Which campaing would you like to play in?

[Desdichado]

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.

It sounds a bit like you're answering my question without answering my question. I specifically said that I assume that of course any uberpowered munchkin wet dreams would be excluded.

I guess I'm just a bit surprised. There seems to be a vibe in this thread that folks are scared of options, and exceptionally wary, whereas my POV is to give them the benefit of the doubt unless they're obviously badly designed. Like I said, wasn't the explosion of available options supposed to be one of the big selling points of using the d20/D&D system in the first place?

 

[tjoneslo]

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.

This attitude confuses me. I may be reading this wrong. Are you saying you won't play in a game unless you can play your idea of a characterr, even if it is totally inapproprate for the campaign?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

This attitude confuses me. I may be reading this wrong. Are you saying you won't play in a game unless you can play your idea of a characterr, even if it is totally inapproprate for the campaign?

I can't speak for Odhanan, but for my part, I'll say that I'm lucky enough to live in a part of the world rich enough with campaigns that I can and do exactly that.

If a DM wanted to force me into a "classic D&D archetype," I'd likely walk, yes. I could find a game I like better, say HERO or True20 or SilCore or d20 Modern, or a D&D game that allowed me to enjoy the wealth of fun options other d20 designers have come up with; unless the limited D&D game offered the promise of a truly extraordinary DM and fellow players, why should I bother with a game I'd almost certainly enjoy less?

 

[burnrate]

I like bits of each, but the first and last are best. I seldom enjoy all options on games and like a mix of combat and roleplaying. I really don't like the save the world and gather the pieces games, they've been done to death. I voted for the last one. Hopefully there are bits of rogue work, spy work, intruige, and some combat mixed in.

 

[Pants]

They all sound fun.... except the first one. However, I picked 'Broken Circle' and 'Glory Road.' 'Swordspoint' may have gotten a vote if maybe it was Rated R for Violence and not Sex. Not that I'm a prude or anything, but that's just not my thing. The 'no magic' part does little to help it either.

 

[Shadowdancer]

It sounds a bit like you're answering my question without answering my question. I specifically said that I assume that of course any uberpowered munchkin wet dreams would be excluded.

I guess I'm just a bit surprised. There seems to be a vibe in this thread that folks are scared of options, and exceptionally wary, whereas my POV is to give them the benefit of the doubt unless they're obviously badly designed. Like I said, wasn't the explosion of available options supposed to be one of the big selling points of using the d20/D&D system in the first place?

I was just trying to explain my original choice. In the original description of the Glory Road campaign, no stipulation was made that uberpowered munchkin wet dreams would be excluded. It said all options were on. So I wouldn't want to play in that sort of campaign.

I'm not afraid of the expanded options of 3.x/d20. In fact, I really like many of the options. In 2E, we used the skills and options supplement extensively, and that's sort of what we are used to, choices beyond the Core books. I also am willing to give options the benefit of the doubt unless they are badly designed, or unbalanced for the campaign, or inappropriate for the campaign without making it more fun.

But I wouldn't want to play in a campaign in which the players had carte blanche to run anything they wanted.

 

[Desdichado]

If a DM wanted to force me into a "classic D&D archetype," I'd likely walk, yes. I could find a game I like better, say HERO or True20 or SilCore or d20 Modern, or a D&D game that allowed me to enjoy the wealth of fun options other d20 designers have come up with; unless the limited D&D game offered the promise of a truly extraordinary DM and fellow players, why should I bother with a game I'd almost certainly enjoy less?

I agree with that 100%. I'm tired of the elf wizard, the dwarf fighter, etc. Maybe we just don't have the complete picture, but I fail to see why they are so integral to the campaign set-up that you only use half the PHB, to say nothing of the Races of XXX or Complete YYY books? Further, to say nothing of the many other products I have?

I'm used to playing in a mode that sorta defaults to "options on, subject to DM approval." If I want to play a shifter hexblade with traits from UA, I tend to pursue that option--checking with the GM of course, but pretty much expecting that it'll be allowed.

And yes, I probably would walk from the campaign unless 1) one of my really good friends were running it, 2) I trusted him to make a good game in spite of my distaste of the restrictions and 3) the campaign was to be short-lived.

 

[tjoneslo]

If a DM wanted to force me into a "classic D&D archetype," I'd likely walk, yes. I could find a game I like better, say HERO or True20 or SilCore or d20 Modern, or a D&D game that allowed me to enjoy the wealth of fun options other d20 designers have come up with; unless the limited D&D game offered the promise of a truly extraordinary DM and fellow players, why should I bother with a game I'd almost certainly enjoy less?

Ahhh, enlignetment strikes. And an idea for another poll...