|
1 year ago ::
Jan 07, 2012 - 3:14PM
#1
|
|
|
So, I'm a very new DM (getting set to run my first game) trying to start a campaign with new players who pretty much haven't had any exposure to the game before.
In an effort to prevent myself and the players from chewing off more than we can handle at once, I was considering at least for the first few games, restricting the players to only the character classes/race choices offered in the Essentials books rather than opening it up to all the choices available in the supplement books and character builder. I know we have at one player that would like to play a Vampire.
My fear is that some of the characters in the other books will be a bit too different and advanced for my players at this time. I don't want players getting overwhelmed while learning, however, I do want my players to form a connection with their characters and encourage role-play, which I think will benefit from opening up the full range of class/race options.
Anyone have any advice or opinions if this is a good or bad idea? Am I just being needlessly cautious? Also, I have heard that the classes in the essentials books don't scale the same as classes in the other books. Is there any truth to this?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 07, 2012 - 3:37PM
#2
|
|
|
I've been playing since '83. Started with the red Basic D&D box with the dragon on the cover. So, that type of game is the one that I'm most nostalgic for (even today). The DM in our group has been playing for nearly as long. Back then, it was Cleric, Fighter, Thief, and Wizard; Dwarf, Elf, Halfling. This is the same class/race options offered in one of the D&D Essential books (Heroes of the Fallen Lands). Our DM had the idea to play a 'classic' D&D campaign using just this book, along with the DM Kit, Rules Compendium and Monster Vault (the other Essential books). We added another book (Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdomes) a bit later. This gave us Druids, Paladins, and Rangers, Drow, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs. No Dragonborn or Tieflings or Warlocks though (this was an old-school game). = = = That's our experience. We just used Essentials stuff, no original 4e stuff (like the original Player's Handbook classes). The games were a real 'back-to-basics' blast for those of us who go back that far  . I think a similar approach could work with newcomers. Fighters and Wizards, Dwarves and Elves, all have a classic appeal I think; if you've heard of fantasy, you've heard of these guys and gals. It can't hurt, keeping it simple, especially at first. On the other hand, if you bombard 'em with too muich up front, they might become over-whelmed. When they're ready to chew some more (and they will be soon enough I think ), show 'em the other races, classes and books.
/\ Art
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 07, 2012 - 3:47PM
#3
|
|
|
Stick to your idea. It's an A+ one.
If only all the players on this forum were as intelligent as you.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 07, 2012 - 4:07PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Sep 22, 2006
|
Stick to your idea. It's an A+ one.
If only all the players on this forum were as intelligent as you.
Well, we wouldn't want to upset all those games you play with your group of mature intellectuals, would we?
OP, do that. I'm playing something similar right now (with Essential classes only, but any printed material that someone owns is allowed) and it works fine. Especially in heroic tier, not having to worry about alot of powers and such is great. Mind you, the Warpriest and the Mage take on MORE stuff than their PHB1 counter parts, but they are usually simpler.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 07, 2012 - 5:03PM
#5
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback so far guys!
I'm glad that I don't seem completely off-base about starting out simple until everyone gets the feel for the basics. I think I'll wait until we get at least a few adventures under our belts before allowing players to venture beyond the Essentials classes. Since it should only be a few sessions until that happens, I think my players won't object too loudly. As much as I want to foster the role-playing aspect of the game, I don't think that can be enjoyed until players stop having to focus on the rules.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 07, 2012 - 5:56PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2010
|
Some time ago I came across an interesting lecture from a professor of psychology at Harvard (Dan Gilbert) speaking on a topic relevant entirely to the "I'm restricting XYZ from my game of D&D". In his lecture, which had the topic "why are we happy?", he spoke to the point of a photography course, which had two different iterations. In the first iteration of the course, at the end of the course, the students would be asked to choose their favorite photo print out of the 2 they blew up to a large poster size. Obviously this was a hard choice. In the second iteration they were asked the same question. What was the difference?
