|
The recent thread on the results of an almost complete TPK in the WC got me to thinking about what that DM had done in his campaign that contributed to what appears to be an unhappy campaign meltdown.
The thing which struck me first was that I can’t blame the DM for the rule choices he made. Truth is, I’ve usually made all of those same choices myself and prided myself on doing it, too.
But this time around – mainly to try something “new” (and to assess the balance of the underlying design of the Adv Path as written for an ulterior purpose), I’ve done something very new for this campaign.
What was this brave new departure of mine? Simple - I got rid of my house rules.
To add some specifics to this, here’s what I’ve done in my current AoW campaign:
1. Purchase and Sale of Magic: I’ve allowed it. Generally speaking, at +/- 0-20% of the listed value in the DMG. Prices are determined by opposed diplomacy roles, coupled with skill checks for appraise if the party is selling and the value of the item is in doubt.
It’s been a very long time since I’ve made magic openly available for purchase and sale in this fashion. But for the AoW, I decided I’d do it. The players are much better armed and equipped than they would normally be as a result. They obtained a wand of cure light wounds with their cash.
2. Raise Dead: For a number of philosophical reasons, metagaming concerns and a spate of raise dead disasters in campaigns I ran in 1980-82, I have not allowed Raise Dead in any of my campaigns in 23 years.
Your reaction to this house rule can be debated however you like, but I never really questioned my justification for it – and I still don’t. In the long run, I think it makes for a better game - or at least - a better playing group of players.
But this time around, I thought I would give the straight underlying assumptions in D&D a go and I’ve permitted it. Even by the book it is still expensive – but the party has made use of Raise Dead already at the end of WC.
3. Award Experience on the Fly and Permit Level Up in game: I generally award XP points at the end of a session, have sometimes assumed training requirements etc. for spells and odd feats. In my previous campaign, I have awarded XP between game sessions by way of an e-mail post summarizing the last session.
I still think this is a preferable way to award XP, but the WC seemed so level dependent to me in some of its encounters that the immediate XP award was necessary to give the PCs as fighting chance. Pressing on without that chance to level up would probably have contributed to player deaths.
4. Expansions Books are A-OK: While I am still not going to allow the character options in Unearthed Arcana (many of which I REALLY don’t like) I extended to my players the invitation to use the Complete series for character classes and spell choices and also made the Expanded Psionics Handbook available. If other WotC books had been asked for, I probably would have said “yes” to them too.
This openness in player choice is not without its consequences. The Warmage is very powerful class with good stats, and the Psion is an interesting class in terms of play balance and abilities. A kick-ass Warmage played by a very competent player seriously effects play balance at low levels. Still – I wanted to open things up for the players more and allow them to make their AoW experience a chance to use whatever aspects of the official rules they wanted to use as an experiment. So far, it’s working out reasonably well.
5. Award the Magic Items as Written: Generally, I cut back on magic items that the party can find. I do believe that the sheer amount of magic in most published adventures adds up fast and contributes to a power gamer feel to the overall campaign. But, I set my “parsimonious” value to “FALSE” for this campaign and have doled out the treasure as written.
The results so far that flow from this more lenient, less house-ruled approach to the game have been, on balance, rather positive. As my players noted, I awarded more magic items in the first game session that I had given out in my previous 6 sessions in my other campaign. They have enjoyed that.
The new classes and abilities have brought some new tactics and new “standard attack routines” to the table. Fresh and new is sometimes its own reward.
The purchase and sale of magic still turns what I think should be mysterious and prized possessions into commodities. But, the benefit has been that the party has been better outfitted and better able to deal with the encounters thrown their way. At the end of the WC, they had amassed a fair bit of loot – even more than is in the standard module as I ran a prelude adventure in the abandoned mine office with some bonus items and potions in it.
The set-off to that has been that the costs of raising the dead - even for one 2nd level PC from the Church of St. Cuthbert in Greyhawk - has consumed a large amount of the treasure to clean up the spilled blood, as it were.
Overall: The players are playing different classes, leveling up a little quicker, finding significantly more magic and buying and selling it far more often. They have raised a dead companion who fell to the Wind Warriors in the True Tomb.
Despite some early deaths and some dramatic near TPK events during play – the campaign is alive and well.
Had I run my campaign using the house rules I normally use. it would be otherwise. The near TPKs would not have been avoided and I would have had significantly more deaths and probably a dead campaign. I'd be posting like the other DM has recently, wondering what went wrong.
