Humans only in the sandbox [PEACH] - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Humans only in the sandbox [PEACH]

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
The_Harlequin
Sep 24, 2008 21:33:59 I plan on starting a sandbox game using Points of Light. The opposite of a cosmopolitan campaign world, the players will drive the game from their home city-state with no over-arching DM-driven metaplot. PCs will have backgrounds that help the DM work-in events to help drive their characters along vis-à-vis character development, but that’s it. The players determine where they go.

So, in keeping with a more provincial and grittier theme, I’m seriously considering restricting the players to human PCs and allowing only martial classes (fighter, rogue, ranger, warlord) and the wizard. The Gods Are Dead, so there’s no divine power to be had. There are no cartoon characters here, only men.

Does this sound like an appealing game to play? Would folks still have fun bringing things down to earth? Would they still have fun in the long-term?
#2
space_dragon
Sep 24, 2008 23:08:29 I've played this sort of game before. It can be every bit as fun as a "standard" DnD campaign, as long as you do it right.

The most important thing to remember is that, even if you leave all the initiative to the PC's, there still needs to be deadly resistance from the surrounding environment that the DM controls. The best way to do this is as follows:

1. Come up with a list of villains, rivals, natural disasters, etc, that the PC's may run into.
2. As the PC's play, either introduce some of the above at preordained times (example: the orcish tribe, led by Chief Grulax, will invade the region two months after the start of the campaign), or let the PC's trigger them through their own actions (example: if the PC's go to the ruined Temple of Bane to loot its treasures, they will earn the eternal enmity of its undead guardian, Lord Uradon).
3. Building on the events mentioned in #2, let the plot build itself up around the PC's actions and reactions to the world.
4. ???
5. PROFIT!!!!!
#3
nowiwantmydmg
Sep 25, 2008 16:12:45 I'd play it. Obviously Warlocks are out but, I don't see an issue with clerics or Paladins; can their "divine" power not come from the spark of divinity within?
#4
The_Harlequin
Sep 25, 2008 17:13:00
I'd play it. Obviously Warlocks are out but, I don't see an issue with clerics or Paladins; can their "divine" power not come from the spark of divinity within?

I'd rather have their courage manifest in their actions and not literally do 2[W]+CHA damage, if you take my meaning.
#5
space_dragon
Sep 25, 2008 17:21:59
I'd rather have their courage manifest in their actions and not literally do 2[W]+CHA damage, if you take my meaning.

Isn't that the same thing?
#6
The_Harlequin
Sep 25, 2008 20:14:58
Isn't that the same thing?

No, it's one thing to have faith, another to have "omg look at my faith go pew pew pew!!"
#7
space_dragon
Sep 25, 2008 20:17:15
No, it's one thing to have faith, another to have "omg look at my faith go pew pew pew!!"

I would describe it more along the lines of "My faith fills me with the strength of a fanatic; after working myself up into a religious mania, I can swing my sword harder."

Really, that's a fairly believable ability.
#8
The_Harlequin
Sep 25, 2008 23:12:08
I would describe it more along the lines of "My faith fills me with the strength of a fanatic; after working myself up into a religious mania, I can swing my sword harder."

Eh, some of the Cleric & Pally abilities are pretty heavy on the special effects. I'd rather keep it martial-focused.
#9
eldritch_lord
Sep 26, 2008 23:17:24
Eh, some of the Cleric & Pally abilities are pretty heavy on the special effects. I'd rather keep it martial-focused.

Perhaps you could remove all of the flashy abilities, combine the lists, and give the result to the paladin? That way you get the Divine flavoring in a mostly Martial lineup without making it obviously divine.
#10
space_dragon
Sep 26, 2008 23:56:51
Perhaps you could remove all of the flashy abilities, combine the lists, and give the result to the paladin? That way you get the Divine flavoring in a mostly Martial lineup without making it obviously divine.

Seconded. Make for a cool Leader/Defender with the Martial power source.
#11
catzo
Sep 27, 2008 13:46:43 One thing to consider to give a bit more variety is to allow players to chose different racial features even if they, on the outside, are humans.

For instance, Dwarf, Half-elf and Elf -features could easily jbe translated to a type of human.

