Restrictions vs. Everything Goes

[Oni]

Paradoxish,

I didn't add that last part based in anything you've posted, I actually wasn't even thinking about your post when I wrote it. I have heard other people talk about doing such things however and it irritates me, and so I thought I would mention it while I was on the subject.

 

[Paradoxish]

Re: Re: Restrictions vs. Everything Goes

Banned Spells
Polymorph Self/Other/Any Object

Just curious, how come you guys banned the Polymorph spells?

 

[hunter2112]

I generally run very open games. Players are allowed to do pretty much what they like with their characters, so long as it fits in with the world. For example, since Heironeous doesn't exist in my world, a "Shining Blade of Heironeous" is hard to accept. Probably a bad example cause I'm sure it could be modified but it was the only one I could think of with a specific name attached to it.

 

[gfunk]

Re: Re: Re: Restrictions vs. Everything Goes

Just curious, how come you guys banned the Polymorph spells?

Well when my Sorcerer hit level 8, the first spell she took was Polymorph Other. I cast it on myself and everyone one else in the party to turn us all into Trolls. Before we returned to civilization, I would change us back. For one 4th level spell, we gained the following:

60' Darkvision
23 STR
23 CON
14 DEX
+7 Natural Armor
10 foot reach
Natural attacks (always considered armed)

All with a permanent duration!

Of course, to balance things out, the DM could have his NPC Sorcerers or Wizards Polymorph their henchman into Stone Giants or Annis Hags, but who wants to spend a whole afternoon retooling all the stats blocks?

We considered other options like a lower duration or chance of personality change (10% cumulative/day). But in the end, we decided to just dump it.

Quite honestly I wouldn't ever want to deal with Polymorph Any Object. I mean if the spell description says "Can change on thing to anything else" is a little bit out of control

 

[Snoweel]

I have heavy restrictions on PC options IMC, and luckily I haven't yet had the misfortune to game with someone so ideologically opposed to my gaming style as a powergamer.

I find restrictions are necessary in helping attain a feeling of verisimilitude in a setting, because to allow everything ends up looking like a supers game, especially at high levels.

Of course, if I did have a powergamer join my group, I guess I'd relax some restrictions if he/she wasn't having fun.

 

[KitanaVorr]

Its your game. You decide the rules. Let your players have what the want within reason and if you don't, explain why.

But it comes down to this. As long as the rules affect everyone equally, it is your game, and if they don't want to play your game with your rules, then don't play the game.

 

[Paradoxish]

Of course, if I did have a powergamer join my group, I guess I'd relax some restrictions if he/she wasn't having fun.

Therein lies what's probably my biggest problem. When I put together a campaign most of the focus is on keeping things balanced so that my players can explore the world and follow through the plot without being way overpowered compared to the NPCs. I enjoy the feel of a dark, dangerous world and I think my players have more fun when they find themselves challenged then when their enemies are just handed to them as cannon fodder. I like when I can use NPCs as plot elements without having to ask my players to please not kill them. I also dislike using cheap tricks to keep important NPCs alive, which I'm forced to do when the whole group is composed of uber-characters.

It's very hard to compromise enough so that I can still run my campaign the way I want and yet let a powergamer have his fun.

 

[Henry]

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.

If you find some things unworkable, no DM is required to use them, just because they are "official." Somehow, people treat things written by WotC as "holy" or "special." THEY ARE NO MORE PLAYTESTED NECESSARILY THAN ANY OTHER COMAPNIES' PRODUCT. But somehow, because the COre rules were tested by a thousand gamers, they assume that Sword and Fist was tested equally widely, or has some advantage. Next time someone states this, or intimates it, break out the book, and show them the playtest credits. There might be 15 to 20 people in the list. I KNOW more gamers than that personally!!!!!

Another case: Monte Cook writes Malhavok Press material. He also wrote the DMG. Yet, is his stuff any more or less valid than his writing under WotC? NO.

Again, I stress this, It's your darned game. Invite the player in question to start a game on alternating weeks and see who wants to play! At best, you'll gain another Dungeon Master, and he might even bee quite good at making the stuff work in his game. At worst, you'll lose a player who has nothing to offer but sour grapes.

 

[maddman75]

I'm an unrepentant power gamer. I can't help myself, I have a logical, mathematical mind that looks for advantageous combinations and synergy.

However, I use my powers for good instead of evil. If I want to make 'the greatest swordsman who ever lived', I'll do that. If instead I want a smooth talking diplomat who considers combat something handled by 'his lessers', I can do that just as efficiently.

That said, I think I could have fun in your campaign. You just have to see the proper context, and some concepts don't work.

And just because its published in WotC books does NOT make it official. I mean, Miasma, for the love of Gary! Miasma!

Here's my guidelines, even in my generic module-led campaign that I'm doing right now. You can have anything in the core. PHB, DMG, MM. And MM mostly for conjured monsters, companions, etc. I really don't like ECL races.

Anything else has to be cleared by me on a case by case basis. Every spell, feat, class, and item. Assume nothing. I'm fairly generous about what I let in, but if it sounds too good to be true, it is.

On the other hand, I will work with a player to make them happy. What did you find offensive about the class - something mechanical or flavorful? Is there any way you can remove or alter the class to let him get what he wants but keep out what you don't want? Or are these the exact same thing.

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.

 

[Alcamtar]

My general rule is PHB only. Anything else, including DMG and MM, is DM discretion only, with a default answer of "no". I also reserve one week to consider a new spell, feat, or prestige class-- I've gotten myself in trouble in the past by making snap decisions without thinking things through.

Mike