I'm going to use a real life example from a campaign I played in, not one I was the GM.
Our other "main" GM in our group wanted to run a short campaign to explore an evil demonic cult raising the dead and attempting to take over a valley which had a couple of villages in it.
He initially set out the campaign as "core rules only." Meaning only the races and classes in the core 3.5 material. When we (the players) pushed back he instead excluded a specific set of splat books while allowing the inclusion of others. But he was adamant that he would brook no attempt to bring in content from those books.
I approached him about an idea I had been having to build a custom race based on the idea of a dryad falling in love with a wild elf and praying to Nature to give birth to a child. The child, of course, would become my character.
He liked the idea, and we spent about a month working out the details of the race, statting it up and working hard to ensure it was both balanced and uniquely flavorful. Then I rolled up a character using that race and we started gaming.
So, "inclusive" or "restrictive?" Since some people seem to think it has to be one or the other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Officially the answer is 'both' since on the one hand he's abjectly restricting certain books... On the other he's inclusive for allowing an idea that, while possible, isn't 'native' or 'common' perhaps to his setting.
Restrictive isn't always a bad thing. Book of Vile Darkness or Rifts Africa are good examples where the publisher clearly did not know who they were messing with...
When I play 3.5 I like to use items from book of exalted because my favorite concept from 3.5 was the ability to turn evil things good. If I couldn't have that I'd probably want to shoot for a Heartwarder Prestige class from the forgotten realms books... In this gm's case I'd probably willing to try harder to find something that fits the bill because he's clearly open to a well thought out option that may have been part of his wide-arcing initial restrictions...
Restrictions can be necessary and as long as everyone at the table agrees with the restriction, sounds like a good gm. If I couldn't find something within those restrictions that I thought I could enjoy I'd probably sit on the sidelines and watch the game be played while I tried to find inspiration to join in based on the restrictions or I'd sit the game out entirely..
This sounds like the kind of gm I'd be willing to work with because he sounds like the kind of gm that would be willing to work with me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd call it collaborative rather than inclusive, but yes, inclusive. What would you call it, AD? ("Both at the same time," is a perfectly acceptable answer imo.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hitdice and Vincent, yes, I call it "both at the same time". And this is actually the most common situation I've encountered and is how I run my own campaign world.
Some things "yes"
Some things "no"
And I try to make my decisions based on what I think would allow for the most fun for the most people most of the time.
(EDIT/UPDATE: Including me)
Well, I don't disagree with a word of that. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A good example is my current campaign... Or gm said 'no summoners' because he's heard horror stories... I said well. My concept is going to be 2 armed biped and rely on eidolon only as much as is possible....
I wont have pounce, tails, bite attacks, 6 arms...... I will avoid using summon monster unless it is more useful than my eidolon which should be rare. I'll be using evolutionist but not master summoner or synthesist...
Would that kind of summoner be ok?
Indeed it was. It's been my favorite campaign ever so far.
On the other hand my gm and I both know that gunslinger has a bad reputation (or did before recent edits?)... But he knows i'm willing to run campaigns like rifts where power levels are crazy. So even though we both know gunslinger is borked... He knows i'm willing to run campaigns with borked characters. He'd probably be understanding if I said no gunslingers but he might have similar ideas as I had with my summoner that would take it out of borked territory. I'm flexible on that stuff because when I say 'wow look at how broken this is... nobody wants to allow it... He's like damn right I want to play one of those!!!!
It might be a broke crazy campaign but he'll have fun trying out a crazy broken gunslinger... I want him to have that fun because even crazy broken campaigns can be as fun and challenging and interesting as one where there were no gunslingers...
I'd even be willing to run a 3.5 campaign with book of vile darkness included... When my table asks for that campaign and to play bad guys they know the gloves are off and it's gonna be a hell of a ride though. ^_^
Sometimes a rockstar wants to write the song they want to write for themselves... And it turns out not to be a hit... Sometimes they just write the songs they know the fans want to hear... I tend to play to my fans because then they'll be more willing to listen to and appreciate the piece I wrote more for me.
Both are subjective calls, one man's "restrictive" is another's "includes way too much."
Which is exactly why it is a "gray area".
Restrictive.
Just easier to classify it that way since the main focus here is that he restricted a large number of things, but allowing one thing.
Restrictive isn't necessarily bad though. My main issue is arbitrary restrictions (I don't like Dwarves, if you try to play a Dwarf you're obviously deliberately antagonizing me!) or restrictions based on ignorance (Monks are OP so I banned them!).
If it's based on balance, not being familiar with the material (to an extent, I personally don't think there's an excuse to only be familiar with the CRB and thus use that as an excuse to restrict everything), or to further the story, restrictions are just fine.
Rynjin,
The GM first decided to allow books he had originally disallowed, so that means he included monsters, classes, races, etc. that had originally been disallowed.
Also, while my custom race character was the only specific example of including something new and unique, that was only because I was the only one who asked. If other players had asked for customizations, perhaps he would have allowed them too. And perhaps not. Based on the single example we have of a single request and a single allowance, I'd say the GM is batting a thousand on that score right now.
But of course you are right. It does disallow some things so it IS by definition "restrictive". However because it allowed custom requests it is ALSO, by definition, "inclusive."
And i'd even go so far as to say I'm fine with certain arbitrary restrictions like 'no dwarves and no elves' as long as I (and the rest of the table) wasn't planning on playing a dwarf or an elf anyway...