The niblefooted swashbuckler-type could have elf-racia lfeatures instead of Human ones. The big muskular man could have dwarf-racial-features instead and so on.
#12
mikropone
Sep 27, 2008 14:04:31
One thing to consider to give a bit more variety is to allow players to chose different racial features even if they, on the outside, are humans.

For instance, Dwarf, Half-elf and Elf -features could easily jbe translated to a type of human.

The niblefooted swashbuckler-type could have elf-racial features instead of Human ones. The big muskular man could have dwarf-racial-features instead and so on.

I considered doing this in my current campaign but it doesn't work out well. A couple of my players didn't get why they couldn't just play an elf or dwarf.

A solution would be to come up with a list of backgrounds or cultures that the grants skill bonuses and background/cultural features.
#13
Shedeo
Sep 27, 2008 14:51:33 I have a question. Are you removing the Stormwarden?

Beyond that, I would consider giving the wizard some kind of "Curse" ability if they're going to be the only other ranged guy than the ranger (and the occasional rogue, I guess) so that they can kind of "keep up." Normally, I wouldn't have this opinion, but with the removal of the Warlock, this kinda seems necessary in a way. I dunno. Maybe its just me.
#14
max_octavious_xavier
Sep 27, 2008 16:04:59
I plan on starting a sandbox game using Points of Light. The opposite of a cosmopolitan campaign world, the players will drive the game from their home city-state with no over-arching DM-driven metaplot. PCs will have backgrounds that help the DM work-in events to help drive their characters along vis-à-vis character development, but that’s it. The players determine where they go.

So, in keeping with a more provincial and grittier theme, I’m seriously considering restricting the players to human PCs and allowing only martial classes (fighter, rogue, ranger, warlord) and the wizard. The Gods Are Dead, so there’s no divine power to be had. There are no cartoon characters here, only men.

Does this sound like an appealing game to play? Would folks still have fun bringing things down to earth? Would they still have fun in the long-term?

Not really. Basic reason, no choice in race and 5 classes to choose from. It could be fun if done right and I will admit that if a DM I trusted proposed this, I would give it a try. But it really doesn't sound appealing. Some questions;

Why Wiz and not Sor?
Druids get their power/spells from nature, is nature dead too?
Barbarian?
How about a spell-less bard variant?
Rangers get spells, or are they a spell-less variant?
(and this is only for core classes)

The human only aspect would concern me less than the draconian restrictions on class choice.
#15
space_dragon
Sep 27, 2008 16:11:27
Not really. Basic reason, no choice in race and 5 classes to choose from. It could be fun if done right and I will admit that if a DM I trusted proposed this, I would give it a try. But it really doesn't sound appealing. Some questions;

Why Wiz and not Sor?
Druids get their power/spells from nature, is nature dead too?
Barbarian?
How about a spell-less bard variant?
Rangers get spells, or are they a spell-less variant?
(and this is only for core classes)

The human only aspect would concern me less than the draconian restrictions on class choice.

Wrong board.
#16
ninjaarthiddenjutsu_dup
Sep 27, 2008 16:48:59
Not really. Basic reason, no choice in race and 5 classes to choose from. It could be fun if done right and I will admit that if a DM I trusted proposed this, I would give it a try. But it really doesn't sound appealing. Some questions;

Why Wiz and not Sor?
Druids get their power/spells from nature, is nature dead too?
Barbarian?
How about a spell-less bard variant?
Rangers get spells, or are they a spell-less variant?
(and this is only for core classes)

The human only aspect would concern me less than the draconian restrictions on class choice.

None of those are in 4E yet.
#17
The_Harlequin
Sep 27, 2008 17:46:35
A solution would be to come up with a list of backgrounds or cultures that the grants skill bonuses and background/cultural features.

Yes, yes absolutely. Something like FR: an additional class skill with a bonus, except per the individual's station (since most everyone would be from the same city-state.)

This has been very useful feedback so far.

I'm glad that folks are more concerned about classes than races because that's the point I'd be willing to budge on.
#18
max_octavious_xavier
Sep 27, 2008 21:17:07
None of those are in 4E yet.

