.) I'm only going to try to kill them anyway. At the end of the day, I don't have time to worry about which options fit my vision of the game. I'd rather put my effort into making my part of the game as good as I can.
