Restrictions vs. Everything Goes

[Piratecat]

[*]We don't use published Prestige Classes. Ever. Don't even bother to ask.
[*]Prestige Classes are designed for the campaign to be specific to the campaign and learned about in-game.

Hmmm. Two questions: Regarding the former statement, don't you find that this eliminates a lot of really cool ideas just because someone else has had them first? I couldn't tell whether or not you're flexible in using established "components" in making campaign-specific PrCs.

Regarding the second statement, do you then loosen entry requirements? Many PrCs are difficult to enter unless you have exactly the correct requirements. I think if I did things this way, I'd rely more on role-playing preferences than set-in-stone mechanical prerequisites. Thus, if you wanted to join the "Society of Trees," it'd be more important to finish the "Run of Stones" within a certain time than it would be to have 6 ranks fo Wilderness Lore... that sort of thing.

Sounds like a fun campaign, in any case!

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Regarding the former statement, don't you find that this eliminates a lot of really cool ideas just because someone else has had them first? I couldn't tell whether or not you're flexible in using established "components" in making campaign-specific PrCs.

Depends on the idea. Primarily, just about any concept is fair game (although some are "against the grain" of the campaign, if you take my meaning), but the actual Prestige Class wouldn't be. For instance, I despise the T&B Alienist, but have my own Prestige Class for Cthulian-esque spellcasters. I've got about 5 different Assassin Prestige Classes, all of which are designed to reflect the specifics of the guild or organization the belong to, yet the Assassin in the DMG is a non-existant entity.

This ensures that the Prestige Class is (1) a proper fit for the setting, nation, race, city or organization and (2) it will function within the specific balance designated for the campaign.

Regarding the second statement, do you then loosen entry requirements? Many PrCs are difficult to enter unless you have exactly the correct requirements. I think if I did things this way, I'd rely more on role-playing preferences than set-in-stone mechanical prerequisites. Thus, if you wanted to join the "Society of Trees," it'd be more important to finish the "Run of Stones" within a certain time than it would be to have 6 ranks fo Wilderness Lore... that sort of thing.

The Prereqs are usually tight, but that's also the nature of the method: Organizations, groups and such are drawn to those that express qualities desired by them for their members, usually meaning that the PCs are already half-way into the requirements.

Also, I have no qualms of creating a Prestige Class specifically for a character that has taken a concept as far as the Core Rules (as we've modified them) will allow. For instance, I don't have a Prestige Class that highlights Enchantment magic. If, however, I found myself DMing a game where a PC focused heavily on Enchantment spells, I'd be inclined to create a guild (or sect within an already existing guild) that would recognize the PCs talent and approach him. Another possibility is to place a tome as treasure that contains the secrets of a Prestige Class, allowing the PC to become the first to obtain such powers in 500 years or so.

So, I'm quite flexible with concepts. I hold a preference of keeping the world an item of my creation, but will allow the wants, desires, interests and actions of the PCs to set the course of that creation.

Actually, here's a real example as it occured in-game... Running a group in the northern regions (a wild region of vast glaciers and mountains), a Player expressed interest in playing a soldier-type character, one that uses tactics, formation, and other elements that would make Sun Tzu proud. As such was inappropriate to the region, he was informed that "I'll work on something for the future". He took that to mean "for the next group", but in private I designed a new Core Class (Soldier) and a full Mercenary Regiment (The Madoni Free Legions, which offer no less than 6 Prestige Classes: Legionaire, Scout, Standard Bearer, Marshal [Priest Type], Sorcerour Commander [based on Mongoose's Battle Magic], and Legion Captain). I then introduce in play a company of these mercenaries traveling through The Northern March, offering the PC the opportunity to play the exact concept he wanted (if he so chose, which he did).

Sounds like a fun campaign, in any case!

 

[Destil]

So what do you all think? Is it in everyone's best interest to restrict a few obviously unbalanced things or is it better to just allow everything... or, at the very least, everything that's "official" from Wizards?

I don't have any problem restricting everything outside of the Core Rules to DM aproval status. Anything aside from the three core books needs to be aproved by me first, but I really don't care if it's from a WotC book, a web page or scrawled across a coctail napkin at 4AM in a drunken stupor.

That said, I've always been willing to work with my players and modify anything they want so it's acceptable for both balance and flavor reasons. ONly one of my four players currently is purly by the book, since many came up with their own spells / powers / feats, and swaped out class abilities to fit their PCs.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

I feel the need to point out what Monte Cook stated in the foreward to the DMG:

It's YOUR darned game. It's YOUR darned rules.

Therefore, (my words), any player is equally welcome to start their own game to alternate with yours, and they can give any rules they want.

Ok, I admit I'm a bit of a socialist DM, but I prefer to think of it as OUR game. I don't want unhappy players, and they don't want an unhappy DM... so somewhere in between, we can work things out without resorting to people leaving the group (unless, of course, the ideological differences are simply irreconcilable).

