Serious Mucking With The Standard Game Options: Advice?

[Ashtal]

Okie, I'm working on the details of my new campaign, and I've come to a point where I'm about to make some fairly big decisions that will limit the options the players have with a trade off in an interesting campaign world.

I'm just wondering if I am going too far.

Here are the basics:
1) Stealing an idea from someone on the boards, except in all but the most extreme, character based reasons, character classes will be divided along cultural lines.
2) There are no Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Half-Orcs, Gnomes, or what-have-you. Strictly human campaigns.
3) No bards, no monks. Just don't fit.
4) No psionics.

Now, I'm envisioning a very rigid, idealized middle-ages, with a strong religious movement, a spin on monotheism with a few cults underground, slight prejudice against magic, whereas a more barbarian culture lives northward with a blend of Celtic and Nordic feel. The starting locations is on the boards, so all classes and people will be available. There is a strong undercurrent of undead throughout the campaign - in fact, one of the main arcs involves a God of the Dead slaying and 're-animating', on a celestial scale, the gods of mortals. I have various undead demon god children that represent the ultimate forms of the big undead critter types. So, lots of turning, lots of crypts, lots of secrets.

Including that the major god will be slain and 'raised' to follow the undead god, corrupting the Church - to the point where clerics of that god will be unable to turn undead once that happens. I'm really pleased with that one.

I think it will be an interesting campaign world to play in, but I worry that by taking so much away from my players, they will find it too limiting. What I am looking for is input from DMs who have built their own campaign worlds and limited player options, how the campaigns went and how the players reacted. IE, how much outside the standard D&D set can you, or do you, go?

Any advice would be helpful.

I'm also planning on emailing my group and seeing what they think - I'll post that when I get their responses.

Thanks!

 

[Khorod]

As long as you have at least a handful of options that appeal to each player, you should be fine. The more you take out or change, the more shocked they'll be, and the more likely they'll resist. I can be sure to alienate 1 player in 5 with any major rules change, but that 5th guy will probably go along with things.

Perhaps start by describing the setting and how you think it might need some serious changes, like reeling in certain aspects of basic D&D. Once their first brush with the setting sinks in, start talking about rules changes.

I reversed that process recently and the campaign never got through character creation.

 

[Teflon Billy]

This sounds a lot like the game I ran after I ifinished reading "A Game of Thrones". I wanted low/no magic, politics and a recognizable feudal system.

Stock D&D is the s for medieval anything, and it's Magic is so dependable and common that it tosses things into a flux if you try and play it as anything but high-magic.

So here's what I did.

1) Players can only be fighters/rogues/my variant Ranger/ Sorceror or my variant priest (which is closer to a bard...charismatic emotion-tweaker, rahter than healing magic crusader).

2) Any magical spells in the game must have no visible effects (mostly important to the Sorcerors). So "detect thoughts"? fine. "Speak with animals"? Fine. Magic Missile? doesn't exist.

3) No healing magic. Faster than average healing is done by resting under the care of trained healers.

4) Do not let anyone try and "Feat Away" the magic limitations...there are no lighning bolts, don't let them try and get a "Sonic Bolt" in an effort to get around the no visible effects rule.

5) If the players ask for anything, ask yourself first if it would make the setting less viable. If it does, the answer is no.

And they will ask. I don't know what it is about players I've encountered over the years, but the minute you say "I'm thinking of running alow magic game..." they will nearly leap to yell "I'm playing a wizard!".

Anyway...the point of this whole post is: If you ae planning on playing a game baed on a Feudal/Medieval setting, then make sure you stick to that. Spellcasters are inordinately powerful in such a setting unless they are restrained.

D&D is a ty system to use to model such a society (D&D as written reminds me more of a video game), but it is an easy sell to gamers.

 

[rounser]

Sounds good. The only thing I'd suggest is that if everyone's human, perhaps inventing human subraces for your world which give a racial bonus/penalty or two just for colour and variation.

 

[Sanackranib]

remeber that in midevil times most people couldnt read or write thus the oral tredition of bards. so I am surprised that they "don't fit", even if they are not a PC class they add a lot of flavor to the game. If you dont like the special abilities then change bards to minstrels or circus performers and have them be rogues.

 

[barsoomcore]

I had no problems whatsoever getting players for Barsoom -- a campaign setting with no spell-casting classes at all. You can be a Fighter or a Rogue. Not even barbarians or monks were available when I started the campaign.

It's been a hoot. The only caution I have about running a heavily tweaked D&D game is that you have to be careful balancing encounters. Challenge Ratings depend on parties with access to a typical spread of D&D abilities, so if your campaign doesn't include, say, arcane spells, certain creatures are going to be far tougher than they would otherwise be.

I didn't provide racial variations among my humans (Barsoom's also human-only), but it's a good idea, I reckon. I'm lazy.

What I did do was tweak starting weapon proficiencies based on origin. If you come from a place that uses rapiers and not greatswords, then the one is Martial and the other Exotic. That was an easy way to add some flavour to origin choices without coming up with Origin Feats or whatever.

One of the things I've always loved about D&D (and I guess we disagree on this one, TB) is how easy it is to "mush". You can do just about anything to the D&D rules and still end up with a playable game. It has always seemed to me like the most forgiving game system.

Or possibly the most broken, so when you trash it you don't even notice things getting worse. I guess that could be it.

 

[Blood Jester]

Ashtal:

I would say put bards back, maybe tweaked. If you are doing Celtic feel, the right kind of bard would fit very well.

 

[rounser]

the right kind of bard would fit very well.

The D&D bard hasn't been "the right kind of bard" to fit a celtic setting since 2E. At least 1E gave them the power to back up the archetype - since 2E it's job is to play second fiddle, literally, which is unacceptable given their legendary status. Heck, 3E even has it's wires so crossed over reinforcing the second rate class status of the bard is that it has a prestige class in the DMG which out-lores the bard.

 

[Blood Jester]

The D&D bard hasn't been "the right kind of bard" to fit a celtic setting since 2E. At least 1E gave them the power to back up the archetype. Heck, 3E even has it's wires so crossed over what a bard is that it has a prestige class with out-lores the bard.

But if Ashtal is going to do a major "home brew" campaign, and change a lot of 'core' ideas around, it would be easy to also tweak the bard to fit. The changes would be few and easy IMO, and she was looking for opinions, so...

 

[(contact)]

I'm just wondering if I am going too far.

Hell, no. It sounds like a great campaign, Ashtal-- I wanna play in your game!

3) No bards, no monks. Just don't fit.
4) No psionics.

You just described my Greyhawk game. Kick barbarians to the curb while you're at it. (Oops, I forgot-- very rigid, idealized middle-ages societies didn't have curbs. Kick them to the gutter.)

I think it will be an interesting campaign world to play in, but I worry that by taking so much away from my players, they will find it too limiting.

You haven't really taken anything away, you've just narrowed the choices at character creation for flavor's sake. In other words, my wizard for your game will be generally equivalent to my wizard in Greyhawk, etc.

The more you can push the "flavor" aspect of the world and its people the better-- here's hoping that your players appreciate it!