In the first course they had about a week to change their mind to the other print if they wanted it instead. In the second course they had no chance to change their mind - the one they picked immediately was the one they were stuck with forever.
Now, you would imagine that being able to change your mind and have the options would be good, right? More options = more fun? That is, in fact, the exact opposite of reality. When asked to rate the pictures in terms of which one they like better, often the students who had the chance to swap would rate the picture they ultimately didn't choose as better, while the students who had no chance to swap would rate the picture they did choose as vastly superior.
So, of course, they offered these two courses to prospective students, complete with the concept of how the end works (in course A you can choose between the two and you can swap for a while, in course B you have to choose the one you want right now and the other one is gone forever immediately and ever after). 75% of the students, of course, chose the course in which they would have the option to switch ("more options"), which means they also chose the course in which they would ultimately be deeply dissatisfied. Funny, no?
While you might be worried about "cutting down on options" because "options are fun", psychology shows us again and again that too many choices is terrible for our happiness and ability to function. While your players might not believe you that fewer options is better (after all, 75% of Harvard students wouldn't, and they're pretty smart!), if you can get them to agree to it they'll probably have a better time (or at least an identically good time) in the end.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 07, 2012 - 7:16PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2010
|
To the OP:
If your group is up for it, than go with it. I play with a group of newcomers to 4E and while I have not resitricted them at all I can certainly see the benefits of doing such. Just make sure it's not a point of contention and all should go pretty well!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 07, 2012 - 7:25PM
#8
|
|
|
Your plan seems like a good one from where I'm standing. Character building in 4E is something you need to catch up to, as it possesses a depth beyond what most new players can handle. Using Essentials is a good start. I haven't had to introduce a group of new players since 4E's launch, and having only the PHB available was a better start than dealing with what we have now. Mostly I deal with new players as single units, letting them guide me in building them a pregen for them to play until they get a sense of the system. They can usually pick up the mechanics really fast, but making a character that can shine alongside the veterans takes time. Essentials is a nice little sandbox to start in, and I prefer it as a launch platform to the original PHB since it has fewer holes(it doesn't do as much, but there is less missing) and paints a better picture thanks to having more fluff.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 07, 2012 - 10:02PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2005
|
Honestly I'd say it's fine either way. Your idea is quite dandy and a pretty good one, but you don't really have a whole lot to worry about with more complex classes, assuming everyone in your group is a mature adult (which incidentally has nothing to do with how many years they've dodged the icy grip of death btw).
Worst case scenario somebody misinterprets something, and it gets played wrong for a while til you figure it out and correct it. Or it goes undiscovered forever, whatever, D&D's not a competetive game, so as long as everyone's enjoying themself no harm done.
Zammm = Batman. Bronies unite."I'd call you a genius, but I'm in the room." It's my sig in a box
Show
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
Funny story:
InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game.
I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul:
Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?"
Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy."
Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb."
Me: "*Sigh*. Okay."
I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board.
Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious. 
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol. 
I have the same problem with women.
Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
Show
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now.
O' Jesus
Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle.
Amen.
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears  would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic  , giving you time to set up your silly  combo  . Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills 
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 07, 2012 - 11:37PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2011
|
I agree with the other posters here. Easing the players into the system by restricting the starting choices is a good idea. In my homebrew campaign we only had PHB1 when we started. Despite this I further restricted the starting options to Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. These are the basic classes that are easily identifiable by a novice of fantasy and D&D. You want to be a Magic user, Wizard. You want to heal people, Cleric. You want to defend your allies, Fighter. You want to just kill stuff with a blade, Rogue. Simple and no one complained. I was at the advantage that none of my players had actually read the PHB or any D&D material ahead of time though. This method meant the only thing that seems kind of overwhelming at character creation is choosing a feat. Fortunately the PHB gives recommended feats for each build of each class at creation. Most of the players just went with that.
|
|
|
you loads