Too many ingredients make the soup flavorless?

[Vanion]

@ Terradave

Honestly, just stow it. FFS, you've already linked your website. The point's been made, anyone interested has already seen it - stop pimping your damn setting. You're not the only one here with original material, but at least have the good taste to understand that there is a time and a place for everything, and that you are acting like nothing more than a shameless whore right now.

@ Li Shenron

True enough, the level capping based on class (rather than a hard XP value or a designated level) was incredibly silly. It was at a stage that my campaigns rarely got to anyway, but that's entirely beside the point.

It all comes down to whether you'd rather add rules or remove rules. There are a ton that I threw out of 2e for no other reason than because they added nothing to the game either mechanically or for a roleplaying perspective. There were a few I trimmed from 3.x, but much fewer, and I ended up converting or adding as I pleased instead. Personally, I'd rather have something closer to a "tabula rasa" to work with than have to snip out someone else's work to get myself back to square one and THEN add in what I like. Meh, it gets you to the same place eventually.

 

[TerraDave]

@ Terradave

Honestly, just stow it. FFS, you've already linked your website. The point's been made, anyone interested has already seen it - stop pimping your damn setting. You're not the only one here with original material, but at least have the good taste to understand that there is a time and a place for everything, and that you are acting like nothing more than a shameless whore right now.

Impressive

 

[Dinkeldog]

Vanion, a more proper response would be to put TerraDave on your ignore list. Please don't call out other users.

 

[sniffles]

Perhaps part of the problem stems from seeing the PCs as indicative of the make-up the world?

If PCs are meant to be a typical cross-section of their society, then, yes I would guess that it would make some societies seem seriously weird! But if the PCs are simply the special folks to whom adventure happens, then their races and classes tell you little about the world.

In other words, following the latter path, it's up the DM to emphasise the stereotypes of the campaign setting. Perhaps that PC elven paladin will never meet another such paladin; perhaps in this world almost all paladins are human. Don't underestimate the DM's power to create the illusion desired.

That's an excellent point, and one that's sometimes hard to keep in mind. The PCs are not the average people in their world, and hence don't fit the mold for an average member of their race.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I like the options and lack of restrictions that 3E brings to the table. However, depending on the setting the DM should feel free to put any resctrictions on what is used and how the rules are used to fit the feel they are trying to portray. I played in a campaign that allowed a wide variety of races and classes, but there were class restrictions based on the race of the character. After a time, depending on what happened in game, an orc could eventually become a paladin, but they would need a good in-game roleplaying reason to do so.

That said, I know that a setting that throws in everything can be done. It takes work to make the world feel real and original rather than simply just a "grey goop." A lot of imagination is needed, and that type of setting wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea, but with the right person it is possible.

Kane

 

[kigmatzomat]

I think the problem is people using all the "grey goop" as written, flavor text and all. Make changes! You've got a setting and it provides the main flavor, not the other supplements!

In my DL-based game I've restricted some PrCs to certain races, continents, religions, or nationalities to stay within the fundamental feel of the setting. Warmasters are a branch of the Knights of Solamnia, arcane archers are only elves, Master Samurai are the praetorian guard in the Minotaur League, Forsakers are primarily a race of thaumivores, etc, etc.

The net result is that my setting feels like my setting, changed from what I originally envisioned perhaps but with it's own internal logic.

Sometimes that means some classes cease to be appealing ("I have to worship who?!?") or are unavailable to PCs. C'est la vie; you can't always get what you want.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Using everything as written without making changes to make it truly yours is silly, IMO. It can be done, but it would feel disjointed.

IMC, I use stuff from all sorts of sources from baseline D&D to Everquest to AE to Warcraft. Everything has a place. Much of the background information for some of the races has been changed, and I only use the best version (from my perspective) of each of the races and classes as opposed to having several different varieties of wood elves and a three different scout classes. I make a place where they fit into the grand, and admittedly too complex framework of the setting. It works for me and those that have played in one incarnation of the setting or another.

Kane

 

[jmucchiello]

I guess I must disagree since there were never restrictions in games I played. I was an elven cleric and a dwarven mage in 1e. My bard/druid was awesome in 2e. And I sure to do miss my brownie fighter (with girdle of storm giant strength) from a 2e game (I pick up the half-ogre (a pc) and throw him across the gorge to the other side...)

3e is nothing new in my gaming, just a bit more codified. Less restrictions merely means fewer house rules.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I guess I must disagree since there were never restrictions in games I played. I was an elven cleric and a dwarven mage in 1e. My bard/druid was awesome in 2e. And I sure to do miss my brownie fighter (with girdle of storm giant strength) from a 2e game (I pick up the half-ogre (a pc) and throw him across the gorge to the other side...)

3e is nothing new in my gaming, just a bit more codified. Less restrictions merely means fewer house rules.

I'm not sure if this was directed to me or not, but I'll respond anyway.

When I said it was silly to use all sorts of sources in the same game without making changes as silly, I was referring mostly to not changing any background info. Use all you want, but by making changes, even minor changes, to how the various rules and background information relate to one another makes for a more cohesive game.

Kane (Who runs a kitchen sink setting)

 

[RFisher]

I'm a fairly recent convert to the "more options (or less restrictions) doesn't necessarily make a better game" school of thought. It is often true, though. Would chess be a better game if every piece could move & capture like a queen?

That said, one of my all-time favorite campaigns was a GURPS campaign in which the GM let every player invent his own race via Fantasy Folk.

With D&D, I tend towards a compromise. I tend to stick to the core, but I'm open to whatever a player might want to try. Though, I may impose a trade-off for allowing something non-core in.