Trying again: What would it take to get _you_ to use core only?

[James McMurray]

Where's the "I'd do it without perks" option? We have core only campaign. Even had an XPH only campaign once.

 

[DreadArchon]

Oh, and before I forget again:

Wouldn't bonus feats and (especially) a free LA +1 make core less desirable, as such are benefitted most by wide selections?

 

[RigaMortus2]

Hmmm, if I had a choice between "Core Only +some other benefits" and "ALL BOOKS" I would have to say the latter. I like options, and there are just more options that way.

 

[mvincent]

I prefer to play core even without such enticements (in fact, I would likely turn down such enticements)... and I'm a chronic optimizer.

 

[Patlin]

If "core only" was the only available choice, I'd play. If I had to choose from more options versus a bonus, it'd have to be a decent bonus. I like my options.

Also, it's clear not everyone understands this poll the same way... if a 4 point buy bribe would be sufficient, surely an 8 point buy bribe would be even better. I understand the poll question to be "which of these possible bonuses would get you to seriously consider" and check all that would. Yet some chose 4 but not 8...

 

[kigmatzomat]

I prefer limited scope games, both as a player and GM. Now, I define core as the OGL books (PHB, DMG, XPH, MM) which IMO gives a wide range of casters and melees.

I'm not against the supplements per se but I do get irked when a new book has a new mechanic that doesn't obviously mesh with the generally held assumptions. I like the notion of balance and the feature creep is a pain. I'm likely to start ruling that if someone wants to add a particular supplement to their character then I get to choose an existing supplement that they don't have access to, to reflect "regional preferences."

You want to play the weird shadowmage from beyond the ocean? Okay but no complete arcane for you.

 

[mvincent]

I do get irked when a new book has a new mechanic that doesn't obviously mesh with the generally held assumptions. I like the notion of balance and the feature creep is a pain.

Adding new rules tends to slow the game. Being highly proficient with a trimmed set of rules not only makes games run more smoothly, it can ultimately make players more effective.

I don't believe a lack of supplements has ever prevented me from creating a character concept.

 

[wildstarsreach]

In Takasi's campaign, core is the standard penalties to taking books or items outside of that. You aren't given items to play core but must make sacrifices to play anything outside core. You don't have to look at it as incentives to play the base. You look at it as disincentives to play other than the base.

 

[3d6]

It depends. I don't think I could be enticed to play a core-only fighter, but a core-only wizard isn't set back much.

 

[wildstarsreach]

Adding new rules tends to slow the game. Being highly proficient with a trimmed set of rules not only makes games run more smoothly, it can ultimately make players more effective.

I don't believe a lack of supplements has ever prevented me from creating a character concept.

This is true as the making the concept and adherring to it is the fun. I played a fighter who was sub-optimal as other people would say who was only into medium armor, shield and focused on short sword/javelin fighting. He died at 3rd level but I had a lot of fun playing him. He could have took more effective weapons and armor but why do we have to play the same thing over and over again. He was loosely based on the Greek style of fighting and that was the challange.