Oops, , how did I get here. Ok, ignore the specific questions, but as a general rule, players don't like restrictions.
#19
mikropone
Sep 28, 2008 4:06:35
Oops, , how did I get here. Ok, ignore the specific questions, but as a general rule, players don't like restrictions.

It's true that restrictions are frowned upon, so instead inform players upfront that this is a homebrew campaign setting using the DnD 4e rules. Also keep all the info needed to create a character and explain the setting condensed into two pages. Any more then that and people lose interest. In fact one page is preferable to lay out the appeal, options and fluff, and save the second page for those who are really interested in the details for the majority of the crunch.

Some options for removing the warlock, cleric, and paladin would be to allow the player's backgrounds to have access to feats that could potentially replace, maybe even emulate an aspect of the missing classes. Think of something similar to a multiclass feat, or the ritual caster feat, or the alchemist feat... especially the alchemist feat. These extra options for the characters will distract them from the restrictions.

Another distraction is to come up with a list of specific gear they can buy during character creation. Keep the selection limited, but flavorful. Appealing to those individual backgrounds that made their character's classes unique. Two pages worth should work for this, but keep the pages hidden until the player's are ready to purchase their character's gear and present them as a reference sheet, not required reading.

You may want to base the backgrounds for the characters on something as simple as subcultures within the starting city. A thieves guild could employ all classes. It may also grant skill bonuses to both thievery, and stealth. Maybe even training as a free feat. It could also be a prerequisite for a feat that requires the thieves guild background to take. Humans starts with two feats right? So they could choose whether or not to take this background feat. In fact a background could have multiple feat options for each background. And multiple 'builds' when it comes to skill bonuses. A background could even provide a free power, or feat. These free powers or feats could be a re-fluffed power from one of the restricted classes or races.

When making restrictions, keep homebrew stuff to a minimum to avoid upsetting game balance to greatly. Stick to familiar concepts with alternate flavors and introduce new things during the course of an adventure. Play upon the player's interests by adding new things that are relative to their character.
#20
SoulCatcher78
Sep 28, 2008 17:00:22 You should check out Conan and The Black Company settings. Both are human centric, martial class dependant, and gritty. If for no other reason than as a framework.

