Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Trench_Raider 09-09-07, 01:18 PM	Do you all send out a "rules sheet" to your players before hand detailing the setting, character creation conventions, and what you expect of them as players? I'm starting a new campaign at the end of the month and have emailed my players with the following: D&D Campaign, Rules and Guidelines Purpose:: This document will give a brief outline of the D&D campaign that I will be running at my house starting at the end of September or first part of October. It will list the background, tone of the campaign, character creation conventions, and what is expected of players. What to expect: I hope to run this campaign one session a month. Due to existing commitments with another group, the projected time frame for this game will toward the of each month. Be aware that with the opening of the WW2 reenacting season, coming at about the same time, it is impossible to set a hard date for each game day and these will fluxuate from month to month depending on the DM's reenactment commitments and other factors. I will notify the players at the very least several weeks out with a firm date for each session. At this time, I am capping the size of the group to the DM and six players. This cap may be raised depending on player interest and the logistics of the area we are playing in. The playstyle of the campaign will be action oriented. Expect to do alot of fighting and good old fashioned dungeon crawling. Actual role playing in interacting with NPCs in towns and non-combat situtations is encouraged and expected. I don't expect anyone to stay in RP mode the whole time, but this game is about more than just combat and min-max character building. Players who engage in active role playing will be awared a nominal XP bonus at the end of each session. Finally, the overall pupose of this game is to have fun...for both the players and the DM. Keep this in mind when attending. If you are a munchkin, a power gaming freak, or just plain old argumenative, please check these behaviors at the door. I'm no petty tyrant, but keep in mind that the DM has the final say in any rules disputes. I make it a practice of listening to players, but in the interest of keeping the action rolling along I cannot allow long and drawn out arguments over things like (to grab an example at semirandom) interpretations of spell wordings. If a rules dispute looks like it will last more than a few minutes, and a quick reading of the relavant rules section does not clear things up, I will make a ruling based upon common sense, game balance, and my experience and roll with it from there. There is planty of time to sit down and discuss things at a later time. In the middle of a heated encounter is not that time. Background: The campaign will be set in the traditonal D&D setting of Greyhawk. Deities, religions, races, and source material geared toward the "generic D&D" setting as detailed in the core books are considered valid. Setting specific items and source material (for example Forgotten Realms, Eberon, etc) are not permitted. The action of campiagn will begin at a small border town/garrison (population aproxmately 4000 humans and a small number of demihumans) along the Western border of the Shield Lands and the area controlled by the Horned Society....that is to say around hex 109/B4 on the old Greyhawk world map. Players in previous campaigns I have run, as well as long time D&D players, will remember this as being the "Keep on the Borderlands" of module B2 fame. At the time of the begining of the campaign, the nearby Caves of Chaos have alreay been cleared by another group of aventurers, however. The overall "tone" of this campaign will be "traditional". I am trying to acheive the feel of a traditional AD&D campaign, while retaining the flexibility and mechanics of the Edition 3.5 mechanics. I expect to run a mixture of home-grown material and converted AD&D modules, mixed with a smattering of new produced material. Character Creation Conventions: Each player will be limited to a single player character. During the course of the campaign, I expect to change out the role of DM with another player from time to time. To this end I will create a character as well. This character may or may not acompany the the party, depending on need and numbers. However, the DM's PC will be treated as a hireling under the direction of the PCs during play. At no time, will he/she be used to give the party tips, encourage the party to perform certain actions, or otherwise direct gameplay. Character selection will be limited to the core races as detailed in the Player's Handbook. ie Human, Elf, Dwarf, ect... Well established variations and subraces of the core races (for example wood elf as oposed to the generic elf) are pefectly acceptable. Monster character races of any sort are definate no-go. It has been my experience that most people who choose to play monster race characters choose to do so, due to the benefits of playing a "half-fiend, half-dragon, celestial vampire" rather than for the challenge of RPing an unusual character. They also can be real game breakers and fly in the face of the traditional tone I am attempting to estabish. Thus, no non-core races. The edition 3.5 Kinder-like halflings are derived from non-traditonal sources. Therefore all Halflings in this campaign (both PC and NPC) will be considered to resemble the traditional Hobbit based prototype both pysically and in their culture and background. The rules for statistics and racial abilities will remain the same. Any of the character classes from the Player's Handbook are acceptable. Other core classes from other non-setting specific sources will be accepted on a case by case basis. Ask me before you roll up a non-Player's Handbook classed character. In any event, core classes and traditional fantasy conventions are strongly encouraged. The same can be said of prestige classes..some will simply not be available due to the Grayhawk setting. Characters may be of any alignment, although non-evil characters are encouraged. Players