Which campaing would you like to play in?

[Turanil]

I desperately want to play Dragonstar. I've run it, but no one ever wants to run the games or settings I want to play, so I end up running them myself. I'm in that situation with Call of Cthulhu as well.

I believe that most DMs do run the campaigns they would like to play in. I am pretty sure that my idea of this Dragonstar campaign wouldn't fit yours...

 

[Obscure]

"Glory Road" is the only one that seems interesting to me, personally (depending on what you mean by "all options on" --> all PHB options -- good, all 3.5e options -- bad).

 

[tek2way]

Thank you for the kind words. The Broken Circle was a campaign I ran for about 4-5 years using (modified) AD&D 2nd edition rules. And I ran the Last Emperor as an "in between" campaign for about 9 months last year. The players had a good time, which is the whole point.

If you don't mind, I'd like to "borrow" your Broken Circle campaign idea. Obviously, it's just a sentence, so I'd have to create most of it, but that really *IS* D&D I'd like to play.

Good time = the reason to play RPGs, IMO.

 

[tek2way]

I believe that most DMs do run the campaigns they would like to play in. I am pretty sure that my idea of this Dragonstar campaign wouldn't fit yours...

At the risk of derailing this post, let me say that what you said is absolutely true. Our core group of players has rotated DM/GM duties since we got started in 2000. The style of game the DM runs ALWAYS matched up with the way that person likes to play his characters. Even a perennial player ran once...and it was a non-stop Star Wars d20 shoot-'em-up from beginning to end (all nine long sessions). (You should see his characters.)

 

[Varianor Abroad]

I ran a Justice Inc campaign once. It went pretty well too, IMO.

I chose the Last Emperor. They all looked interesting, but Dragonstar is something new (to me) that still has an interesting fantasy element.

 

[tjoneslo]

Out of idle curiosity - are asking to determine what you should run for your group next, or because you were thinking of running an online game? Or just to see which idea is most popular?

Mostly to see what would be popular. Our Changeling Storyteller is going to be restaring her campaign by the end of August (crossed fingers). Like I said above, I ran The Broken Circle for a long time (I just found my two large notebooks with the campaign notes), and recently was running The Last Emperor. I'm not sure I could convince my group of players to be a part of the other ones however. If I come up with any other brilliant ideas I'll try and pass them along.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm a little bit surprised at the immediate bad reaction of using 3.5 with options turned on. I get the impression that people are claiming that "options turned on with exceptions as noted" is not popular while "options turned off with exceptions as noted" is.

I mean, lets assume for a minute that yes, egregiously whacky or unbalanced character concepts are not going to be allowed in either scenario, is that still the case that people prefer less options to more? Or is the main complaint just the possibility of the "bad character?"

As anyone who pays attention to my posting habits has probably noted, I am a bit tired of the "D&Disms" in D&D, so I'm actually quite a bit more interested in new races and classes than I am in the Core ones. But I imagine that I'm at one end of a spectrum where I'm standing pretty much alone. I did think that having more options available was pretty much a popular and highly regarded perk of D&D/d20 these days though.

 

[radferth]

They all sound better than the last two games I played in (I usually DM). I voted for the glory one, as door-kicking dungeon crawls with a good DM are some of my favorites. OTOH, any campaign with a head villian named Mezabone can't be all bad. The only points I found off-putting in any of the games are the use of GURPS in the first one and the R-rating in the sword point. I have had only very limited exposure to GURPS, but every time I have played, all the combats have devolved into an endless series of called shots to the head. As for the R rating, I have no problem role-playing in a campaign where my character is going to have "realations", but that is as much detail as I would care to go into around a gaming table.

 

[Shadowdancer]

I'm a little bit surprised at the immediate bad reaction of using 3.5 with options turned on. I get the impression that people are claiming that "options turned on with exceptions as noted" is not popular while "options turned off with exceptions as noted" is.

I mean, lets assume for a minute that yes, egregiously whacky or unbalanced character concepts are not going to be allowed in either scenario, is that still the case that people prefer less options to more? Or is the main complaint just the possibility of the "bad character?"

As anyone who pays attention to my posting habits has probably noted, I am a bit tired of the "D&Disms" in D&D, so I'm actually quite a bit more interested in new races and classes than I am in the Core ones. But I imagine that I'm at one end of a spectrum where I'm standing pretty much alone. I did think that having more options available was pretty much a popular and highly regarded perk of D&D/d20 these days though.

I don't mind playing a D&D game with options beyond the Core books. I have played in and DMed in sevearl. I would mind playing in a game in which all options are open, which I take to mean (which might not be a valid interpretation for anyone else but me) that even future options will be approved and added at player and/or DM whim. That can seriously derail a campaign.

If the DM and the players all sit down and agree on which options are going to be used at the start of the campaign, and the available options all make sense within the setting, or even if they are included just because they will be fun and aren't seriously unbalanced, then I would have no problem participating in that campaign.

But if you have players bringing in seriousl overpowered races, classes, prestige classes, skills, feats, spells, equipment, etc. for some obscure d20 supplement no one else, not even the DM, has heard of and it makes their characters into uberpowered munchkin wet dreams, then I would not want to participate in that campaign.

 

[Odhanan]

I like the Broken Circle, but D&D stripped from all kinds of options repulses me greatly. I hate when the DM(s) is trying to frame my creativity because he's scared of what I could do with the PHB.

So I'd go with Dragonstar.