I play in one game where the DM rules absolutely. He proclaims the game world as "his" world and talks about the things he allows in "his" game. It is the sort of DM I'm used to, so I take him with a grain of salt. Besides, he's been building his homebrew game world for maybe 15 years.

I play/DM another game where we tend to be more democratic. We chat about the sort of game we would like to play and then lay down some informal guidelines. Someone usually agrees to take on board the DMing duties, although there is often at least one other potential alternate DM. The game world is often grown collaboratively, with input and ideas from everybody. The question of PrCs or other optional Feats/Skills/Spells etc is often moot because collectively we all understand what our game intentions were when we started. "No, you can't play a gnomish barbarian - remember we agreed no gnomes in this world."

As a DM, this has sometimes forced me to make some compromises that I would have prefered not to make. It can be particularly difficult if I start a campaign and then hand over DMing duties to someone else who has a slightly different perception on the game 'flavour'. But then I realise I'm being silly... it is usually only a minor perceptual difference.

Don't get me wrong - both games can be fun. But in the latter instance, everybody plays the game they want (or at least, the game they wanted at the time). In the former, only the DM is playing the game he wants... the rest of us are playing a game we enjoy, but don't *totally* agree with.

 

[LostSoul]

Ok, I admit I'm a bit of a socialist DM, but I prefer to think of it as OUR game.

I feel the same way.

 

[hong]

Ok, I admit I'm a bit of a socialist DM, but I prefer to think of it as OUR game.

Friggin' socialist Austrians. It's people like you who cause all the trouble in the world. I bet you voted Democrat, didn't you? HAW HAW!


Hong "I did, sad to say" Ooi

 

[Fenes 2]

Shouldn't that be Australians, not Austrians?

 

[Agback]

It's not just the DM's game, after all. It's a group game.

I agree whole-heartedly. And therefore it is absolutely essential that the group consist of a collection of people who are apt to enjoy the same game. If two people cannot enjoy the same game, they had better not play together. It isn't that one is wicked and unreasonable and deserving of ostracism. It is just that they can find a better way to pass their time.

Another corollary of the unquestionable truth you propound that the GM is not some sort of servant obliged to put himself or herself out to entertain the players: he or she is a fellow-player fully entitled to enjoy the game.

Similarly, not only the GM but also every other player has a duty to do stuff to make the game more entertaining, and to refrain from doing things that bore, appall, or irritate the others.

In other words, any player not willing to make concessions to allow the GM to run the sort of game that he or she will enjoy running ought to ship out.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I have never had a problem in my games with the way the rules work save for the most extreme examples of bad game design aka pre-errata Armor of Speed, Miasma and Harm. I also bother my players into submission when they do things like 'take 2 levels of this/2 levels of that/2 levels of the other thing' to create min-maxed charactes.

I do this because flavor is very important to me. I want a character to seem viable and a prestige class to actually mean something. When I say mean something, I mean be a path that the player sticks to until he can go no further in that class.

I certainly don't mind them mixing up prestige classes if they have a concept in mind, but not just for min/max purposes. The only prestige classes I have had a problem with have been the archer prestige classes. People are always trying to mix up the various archery prestige classes to create the ultimate archer. It's to bad they set up those classes so that this was possible, even seemingly encouraged.

My group plays in the FR, I allow any FR book or spell in the game. I let them play whatever race they wish using the ECL rules. I am pretty much an anything goes DM. I even added to a few of the classes rather than took away. It doesn't interfere with my game in the slightest.

I do modify modules myself and design a few of my own adventures. I also employ some fairly ruthless tactics which always seems to give my NPC's the advantage. I also make sure my major enemies have enough intelligence on the PC's to counter their tactics. I don't mind having a major NPC flee to have them fight another day when better prepared. I feel as though this is how such enemies should be played.

Restrictions give the campaign a certain flavor. That is what they are there for. I have never met a DM who ran things exactly like another DM, even if they agree on many of the same changes.

If you decide to place certain restrictions on your game, just explain why to your players. Please don't fall into the "Just because I don't think it is right" category. That often makes players unhappy, especially if you are uncompromising or reacting to one of their tactics.

Try to think of a way to deal with the tactic without changing a rule before you resort to restrictions. For example, if your players are changing themselves into trolls all the time, then have another party of adventurers show up and attack them. If the attack is dangerous enough, the party will get the message.

There are definitely better ways to deal with mix/maxers and power gamers than changing the rules. I prefer to use such methods rather than imposing restrictions on the players.

 

[seasong]

For instance, I hate the Shadowdancer class as written. It has no place - I have no idea what a shadowdancer is. I have no idea how hide in plain sight works. Now if you redefine the class to be members of a secret society that can channel in bits of the plane of shadow around them by means of secret rituals, then we may be making progress. So someone who REALLY wanted HIPS might be able to talk me into it, as its the flavor (or rather the lack thereof) of hte Shadowdancer that I don't like.

Hey maddman75, just thought I'd let you know that this comment of yours sparked this rewrite of the shadowdancer. Let me know what you think. I'm on a PrC kick this week, for some reason .