chosing to ignore this sugestion, should keep in mind that evil characters will find themselves in unfomfortable situations if their behavior causes trouble. Characters will be created using the RPGA "32 point" tournement stat creation system. Let me know if you need a copy of these point values. No character may start with an umodifyed stat higher than 18 or lower than 8. Non-human stat bonus and minuses may modify these numbers up or down up to two points. As per the Player's handbook, initial starting hit points will be at max level, but every level after that will be rolled for. Any "one" rolled at this time may be rerolled, but any other number must stand. Characters starting money with be 75% of the maximum permitted on page 111 of the Player's Handbook. Players may pre-purchase any gear they can afford, but are strongly encouraged not to buy any expendable items like food, or adventuring gear like rope as shopping is an amusing part of the role playing experience. Players are permitted and encouraged to create their characters before the game at home. However, I will give each character that was not created in my pressence a quick look before approving them for use in the campaign. This should not be seen as a lack of trust of the players but a safeguard against honest mistakes being made. Finally, players entering the campaign late, those who have characters who die and are not ress'd or otherwise brought back, and those who simply want to change out characters for whatever reason are permitted to bring in an advanced replacement character. These replacement characters will be created at a player level one class level below the average of the party at the end of the last game session. That is to say if the average character level is five, any replacement characters will enter at level four. Replacement characters will start with the minimum experience points required to attain their current level, but with the starting gear and money of a first level character. Death and indecision should have a negative effect, but on the other hand I'm not going to saddle a group of higher level characters with the burden of looking after a fresh level one character. In conclusion, I'm looking forward to hosting you all in my upcoming campaign. if you have any questions or sugestions feel free to email me at ...*snipped for privacy* How does that sound? Would you play in this campaign as it is outlined now? Am I too controlling/restrictive? Do you do something similar? "Trench Raider"
LFK 09-09-07, 02:09 PM	I would play your game, but I'm also inclined away from the "half-dragon, half-fiend celestial vampire" character type too.
Trench_Raider 09-09-07, 02:23 PM	I would play your game, but I'm also inclined away from the "half-dragon, half-fiend celestial vampire" character type too. Hehehe...yeah tell me about it. I'm horrified at some of the stuff I read here in the "character optimization" and "races" forums. As a traditionalist, stuff like that simply goes againts my grain. When running my games, I tend to ask myself one question: WWGD (what Would Gygax Do)? "Trench Raider"
ZapRowsdower 09-09-07, 02:58 PM	The tone of the message is a little formal; I get the feeling that you're going to be a little uptight. You do seem to know what you're doing though (especially about the possible DM PC (god I hate when those know everything)), so I would probably play your game. I understand the frustration of dealing with "wacky races" and like to play normal ones myself though. The edition 3.5 Kinder-like halflings are derived from non-traditional sources. Therefore all Halflings in this campaign (both PC and NPC) will be considered to resemble the traditional Hobbit based prototype both physically and in their culture and background. The rules for statistics and racial abilities will remain the same. So they look more gnome-y than childish? I don't see how this specific a warning is needed; I mean, if a player decides to be a halfling and then mentions his hut, are you going to correct him and say he lives in a hobbit hole? Is this even important? Players may pre-purchase any gear they can afford, but are strongly encouraged not to buy any expendable items like food, or adventuring gear like rope as shopping is an amusing part of the role playing experience. This seems a little heavy handed; I would just mention that there would be an opportunity to purchase perishables and adventuring gear (rope) and leave it at that. I disagree that shopping for rope is a fun and necessary part of roleplaying. :P
Some_call_me_Tim 09-09-07, 03:32 PM	A few things caught my eye. I would be hesitant to start a campaign without a set day. I know that my be impossible for you, but I've find as many campaigns killed due to an unstable schedule as I have due to players (or DMs) being tools. Just a personal observation. I don't think you mention what happens in the case of no-shows with regard to xp, gold, items, and the like. I also hate campaigns that allow evil alignments as they just tend to lead to player disputes. (I'm not trying to state argument about can it be, has it been done, how it can be done, or whatever--I've just seen vastly more games ruined by alignment squabbles than improved by them) All-in-all only minor little quibbles until: "Replacement characters will start with the minimum experience points required to attain their current level, but with the starting gear and money of a first level character." To take your example of a fourth-level character, they should have 5,400 gp in wealth at that level. A couple of hundred gold isn't gonna cut it. They will not only be a level down, but not have the equipment they need. They will be a liability on the party. Also a character being raised typically comes back at the mid-point of level below. While this may discourage PC swapping, it also affects those that can't or don't want to raise a character. I don't think your rules would keep me from playing, but I would probably bring up those points before agreeing to play. Are you using any house rules that we need to know about?