I don't play e6 or e7 or e12 because there's never a time when I play that I don't *want* to get to level 16 or 17 for the powers certain classes offier... But i'm happy to announce that to my gm's right out of the gate that it's an issue I won't budge on.
|
And i'd even go so far as to say I'm fine with certain arbitrary restrictions like 'no dwarves and no elves' as long as I (and the rest of the table) wasn't planning on playing a dwarf or an elf anyway...
I don't play e6 or e7 or e12 because there's never a time when I play that I don't *want* to get to level 16 or 17 for the powers certain classes offier... But i'm happy to announce that to my gm's right out of the gate that it's an issue I won't budge on.
Do you randomly walk around hoping to play a dwarf or an elf?
Unless you do, you wouldn't find out about the game until you were confronted with the DM's proposal and what is and what isn't allowed.
Basically, how would you be planning to play a dwarf or an elf before you found out about the campaign?
Do you randomly walk around hoping to play a dwarf or an elf?
Usually I randomly walk around looking for gms whose playstyle doesn't match my own and then run in the opposite of that direction flailing my arms and wailing madly... inevitably landing me in a group that suits my playstyle more.
|
there's never a time when I play that I don't *want* to get to level 16 or 17 for the powers certain classes offier...
I mainly run 2nd edition AD&D games, and I use the rules for level limits for demihumans, but I use the option of allowing unlimited advancement past those normal limits by "charging" at least twice (but never more than four times) the number of XP required to advance a level.
Just out of pure curiosity, is that an example of a compromise you could accept if you were dead-set on playing say an elf or a dwarf?
there's never a time when I play that I don't *want* to get to level 16 or 17 for the powers certain classes offier...I mainly run 2nd edition AD&D games, and I use the rules for level limits for demihumans, but I use the option of allowing unlimited advancement past those normal limits by "charging" at least twice (but never more than four times) the number of XP required to advance a level.
Just out of pure curiosity, is that an example of a compromise you could accept if you were dead-set on playing say an elf or a dwarf?
I actually prefer 2e a great deal more than pathfinder but on the one hand I've never particularly been keen on playing dwarves and elves, but I've played with folks that wanted to play dwarves and elves in 2e that had no level limits and I was fine with removing the caps for them. The publisher's stated intent of the caps was to make a world more 'human-centric' and I've never seen much point to that expecially considering the longevity of those races.
|
|
I've never seen much point to that expecially considering the longevity of those races.
Well, I only used elf or dwarf as examples (you're free to pick your own demihuman as an example)... ;-)
But I agree with your statement above, but I also believe that the point of view of a longer lived race would be "why the rush"?
I believe that even a halfling with a life expectancy of 100 years would tend to take what we would see as more time than possibly necessary to do something. And while level advancement is not the perfect analogy, it is the closest you and I could ever get to a game representation of a long lived point of view; so I will allow unlimited advancement, but at the cost of more XP once that character is past the normal level cap (this also serves to reflect that as time goes on, the character puts aside the "exuberance" of youth).
These restrictions are probably the reason why I drink the 2e koolaid and play humans most of the time. Knowing that not everyone makes the same houserules I do makes me gravitate to situations where a GM is less 'able' to say no to people hitting 17th level...
As a player I seem to gravitate to situations where arbitrary restrictions are less possible since some folks seem to have a strong stance on any stance they take. I try to avoid the possibility of demihuman level troubles.
As musicman53100 has said... Back then we didn't so much question the rules.. We just played the game and changed any rule we didn't like. Technology has accelerated the rate and scope with which a group of people disagree with and form new rules... Which can be both a good and bad thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The level caps was one of those rules in AD&D I knew I wouldn't use without even looking twice at it. There were a lot of those and somehow I felt "allowed" to not use rules I didn't like in a way that I don't anymore.
|
I'm going to use a real life example from a campaign I played in, not one I was the GM.
Our other "main" GM in our group wanted to run a short campaign to explore an evil demonic cult raising the dead and attempting to take over a valley which had a couple of villages in it.
He initially set out the campaign as "core rules only." Meaning only the races and classes in the core 3.5 material. When we (the players) pushed back he instead excluded a specific set of splat books while allowing the inclusion of others. But he was adamant that he would brook no attempt to bring in content from those books.
I approached him about an idea I had been having to build a custom race based on the idea of a dryad falling in love with a wild elf and praying to Nature to give birth to a child. The child, of course, would become my character.
He liked the idea, and we spent about a month working out the details of the race, statting it up and working hard to ensure it was both balanced and uniquely flavorful. Then I rolled up a character using that race and we started gaming.
So, "inclusive" or "restrictive?" Since some people seem to think it has to be one or the other.
I can Take all those Ideas and apply a Template of Indonesian words.
The Djadjahan Colony
The Entire Colony is dominated by the Desert of Djasa. Port Pelabuhan is the only Port and sits on the Sea of Laut separating this Imperial Colony from the Empire on the Island of Pulau. Extending into the Desert (a region dominated by the Primitive Bersahadja) is the narrow Djurang ravine. The Trail along the Ravine floor passes by Two Ruins which are carved into the wall of the Ravine - The Ruins of Kerobohan and Runtahan) of the Now Primitive Bersahadja. At the Far end of the Ravine is the Panehan Archive where the Adjuran Doctrine is held (The Adjuran Doctrine are the articles of Faith for the Official Faith of the Empire (Agama) - studied at the Archive by the Scholar 'Alim' and the Siswa (students)). The Cult of Ibadat on the other hand are reviled by the State and its Faith.
In the Desert near Port Pelabuhan is the Periuk Api (Literally The Fire-Elf Mine) providing the only export.