strawberryJAMM
First Post
I'm working with a group of other net-fans to convert one of the older fantasy settings over to 3E and would like to get some "other gamer" opinions on the subject of "setting restrictions". (I'm not mentioning the name of the setting up front because I'd like to focus the thread on "general principles" rather than campaign specifics.)
My question for the ENWorld community is this:
First, one of the things about 3E that is frequently mentioned is that it is "all about options" - no race is restricted from or limited to a maximum level in any class, all races can multi-class, feats and skills give characters many way to follow similar "careers" but still end up as unique individuals. In theory, anyone could potentially do anything anywhere (if the DM is willing to allow it)
On the other hand, there are many examples of existing campaign settings in which certain elements of campaign history, regional knowledge, or just setting flavour are closely tied to very specific limitations and/or restrictions on what characters can and cannot do. Some examples include DarkSun, with its heavier empasis on psionics and the changes made to water-based spellcasting because of the desert environment, and the Lankhmar setting, where even minor dabbling in arcane spell casting will likely causes you to go mad and the casting time for all spells must be increased up to the next time unit (i.e., a 1 action casting time becomes a 1 round casting time, while an 8 hour spell becomes an 8 day spell). Thus, in theory, anyone could be restricted from or limited to doing just about anything almost anywhere (depending only on the campaign setting).
Rule 0, of course, always applies - so a DM can always choose to say "In my Lankmar, spellcasting isn't so time consuming" or "In my campaign, dwarves are never Wizards", but when coming up with the details for a conversion (or a whole new setting) where is the line between adding "just enough flavour" and "ruining the dish"?
Essentially, I'd like to get a general feel for what sort of "core" differences intrigue gamers vs. what drives them away .
How much modification and change to core rules, races, classes, spells, is too much? How much is too little?
Outside of actual rule mecahnics (Skill checks are a d20 vs. DC, feats grant character extra 'tricks', combat works like this, &c.) is it important that a setting remain closely aligned with what is in the core books, or is it, in fact, more desirable, for a setting to "break away" from these aspects of the core books?
Do you have any other thoughts on the topic?
Thanks for any and all responses.
Jenni
My question for the ENWorld community is this:
The reason I ask is twofold:
First, one of the things about 3E that is frequently mentioned is that it is "all about options" - no race is restricted from or limited to a maximum level in any class, all races can multi-class, feats and skills give characters many way to follow similar "careers" but still end up as unique individuals. In theory, anyone could potentially do anything anywhere (if the DM is willing to allow it)
On the other hand, there are many examples of existing campaign settings in which certain elements of campaign history, regional knowledge, or just setting flavour are closely tied to very specific limitations and/or restrictions on what characters can and cannot do. Some examples include DarkSun, with its heavier empasis on psionics and the changes made to water-based spellcasting because of the desert environment, and the Lankhmar setting, where even minor dabbling in arcane spell casting will likely causes you to go mad and the casting time for all spells must be increased up to the next time unit (i.e., a 1 action casting time becomes a 1 round casting time, while an 8 hour spell becomes an 8 day spell). Thus, in theory, anyone could be restricted from or limited to doing just about anything almost anywhere (depending only on the campaign setting).
Rule 0, of course, always applies - so a DM can always choose to say "In my Lankmar, spellcasting isn't so time consuming" or "In my campaign, dwarves are never Wizards", but when coming up with the details for a conversion (or a whole new setting) where is the line between adding "just enough flavour" and "ruining the dish"?
Essentially, I'd like to get a general feel for what sort of "core" differences intrigue gamers vs. what drives them away .
How much modification and change to core rules, races, classes, spells, is too much? How much is too little?
Outside of actual rule mecahnics (Skill checks are a d20 vs. DC, feats grant character extra 'tricks', combat works like this, &c.) is it important that a setting remain closely aligned with what is in the core books, or is it, in fact, more desirable, for a setting to "break away" from these aspects of the core books?
Do you have any other thoughts on the topic?
Thanks for any and all responses.
Jenni