Trench_Raider 09-09-07, 07:48 PM	ZapRowsdower: The tone of the message is a little formal; I get the feeling that you're going to be a little uptight. My writing style does ten to be a bit formal. I don't consider myself to be uptight, but others might disagree. I don't see how this specific a warning is needed; I mean, if a player decides to be a halfling and then mentions his hut, are you going to correct him and say he lives in a hobbit hole? Is this even important? It's not important in the big picture. But it does reflect my own personal opinions. I understand the legal reasons that WoTC got away from the Hobbit style halflings with the advent of 3rd edition. But as a traditionalist I reject that and have never applied it to my games. But yes. It is a minor point. I disagree that shopping for rope is a fun and necessary part of roleplaying. Hehe...then you have never had a DM do a really interesting shopping experience for you! :D Some_call_me_Tim: I would be hesitant to start a campaign without a set day. I know that my be impossible for you, but I've find as many campaigns killed due to an unstable schedule as I have due to players (or DMs) being tools. Just a personal observation. I don't think you mention what happens in the case of no-shows with regard to xp, gold, items, and the like. It has never had an adverse effect in the past. I plan on attempting to keep the game on the last weekend of the month, but the opening of the reenactment season means that I may have to adjust and just decided to keep things open. I have keep my priorities straight, and dressing up like a German panzergrenadier and shooting blanks at people certainly takes priority! ;) As for no-shows, the rule is simple: they loose out on exp, loot, and the fun of the session for that night. I can work out any number of storyline reasons why they had to bow out. I didn't think that a set policy was needed. But this is just a draft of my guikdelines, and may add something to this at a later date. I also hate campaigns that allow evil alignments as they just tend to lead to player disputes You point is well taken. However you will note I strongly discourage folks from taking evil alignments. However if they choose to do so, they are welcome to it. They just have to accept that they are going to have a hard road to travel at times. I'm an experienced enough DM (playing on and off since 1980) that I can handle a disruptive player. To take your example of a fourth-level character, they should have 5,400 gp in wealth at that level. A couple of hundred gold isn't gonna cut it. They will not only be a level down, but not have the equipment they need. They will be a liability on the party. Also a character being raised typically comes back at the mid-point of level below. While this may discourage PC swapping, it also affects those that can't or don't want to raise a character. I diagree that a player with lvl one starting gold and a level four character is going to be that much of a liability. First off, I'm pretty stingy with magical loot and rarely allow players to have access to "made to order" magic items aside from the very basic stuff. (healing potions, low level scrolls, etc) I tend to shake my head at the idea of widespread "Diablo" like magic weapon shops that other DMs seem to put in their games if these forums are any indication. Moreover, any group worth it's salt is going to pass along some of it's spare cash and extra unsold loot to any new member that is in need of a little gear. I don't think it's going to be an issue. Are you using any house rules that we need to know about? Nope. "Trench Raider"
BillTheManiac 09-09-07, 08:59 PM	Trying to imagine an interesting shopping experience. How?
ZapRowsdower 09-09-07, 09:53 PM	Trying to imagine an interesting shopping experience. How? What I imagined was an "interesting" shopping experience where your stuff gets stolen by annoying pickpockets and you have to go to 4 places to get the supplies you wanted or nobody wants to sell to you for some reason. At least, that's what I've experienced as "interesting shopping experience." ;)
LFK 09-09-07, 10:10 PM	Trying to imagine an interesting shopping experience. How? Non-combat skills. Vivid descriptions of interesting things you find in the shop that you didn't know you could buy. Maybe the shopkeeper haggles with you to buy stuff you don't really need, like a really, really cool looking hat that's all the fashion. Hell, your incredulity has given me all kinds of ideas for how to make a shopping trip interesting. Say the PC buys the hat, because he figures "why not", gets the rope, leaves the store, then a passing maiden makes a comment about the dashing hat before hiding behind her fan. Bam, that's a in-game reward just as fulfilling as XP, if not more so: fantasy fulfillment.
