Would You Play In This Campaign?

[crazy_cat]

I voted "Maybe, if I felt I could get along with the players/DM. " as that is the only criteria I'd base my decision on realistically.

Choice of DM/Players comes first - we can collectively agree rules/minor details afterwards.

 

[airwalkrr]

I voted "Maybe, if I felt I could get along with the players/DM. " as that is the only criteria I'd base my decision on realistically.

Choice of DM/Players comes first - we can collectively agree rules/minor details afterwards.

So you never game with random people?

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Well I actually never run these kind of games which is why I am thinking about trying. I typically run Greyhawk and am fairly draconian about what I allow. Plus, it is hard to drum up interest for a campaign locally when I say the criteria is that it is core rules only plus magic on incarnum. I might attract the one guy around here besides myself who owns magic of incarnum and no one else. Online is a different story, but online games are different for other reasons.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that your game would be a Hell of a lot more appealing to me if you didn't describe the game as generic.

A game that was described as "core non-magical classes, plus psionics, plus incarnum, plus Tome of Battle, no core races besides humans" would be a lot more interesting to me than a game which included everything in the core plus this other stuff, which will almost inevitably, as I said, become a footnote to the same old tired Tolkienesque concepts.

A new player joins, and because he has not had to endure pink ninja levels, he can try out a more effective build without actually surviving through those tough levels. The mystic theurge is a chief offender. It is not a broken class really, but built right it can be damn powerful. And to build it right you often have to make some sacrifices early on that limit your effectiveness at lower levels. The player gets the bonus of not having to deal with those levels and therefore I think a one level penalty, especially when he will be able to catch up later, is perfectly fair.

I thoroughly disagree. There is no argument I will accept for penalising another player's character just because they weren't in the game before now, or because their character died - way to make the newbie feel welcome! "Here, kid, you get to suck compared to us because you haven't been around through the hard times."

I just think that sort of thing is a relic of the times when people actually gave a damn that you'd been playing the same character for X many levels - some sort of member-measurement contest of gamer macho quotient. I'm much more interested in making sure that everyone at the table is having a good time and contributing to the game.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

So you never game with random people?

I never do.

The only game I've ever joined where I didn't already know all the players, at least casually, was Hong's Britannia campaign, and while that worked out well as far as I'm concerned I wouldn't do it again without knowing at least one player at least as well as I knew Hong.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Fairly wide range of default available books: ++
Tome of Battle and PHB II included for melee goodness: ++
Characters start at first level: ---
Generic Tolkienesque fantasy: ---
Elite array rather than point-buy: -
D&D rather than a system I like better, like d20 Modern: -

No 3rd party books allowed in any way? Flat-out no even if the rest were positive.

Other than that...

I'm neutral on the concept of spending action points to increase options, since adding more options does have the effect of subtly upping the power, but the costs are too high IMO.

I voted the first of the two Not Interested options, since the right variety of D&D would still interest me (and by this I mean Spelljammer, or maybe Dark Sun, using the RC or 3.5 rules).

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

Sounds a little too open for my tastes. I prefer campaigns with more definition, even it if means some severe character restrictions.

I guess I am just not a fan of "generic" worlds.

After 29 years of D&D I've had enough of "generic" worlds where every tavern looks like the STAR WARS cantina and the varied & sundry assortment of adventurers makes the game feel like a superhero game.

No thank you.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

i dont think the op ment generaic so much as "freeform" i could be wrong though.

that said, i wouldent play becuse starting not at level 1 would suck hardcore. No thank you, never again.

i dont mind tolkenesk d&d. I started playing with 3.5, and i love record of loddoss. yeah call it unimagnative, but i like it, and its why i play d&d. although, i have been itching for a ravenloft or beserk like setting lately. maybe something like chrono cross.