Module Idea-Your opinions
- Thread starter jgbrowning
- Start date
jgbrowning
Hero
Character creation would be less than 30 minutes. The characters make their choices and the DM lets them know what they got based upon those choices. (convention idea is a nice one, thanks crothian)
arnwyn, what aspect makes it terrible for your guys and what do you think would be a solution?
the tentitive idea i'm working on would be publishing a campaign series of modules that introduces both the GM and the players to the setting through discovery as opposed through simply reading a book.
Yes, even the GM wouldn't be given all the information
Once the modules are done, the campaign setting would come out.
joe b.
arnwyn, what aspect makes it terrible for your guys and what do you think would be a solution?
the tentitive idea i'm working on would be publishing a campaign series of modules that introduces both the GM and the players to the setting through discovery as opposed through simply reading a book.
Yes, even the GM wouldn't be given all the information
Once the modules are done, the campaign setting would come out.
joe b.
Arnwyn
First Post
Sorry - I should have been more clear about what aspect made it terrible. My bad!jgbrowning said:
My players are the "let me roll up and choose a character or nothing!" kind - they would patently refuse to answer questions to see what they end up with. As a one-off game, they would do it, but we don't play one-offs (a multi-year long-term continuing campaign).
Oh, and since I already have a detailed campaign setting, I'm not interested in another one.
Finally, as a DM, I want to know *everything* about the campaign world (which is one reason why I lament the fact that there are non-detailed areas of FR, while products are being brought out that regurgitate already-seen areas).
So, no solutions for me I'm afraid - I'm definitely not the target market for such a product. :/
I've actually done this. My inspiriation was Ravenloft. One of the domains in that land had a curse on it that anyone who stays there for more than a few months believes they have lived their all thier lives. The PCs are farmers in Darkon who believe have lived their all their lives.
I had them each give me a gender and alignment. Other than that I pregenerated everything. The adventure started off with them discovering that they were not farmers, they were adventurers from some other land.
We had a lot of fun, but it just became a one-off. Without generating the character themselves, the players didn't really feel a connection to their characters.
I also don't see taking away the mechanics as a good end. Some people enjoy that aspect of the game. Figuring out how to make the game fit my concept is part of the fun.
I had them each give me a gender and alignment. Other than that I pregenerated everything. The adventure started off with them discovering that they were not farmers, they were adventurers from some other land.
We had a lot of fun, but it just became a one-off. Without generating the character themselves, the players didn't really feel a connection to their characters.
I also don't see taking away the mechanics as a good end. Some people enjoy that aspect of the game. Figuring out how to make the game fit my concept is part of the fun
.Sir Whiskers
First Post
Just so that I understand: You're not allowing the players to create their own characters, you're changing the classes to your own versions, and you're planning this as the first of a series of modules for a campaign. In order:
1) I'd be interested in seeing how you work this out. While I wouldn't use this method for every campaign, it might work as a change of pace.
2) This won't work for me at all. I might run it as a one-off, but not build a campaign around it. I run 3E characters with my own house rules - even if I like your versions better, I'd have to learn the new classes, then house-rule them, then convince my players to change the classes they run in my campaign, sight unseen. Unless I run only the modules you publish, I'd have to adapt every other 3E/D20 module to your system, which I expect would be much more work than the other way around.
3) You intend this to be part of a series of modules to reveal the campaign world to the DM and players over time. Again, this won't work for me. I prefer to run homebrews anyway, but even if I didn't, you're expecting me as the DM to take a lot on faith. If the second or third module doesn't hold my interest, does the campaign end? If I don't like the direction you choose to take the campaign world, what are my options? Since you've already changed the classes, the most likely result I see is running one or at most two of the modules before going back to a more standard campaign.
I don't mean to be harsh - I'm intrigued by the character generation idea, and the rest of it might be an excellent one-off adventure, or something I can adapt to a regular campaign. But for the reasons above, I wouldn't be interested in this product as a series or campaign.
The more I think about it, this reminds me of the original Dragonlance modules - many people loved them, but I found that they gave me (as a player) too few choices. Things happened in the campaign series, regardless of my character's actions (or inaction). I felt like I was just along for the ride. By creating a setting that "introduces both the he GM and the players to the setting through discovery", I can't help feeling that same lack of control over the campaign, as both GM and player.
1) I'd be interested in seeing how you work this out. While I wouldn't use this method for every campaign, it might work as a change of pace.
2) This won't work for me at all. I might run it as a one-off, but not build a campaign around it. I run 3E characters with my own house rules - even if I like your versions better, I'd have to learn the new classes, then house-rule them, then convince my players to change the classes they run in my campaign, sight unseen. Unless I run only the modules you publish, I'd have to adapt every other 3E/D20 module to your system, which I expect would be much more work than the other way around.
3) You intend this to be part of a series of modules to reveal the campaign world to the DM and players over time. Again, this won't work for me. I prefer to run homebrews anyway, but even if I didn't, you're expecting me as the DM to take a lot on faith. If the second or third module doesn't hold my interest, does the campaign end? If I don't like the direction you choose to take the campaign world, what are my options? Since you've already changed the classes, the most likely result I see is running one or at most two of the modules before going back to a more standard campaign.
I don't mean to be harsh - I'm intrigued by the character generation idea, and the rest of it might be an excellent one-off adventure, or something I can adapt to a regular campaign. But for the reasons above, I wouldn't be interested in this product as a series or campaign.
The more I think about it, this reminds me of the original Dragonlance modules - many people loved them, but I found that they gave me (as a player) too few choices. Things happened in the campaign series, regardless of my character's actions (or inaction). I felt like I was just along for the ride. By creating a setting that "introduces both the he GM and the players to the setting through discovery", I can't help feeling that same lack of control over the campaign, as both GM and player.
jgbrowning
Hero
Some various replies
arnwyn- yep definitely not the target audience..
The goal of the module is to provide an experience that's somewhat like reality in that we discover our possiblities through experience rather than planning. Similiar to your ravenloft idea, i guess.
The mechanics wouldn't be taken away, they would remain the same (d20). The only difference is that the players wouldn't know what's possible, they'd only know what the character's know.
The players still have complete control over their characters. They just have a different interface in those choices. I'm changing the classes to fit the setting (like no heavy metal armor in the desert type stuff). And yep the first of a series of modules for a campaign. (something that would roughly go from 1-10th)
Hopefully people willing to try it as a one shot would, if they like it, continue. Its the getting people to try it bit im worried about.
thanks for the responses, all..
joe b.
arnwyn- yep definitely not the target audience..
The goal of the module is to provide an experience that's somewhat like reality in that we discover our possiblities through experience rather than planning. Similiar to your ravenloft idea, i guess.
The mechanics wouldn't be taken away, they would remain the same (d20). The only difference is that the players wouldn't know what's possible, they'd only know what the character's know.
The players still have complete control over their characters. They just have a different interface in those choices. I'm changing the classes to fit the setting (like no heavy metal armor in the desert type stuff). And yep the first of a series of modules for a campaign. (something that would roughly go from 1-10th)
Hopefully people willing to try it as a one shot would, if they like it, continue. Its the getting people to try it bit im worried about.
thanks for the responses, all..
joe b.
Mathew_Freeman
Adventurer
I think it's a good idea, but I also think it would be better for a series of convention games rather than a publication. I'm not sure people would risk buying something if they didn't know the direction it was likely to go in.
To put it another way, if you offered me this at a convention I'd jump at it, as a book I'd be very unlikely to buy it.
To put it another way, if you offered me this at a convention I'd jump at it, as a book I'd be very unlikely to buy it.
Similar Threads
