Would you rather... (Game Style)

[Gilladian]

I prefer the second type campaign to the first; but with the caveat that it takes a good DM to do it well.

If the DM isn't really sharp on his skills, it can get old, or feel railroady, or be too limited.

However, if you think of it, that's what happens in most campaign settings that have a strong flavor. My campaign world has no paladins, no monks, no psionics, and a distinctive social setting, with expanded and modified races. It moves further from "typical" everything-included dnd all the time...

But my players seem to love it. So I think that if done well it can be very successful. If done poorly, I'd take the first style campaign over a restrictive, railroady mess any day.

 

[HoboGod]

Somewhat of a loaded question, option 1 is presented in a negative tone while option 2 is presented in a positive tone. In general, there has to be some theme to the adventure, option 1 does not occur in a dnd game without many elements of option 2.

If you're asking if I'd rather play a combat focused, character-driven world or a roleplay focused, campaign-driven world, I'd say option 1. However, I'd prefer to play a combat focused, campaign-driven world, a world where you still have a great deal of combat within a vivid setting. Limiting my choice of character concepts isn't a big deal, limiting spontaneous combat is unacceptable. Too often does my group want to play with limited combat and it seriously feels like they're not playing DnD, but rather they're hijacking the name of the game to play something else. Honestly, it takes 20 minutes to make a character and another 40 minutes to wait for everyone else to get done with their character because they need help or they are trying to diplomatically alter racial/class features. Then, after wasting an hour of my life, I slowly discover that none of what I did really matters because the character sheet is such an irrelevant part of the game. *angry face*

 

[erealspiller84]

Somewhat of a loaded question, option 1 is presented in a negative tone while option 2 is presented in a positive tone. In general, there has to be some theme to the adventure, option 1 does not occur in a dnd game without many elements of option 2.

If you're asking if I'd rather play a combat focused, character-driven world or a roleplay focused, campaign-driven world, I'd say option 1. However, I'd prefer to play a combat focused, campaign-driven world, a world where you still have a great deal of combat within a vivid setting. Limiting my choice of character concepts isn't a big deal, limiting spontaneous combat is unacceptable. Too often does my group want to play with limited combat and it seriously feels like they're not playing DnD, but rather they're hijacking the name of the game to play something else. Honestly, it takes 20 minutes to make a character and another 40 minutes to wait for everyone else to get done with their character because they need help or they are trying to diplomatically alter racial/class features. Then, after wasting an hour of my life, I slowly discover that none of what I did really matters because the character sheet is such an irrelevant part of the game. *angry face*

Good input. I wasn't trying to make the first option seem horrible. I was trying at a more sophisticated way of saying, "DM allows you to create whatever character you can imagine, and then everyone will play these modules that have nothing to do with each other.

In our current D&D clique, we are moving from a heavy combat oriented DM (Each encounter pretty much required rest afterwards, huff puff weeeeeze), to a more story driven DM (doesn't keep up with monster HP but just makes them keel over when he. thinks they had enough to "speed things along"). Ofcourse, the new DM is allowing all core books + completes for character builds. But this forum question is just hypothetical. Which extreme would you rather play.

I've heard some really great stories from other D&D circles. For instance, one group of 3+DM played a smurf campaign, don't quite recall the template they used for the smurf race though. They all spoke highly of the game.


A war campaign is also a good example. The Heroes of Battle book tells you that it's a much different game style and everyone should agree on it before playing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Would you rather...

---Play a dungeon-crawling, mission-hopping campaign with no real plot but complete character build freedom.

Or

---Play a limited setting, specific focus campaign (Monster Tribe, Assasins, Pirates, etc.), with reacurring plot themes and where characters need to be created to certain specifications or roles.

I'd play in either.

 

[radmod]

Neither.

I would rather play "a dungeon-crawling, mission-hopping campaign" with multiple "specific foc with reacurring plot themes and where characters" have at least some "character build freedom."

The problem with #1 is the "no plot" limitation. The problem with #2 is that players shouldn't have to be forced to play specific characters - it's not really role-playing if they are.
Of course, I pretty much design my worlds around my PCs so ...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

#2 is no less roleplaying than a game using pregens.

Sometimes, that kind of restriction is a liberating experience in and of itself. There was an art movement that started in NYC whose practitioners started off scrounging their materials from the refuse bins of more successful artists. The higher-ups figured this out and started manipulating the process by doing things like discarding only 7 different colors of yellow for a while, just to see what the youngsters would come up with.

Or how about this guy in the middle of nowhere who built his own electric guitar out of scrap, probably because he either couldn't afford one or they don't sell them where he lives. (See post #4.)

UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com - Most insane guitar shape

IOW, my take on it is not to view restrictions as a straightjacket but as a challenge.

 

[BENINHB]

The problem with #1 is the "no plot" limitation. The problem with #2 is that players shouldn't have to be forced to play specific characters - it's not really role-playing if they are.

Wait if you're assigned a specific role to play then it is not role-playing??

 

[baradtgnome]

It seems to me those are two ends of the spectrum, with lots of space in between for the game I would rather play. I would prefer a dungeon-crawling, mission-hopping campaign with multiple real plots and a high degree of character build freedom. Look, if the DM gives players an outline of what is needed to be successful and they choose otherwise then that is just part of the adventuring fun.

If I HAD to choose between the choices given.... my choice would be made based on which DM is more fun to play with. YMMV

 

[Jhaelen]

The problem with #1 is the "no plot" limitation. The problem with #2 is that players shouldn't have to be forced to play specific characters - it's not really role-playing if they are.

#1 having 'no plot' may actually be a good thing for groups who enjoy creating their own plots 'sandbox-style'.

If anything #2 _encourages_ roleplaying, because a player may have to portray a character archetype he would never have chosen otherwise. I think everyone knows players who, no matter what character they supposedly portray, just play themselves (or at least the fantasy image of themselves).

Personally, I'd prefer #2, with the caveat, that the theme and focus of the campaign has been chosen with the agreement of the players.

In my experience #1 style campaign tend to 'live' longer than #2 style campaigns, but that's not a (dis)advantage either way; it's just something to keep in mind.

 

[Summer-Knight925]

Would you rather play a Good vs. Evil setting? (Paladins out smiting everything in sight)

OR

Would you rather play a very dark 'grey' setting? (Mystery, evil never shows its face, or when it does its not very...how does one say...evil?)


AND

would you rather brave a ghoul infested city as a 1st level

OR

would you rather charge head first into a regiment of fire giants at 8th level?