LFK 09-09-07, 10:21 PM	I diagree that a player with lvl one starting gold and a level four character is going to be that much of a liability. First off, I'm pretty stingy with magical loot and rarely allow players to have access to "made to order" magic items aside from the very basic stuff. (healing potions, low level scrolls, etc) I tend to shake my head at the idea of widespread "Diablo" like magic weapon shops that other DMs seem to put in their games if these forums are any indication. Moreover, any group worth it's salt is going to pass along some of it's spare cash and extra unsold loot to any new member that is in need of a little gear. I don't think it's going to be an issue.I like your campaign even more. I'm personally brainstorming ways to make magic items more special and less integral. I hate the stat creep that they create when it becomes assumed that the players are wearing armor, so creature BAB is boosted to counter the armor, then players need to get +1 armor, then creatures are boosted to negate the +1 so they need to get +2... One of the biggest things that this does is makes armor choices heavily polarized: you either wear lots or none. If you wear lots then you hope that in some way you can convince your DM to attack you (as a tank) instead of being all "oh, my creatures are smart, they all pincushion your wizard on the first round and are going to attack you last because you're wearing plate and carrying a shield." If you don't wear lots and lots then there's no point in wearing any since the creatures are all balanced round getting past the AC of a decked out fighter with magic gear.
Kouk 09-09-07, 11:15 PM	Overall, I would not want to play in the campaign as presented. Since you have submitted this for critique, I will try to do just that, and cite any minor problems I have with the document. I don't know you as a person, I will just comment on how the document reads to me. I will attempt to comment on the information in the order it is presented. Also, I do not know who the intended recipients of this are. Are they your long-time friends? Do they already expect all this kind of information (is it a plus for them?), or are you sending it out to people you have never met? I can only approach this from the point of view of someone you have not met or don't know well. Firstly, spell check should be run before sending anything out. It is a minor step and is often automatic in today's word processor programs. If you are sending out a semi-official document, having it free from spelling and grammatical errors is just good practice. Information about meeting times: This is very "iffy" to me, and sounds like you are forfeiting responsibility on when the meetings will actually take place. To me, it reads as "Maybe we will get to play once a month, maybe not at all". Which may be what you are saying. I also find it unnecessary to tell people what your other engagements are, as it is not especially important that you will be doing war reenactments. I also get the impression that if you know in advance what the reenactments are and where they will be, you should have some way of knowing the schedules of such events and can at least make a preliminary schedule for your games? I am not familiar with the war reenactment scene myself so maybe there are no schedules as such... Capping Size: That is fine, I suppose. I don't quite understand what you mean by, "This cap may be raised depending on player interest and the logistics of the area we are playing in." Don't you know where your game will be? You mentioned it is at your house (I presume the people you are emailing know where that is?). Campaign Playstyle: "Action-oriented" seems almost contradictory to roleplaying. When I think "action-oriented" I think hack-and-slash slugfest in dungeons, with not much story. However, you mention here (and later in the post) that RP is a significant part of the game (especially requiring people to shop around for bargains as "part of the fun") and that there are XP awards for roleplaying. This section seems very contradictory if you intend to have a heavy RP experience for otherwise "menial" tasks such as buying rope and rations. Perhaps it would be better to just say you will try to have a balance between fighting and RP situations? "Finally the overall purpose": I would not recommend this paragraph to be sent to people you do not know, and if you do know them already then it would be unnecessary to state these things. It is hard to define "munchkin" for one thing, and it is also hard to define those other points. I think it may be better to say that you will accept brief rules challenges, but that the DM's rulings are final during the session, and you are open to more in-depth rules challenges between sessions. Background: Some of the way you have worded this seems like it would scare off newer players, even those who are just not familiar with 1980s AD&D. I don't know if this is your goal or not. You did not actually mention the name of this border town. I would definitely leave out the information about the precise hex coordinates, that seems like too much - not all that many people have retained that particular map through the years for it to even have meaning. Are you planning on actually running the Keep on the Borderlands, or just having your campaign start near where that module was set? This is a bit confusing to me. "The overall "tone" of this campaign will be "traditional". I am trying to achieve the feel of a traditional AD&D campaign, while retaining the flexibility and mechanics of the Edition 3.5 mechanics. I expect to run a mixture of home-grown material and converted AD&D modules, mixed with a smattering of new produced material." I do not know what you mean by this. "Traditional AD&D" does not have an inherent meaning in this context, at least to me. When I think of AD&D, I think of very complicated rules that deal with minutiae, with several different names for polearms that are otherwise mechanically identical. The rules versions are similar in some ways, and not in others. You seem to actually mean that you will be running more old-fashioned adventures, converting those published