The game could be quite enjoyable with the right DM and player combination.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 The_Harlequin Sep 24, 2008 21:33:59	I plan on starting a sandbox game using Points of Light. The opposite of a cosmopolitan campaign world, the players will drive the game from their home city-state with no over-arching DM-driven metaplot. PCs will have backgrounds that help the DM work-in events to help drive their characters along vis-à-vis character development, but that’s it. The players determine where they go. So, in keeping with a more provincial and grittier theme, I’m seriously considering restricting the players to human PCs and allowing only martial classes (fighter, rogue, ranger, warlord) and the wizard. The Gods Are Dead, so there’s no divine power to be had. There are no cartoon characters here, only men. Does this sound like an appealing game to play? Would folks still have fun bringing things down to earth? Would they still have fun in the long-term?
#2 space_dragon Sep 24, 2008 23:08:29	I've played this sort of game before. It can be every bit as fun as a "standard" DnD campaign, as long as you do it right. The most important thing to remember is that, even if you leave all the initiative to the PC's, there still needs to be deadly resistance from the surrounding environment that the DM controls. The best way to do this is as follows: 1. Come up with a list of villains, rivals, natural disasters, etc, that the PC's may run into. 2. As the PC's play, either introduce some of the above at preordained times (example: the orcish tribe, led by Chief Grulax, will invade the region two months after the start of the campaign), or let the PC's trigger them through their own actions (example: if the PC's go to the ruined Temple of Bane to loot its treasures, they will earn the eternal enmity of its undead guardian, Lord Uradon). 3. Building on the events mentioned in #2, let the plot build itself up around the PC's actions and reactions to the world. 4. ??? 5. PROFIT!!!!!
#3 nowiwantmydmg Sep 25, 2008 16:12:45	I'd play it. Obviously Warlocks are out but, I don't see an issue with clerics or Paladins; can their "divine" power not come from the spark of divinity within?
#4 The_Harlequin Sep 25, 2008 17:13:00	I'd play it. Obviously Warlocks are out but, I don't see an issue with clerics or Paladins; can their "divine" power not come from the spark of divinity within? I'd rather have their courage manifest in their actions and not literally do 2[W]+CHA damage, if you take my meaning.
#5 space_dragon Sep 25, 2008 17:21:59	I'd rather have their courage manifest in their actions and not literally do 2[W]+CHA damage, if you take my meaning. Isn't that the same thing?
#6 The_Harlequin Sep 25, 2008 20:14:58	Isn't that the same thing? No, it's one thing to have faith, another to have "omg look at my faith go pew pew pew!!"
#7 space_dragon Sep 25, 2008 20:17:15	No, it's one thing to have faith, another to have "omg look at my faith go pew pew pew!!" I would describe it more along the lines of "My faith fills me with the strength of a fanatic; after working myself up into a religious mania, I can swing my sword harder." Really, that's a fairly believable ability.
#8 The_Harlequin Sep 25, 2008 23:12:08	I would describe it more along the lines of "My faith fills me with the strength of a fanatic; after working myself up into a religious mania, I can swing my sword harder." Eh, some of the Cleric & Pally abilities are pretty heavy on the special effects. I'd rather keep it martial-focused.
#9 eldritch_lord Sep 26, 2008 23:17:24	Eh, some of the Cleric & Pally abilities are pretty heavy on the special effects. I'd rather keep it martial-focused. Perhaps you could remove all of the flashy abilities, combine the lists, and give the result to the paladin? That way you get the Divine flavoring in a mostly Martial lineup without making it obviously divine.
#10 space_dragon Sep 26, 2008 23:56:51	Perhaps you could remove all of the flashy abilities, combine the lists, and give the result to the paladin? That way you get the Divine flavoring in a mostly Martial lineup without making it obviously divine. Seconded. Make for a cool Leader/Defender with the Martial power source.
#11 catzo Sep 27, 2008 13:46:43	One thing to consider to give a bit more variety is to allow players to chose different racial features even if they, on the outside, are humans. For instance, Dwarf, Half-elf and Elf -features could easily jbe translated to a type of human. The niblefooted swashbuckler-type could have elf-racia lfeatures instead of Human ones. The big muskular man could have dwarf-racial-features instead and so on.
#12 mikropone Sep 27, 2008 14:04:31	One thing to consider to give a bit more variety is to allow players to chose different racial features even if they, on the outside, are humans. For instance, Dwarf, Half-elf and Elf -features could easily jbe translated to a type of human. The niblefooted swashbuckler-type could have elf-racial features instead of Human ones. The big muskular man could have dwarf-racial-features instead and so on. I considered doing this in my current campaign but it doesn't work out well. A couple of my players didn't get why they couldn't just play an elf or dwarf. A solution would be to come up with a list of backgrounds or cultures that the grants skill bonuses and background/cultural features.
#13 Shedeo Sep 27, 2008 14:51:33	I have a question. Are you removing the Stormwarden? Beyond that, I would consider giving the wizard some kind of "Curse" ability if they're going to be the only other ranged guy than the ranger (and the occasional rogue, I guess) so that they can kind of "keep up." Normally, I wouldn't have this opinion, but with the removal of the Warlock, this kinda seems necessary in a way. I dunno. Maybe its just me.
