Has anyone ever cored the rules down, so that they are not using every single option?
Say less Classes and or Races?
Or maybe removing a lot of Feats/Talents?
If so how well did that work for you?
Some of the combat rules and some of the Trait options. We're not allowing some Traits in my starting-tomorrow campaign (it's a 4 GM guild-style game). Nothing terribly core needs to be removed for any particular reason.
|
like no or limited casting aka "low magic" campaigns? Sure
No monks? Yeah.
No fighter/rogue? No. Why would you?
We've done no divine, no arcane, all "rogue types" (3.5 all rogue, ninja, bard, ranger, and scouts), all fighter/pallys, and a some other "unique" type games.
It makes for a different type of game. Not better or worse.
Personally I allow 99% of things, and even help players "bend" rules to accomidate an idea.
All human/No human games seem quite common. There are low/no magic games out there.
It's all in the house rules.
|
When I run games I always do that. In 3.x I allowed the three core books. Players could use one class splat book for their character but could not pick from all of them. Made things super simple.
I also required players to have a physical original copy of the book used for their characters. That was a rule I implemented when I ran a game in a game store and all the players would come with 3 ring binders of rules from bit torrent that they printed out at their dad's office. I felt it a bit rude to do so right in the store.
In pathfinder I imagine I will use the same ideas if the rules bloat gets too bad.