during the heyday of AD&D? I still am unsure of the exact differences besides the rules mechanics and the sometimes simplistic premises, and low production values of the booklets, but it would probably produce a more "retro" feel. What do you mean exactly by "new produced content"? I assume it means you are homebrewing items, rules or monsters? Character Creation: What exactly do you mean you expect to switch out being the DM? Do you have someone already lined up for this, or are you going to ask for volunteers? This doesn't seem like the best way to introduce a campaign, saying "I will start DMing, but then someone else will have to do it sometimes". "Monster character races of any sort are definate no-go. It has been my experience that most people who choose to play monster race characters choose to do so, due to the benefits of playing a "half-fiend, half-dragon, celestial vampire" rather than for the challenge of RPing an unusual character. They also can be real game breakers and fly in the face of the traditional tone I am attempting to estabish. Thus, no non-core races." I would omit this entire passage. It is enough to simply state that only the core races and certain related racial variants in the MM will be allowed - the rest of it may be construed as mildly insulting to anyone who had the desire to play a templated character or a monstrous character in the past or in the future. You don't especially need a reason, you are the DM. Character class availability is fine to regulate. I don't think it serves well to disallow classes based on the setting though, because pretty much all of them can easily be integrated into any setting. You say "traditional fantasy conventions", but this is still a phrase that can be open to interpretation. Perhaps just saying "Tolkien-esque" would be more to the point. I think it is asking for trouble to allow evil alignments when you clearly don't want to. The part about alignment reads to me like, "You shouldn't play evil, but if you really want to I won't stop you. If you act evil though, you will probably be arrested or killed." Is there a difference between the normal 32 point buy system and the RPGA system? Otherwise you seem to be summarizing the point buy system, which may be necessary depending on your intended audience. "Characters starting money with be 75% of the maximum permitted on page 111 of the Player's Handbook." What exactly do you mean? Should players roll for starting wealth and then determine 75% of that, or just take 75% of the maximum possible starting wealth? I don't think it is good to tell them not to buy certain things because you think it would be fun to RP going to the store to buy rations. You may just end up with people not buying standard items and then forgetting once the game starts, and then you have unprepared characters. I feel that restricting new characters to the wealth of a level 1 character is foolish and unnecessarily harsh. This is not so bad if we are talking level 2 or 3 characters, but the difference is tremendous at anything higher than that. The rules assume that characters are properly equipped, the 3.5 rule system is very heavily reliant on magic items to maintain balance for most classes. Bringing in a new character that is effectively naked and unarmed is just asking for another death, or else penalizing the rest of the party by requiring them to outfit each new member (unless they just give the old equipment to the new member, but that may not always fit). My impression of this campaign as you have outlined it, is of an older DM looking to run an "old-fashioned" campaign that strictly limits supplements but attempts to use the 3.5 core rules. The campaign may meet somewhat randomly once a month, so there will be very little actual play-time. I'm not saying that is bad, just that it is what I get from it. I think you should mention explicitly that you like a low-wealth, low-magic campaign. You should also say how long you think each session might be. I think this sort of style would be fine if you are just sending it to your friends, but it won't help much to bring in new players.
LFK 09-09-07, 11:38 PM	"Monster character races of any sort are definate no-go. It has been my experience that most people who choose to play monster race characters choose to do so, due to the benefits of playing a "half-fiend, half-dragon, celestial vampire" rather than for the challenge of RPing an unusual character. They also can be real game breakers and fly in the face of the traditional tone I am attempting to estabish. Thus, no non-core races." I would omit this entire passage. It is enough to simply state that only the core races and certain related racial variants in the MM will be allowed - the rest of it may be construed as mildly insulting to anyone who had the desire to play a templated character or a monstrous character in the past or in the future. You don't especially need a reason, you are the DM. Just a note: most of the people drawn to these want a lot more justification from the GM than "Banned". If your party is Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Half-dragon/Half-fiend Celestial Vampire Binder then I think the stage is going to be a little uneven. If what you say is even as simple as "the rest of the party is playing core classes/races" then the likely response is "that's there problem for not knowing how to make a good character."
Kouk 09-10-07, 02:34 AM	Just a note: most of the people drawn to these want a lot more justification from the GM than "Banned". If your party is Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Half-dragon/Half-fiend Celestial Vampire Binder then I think the stage is going to be a little uneven. If what you say is even as simple as "the rest of the party is playing core classes/races" then the likely response is "that's there problem for not knowing how to make a good character." You don't have to say "banned", they are just not an option for that campaign. Regardless of the justification used (which you really don't need to give much of), I think the way it is worded in the original proposal is slightly confrontational towards players with those interests.