#14 max_octavious_xavier Sep 27, 2008 16:04:59	I plan on starting a sandbox game using Points of Light. The opposite of a cosmopolitan campaign world, the players will drive the game from their home city-state with no over-arching DM-driven metaplot. PCs will have backgrounds that help the DM work-in events to help drive their characters along vis-à-vis character development, but that’s it. The players determine where they go. So, in keeping with a more provincial and grittier theme, I’m seriously considering restricting the players to human PCs and allowing only martial classes (fighter, rogue, ranger, warlord) and the wizard. The Gods Are Dead, so there’s no divine power to be had. There are no cartoon characters here, only men. Does this sound like an appealing game to play? Would folks still have fun bringing things down to earth? Would they still have fun in the long-term? Not really. Basic reason, no choice in race and 5 classes to choose from. It could be fun if done right and I will admit that if a DM I trusted proposed this, I would give it a try. But it really doesn't sound appealing. Some questions; Why Wiz and not Sor? Druids get their power/spells from nature, is nature dead too? Barbarian? How about a spell-less bard variant? Rangers get spells, or are they a spell-less variant? (and this is only for core classes) The human only aspect would concern me less than the draconian restrictions on class choice.
#15 space_dragon Sep 27, 2008 16:11:27	Not really. Basic reason, no choice in race and 5 classes to choose from. It could be fun if done right and I will admit that if a DM I trusted proposed this, I would give it a try. But it really doesn't sound appealing. Some questions; Why Wiz and not Sor? Druids get their power/spells from nature, is nature dead too? Barbarian? How about a spell-less bard variant? Rangers get spells, or are they a spell-less variant? (and this is only for core classes) The human only aspect would concern me less than the draconian restrictions on class choice. Wrong board.
#16 ninjaarthiddenjutsu_dup Sep 27, 2008 16:48:59	Not really. Basic reason, no choice in race and 5 classes to choose from. It could be fun if done right and I will admit that if a DM I trusted proposed this, I would give it a try. But it really doesn't sound appealing. Some questions; Why Wiz and not Sor? Druids get their power/spells from nature, is nature dead too? Barbarian? How about a spell-less bard variant? Rangers get spells, or are they a spell-less variant? (and this is only for core classes) The human only aspect would concern me less than the draconian restrictions on class choice. None of those are in 4E yet.
#17 The_Harlequin Sep 27, 2008 17:46:35	A solution would be to come up with a list of backgrounds or cultures that the grants skill bonuses and background/cultural features. Yes, yes absolutely. Something like FR: an additional class skill with a bonus, except per the individual's station (since most everyone would be from the same city-state.) This has been very useful feedback so far. I'm glad that folks are more concerned about classes than races because that's the point I'd be willing to budge on.
#18 max_octavious_xavier Sep 27, 2008 21:17:07	None of those are in 4E yet. Oops, , how did I get here. Ok, ignore the specific questions, but as a general rule, players don't like restrictions.
#19 mikropone Sep 28, 2008 4:06:35	Oops, , how did I get here. Ok, ignore the specific questions, but as a general rule, players don't like restrictions. It's true that restrictions are frowned upon, so instead inform players upfront that this is a homebrew campaign setting using the DnD 4e rules. Also keep all the info needed to create a character and explain the setting condensed into two pages. Any more then that and people lose interest. In fact one page is preferable to lay out the appeal, options and fluff, and save the second page for those who are really interested in the details for the majority of the crunch. Some options for removing the warlock, cleric, and paladin would be to allow the player's backgrounds to have access to feats that could potentially replace, maybe even emulate an aspect of the missing classes. Think of something similar to a multiclass feat, or the ritual caster feat, or the alchemist feat... especially the alchemist feat. These extra options for the characters will distract them from the restrictions. Another distraction is to come up with a list of specific gear they can buy during character creation. Keep the selection limited, but flavorful. Appealing to those individual backgrounds that made their character's classes unique. Two pages worth should work for this, but keep the pages hidden until the player's are ready to purchase their character's gear and present them as a reference sheet, not required reading. You may want to base the backgrounds for the characters on something as simple as subcultures within the starting city. A thieves guild could employ all classes. It may also grant skill bonuses to both thievery, and stealth. Maybe even training as a free feat. It could also be a prerequisite for a feat that requires the thieves guild background to take. Humans starts with two feats right? So they could choose whether or not to take this background feat. In fact a background could have multiple feat options for each background. And multiple 'builds' when it comes to skill bonuses. A background could even provide a free power, or feat. These free powers or feats could be a re-fluffed power from one of the restricted classes or races. When making restrictions, keep homebrew stuff to a minimum to avoid upsetting game balance to greatly. Stick to familiar concepts with alternate flavors and introduce new things during the course of an adventure. Play upon the player's interests by adding new things that are relative to their character.
#20 SoulCatcher78 Sep 28, 2008 17:00:22	You should check out Conan and The Black Company settings. Both are human centric, martial class dependant, and gritty. If for no other reason than as a framework. The game could be quite enjoyable with the right DM and player combination.