The players are not upset by the few deaths that have happened and are being drawn into the story. The campaign is progressing well. Anarchy, cats and dogs living together, major urban firestorms – none of these dire predictions and events have come to pass by reason of me just deciding to use the RAW.
I’m not saying I’d run every campaign in this manner - but for those having some difficulty with the WC – perhaps you need to assess if your house rules are having a real and adverse effect on your player’s enjoyment of the AoW. The threat levels presented by these encounters to a low level party are rather significant. If your house rules are getting in the way of your players’ ability to wield power to respond to these encounters – you have a good explanation as to why your cmapaign isn’t going as smoothly as those of some other DMs.
...What was this brave new departure of mine? Simple - I got rid of my house rules...
Hooray!!
I'm not a fan of house rules. My experience is that they cater (usually) to specific, narrowly-focused preferences of players and/or DMs, without regard to play balance.
I see D&D as the product of lessons learned in thousands of campaigns and millions of game sessions. Few house rules can claim they are better-justified.
IMHO :)
Jack
Well said Steel_Wind, I too have pulled out my usual stops for this Campaign... it surprises my players a bit too.
I haven't hit the last battle with the WW but I'm sure Alastor will mention their existence (depending on their cooperation). That should help them at least prepare for something.
|
I also did this and went with the RAW, with two exceptions.
One) Training, I have posted that in another thread here. If you like I can repost it.
Two) No one or two level dips in prestege classes. If you start a prestege class, you have to finish it, be it a three levels, five levels or ten levels, it most be finished.
It goes well so far.
This openness in player choice is not without its consequences. The Warmage is very powerful class with good stats, and the Psion is an interesting class in terms of play balance and abilities. A kick-ass Warmage played by a very competent player seriously effects play balance at low levels. Still – I wanted to open things up for the players more and allow them to make their AoW experience a chance to use whatever aspects of the official rules they wanted to use as an experiment. So far, it’s working out reasonably well.
The warmage is undeniably a powerful damage dealer, although hampered like all spontanious casters by the delay in obtaining higher level spells. They pay dearly for that power in a lack of versatility. They lack spells to buff themselves or allies, debuff their enemies, or do anything outside of combat. A party with a warmage as their only arcane support is going to be lacking a majority of the wizard's traditional support capability (flight, teleport, etc.)
|
|
True, but at low levels, a warmage with high reqs can add +3 to the damage die with a spell - and can gets lots of em too.
When you are 7th level - that means little. At 1st to 3rd level (Whispering Cairn), it means even a cantrip like acid splash is a decent spell.
Not a game breaker, but it does nudge the balance of power in the PCs favor.
Some interesting points, I think that powergaming creeps in very easily if you play RAW. Usually my group enjoys the game when I'm meaner and make them work! However the AOW games are tough and so i have tended to give out items as is, especially as my group lacks a mage/sorcerer (which i think has really helped us have more fun - they have had to innovate and negotiate a lot more).
House rule wise i have reduced them a little for AOW but main ones are:
I still dont like pcs being able to buy magic items 'off the shelf'. Scrolls, potions and low level armor/weapons is ok but i'm meaner with other gear.
I dont allow greatswords - too much damage IMO, cause powergaming. Impractical in a dungeon too :)
I dont give xp out, i let them level once they have succeeded at a story point although i do give some bonuses for good play. I used to have the training rule but found it just slowed play so allow level ups as soon as they reach requirements.
In terms of style, i guess I'm a neutral good DM - i dont like killing players as i enjoy the long campaign with characters driving the story. I try to reward play appropriately: if the pcs are really stupid and get killed well then they are on their own in terms of getting raise deads etc, but if its through bad luck (or bad DMing!) then I dont give them such a hard time.
(You can even use accidental death as a fun plot point. In the shackled city path the paladin in the party was killed early on and raised by a mysterious benefactor/patron who helped with items advice, and the like. He was none-to-pleased to discover at the end of the adventure she was actually a servant of an evil diety who was opposed Adimarchus and had been merely using him as a useful 'cats paw'!)
I suppose in summary I follow most of the rules 'as is' but try to never let them get in the way of a good story.
I also ditched my 5 or 6 usual house rules for this campaign and have been running it RAW. It has worked all the way to the 4th adventure with fantastic results. I still use my house rules for my other GH campaign though.
I'm with Steel Wind on this one. If you are playing an adventure path, which is a lot different from a stand alone adventure, and it is pitched to the masses, then it stands to reason that it will work best with vanilla flavoured D&D.