TerribleSorcery
Should be playing D&D instead
So, you are saying that the gladiator kit is not overpowered or anything. Not sure if someone else said that, but just to be clear I definitely don't think most of these kits are somehow gamebreaking or anything.There is weapon restrictions, equipment, etc. which help make sure you are committed to your kit and can fit the mold of a gladiator. Looks like I'm restricted to gladiator armor--Thracian AC 9, Gallic AC 7, and Samnite AC 5...gee I wonder how many suits of magical Samnite armor there is--probably zero. Oh well.
The armour/weapon restrictions. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Even if we assume baseline AD&D and not my extremely hip campaign world, the technology is late medieval, full plate and lances as I've said. So who are the Samnites, Thracians and Gallicians, and where do they live, and what's their deal? The player brings this kit to the table and all of a sudden the tectonic plates of the world shift, as new lands appear where there was nothing before!
I believe this idea of players bringing setting elements to the table cuts to the core of how the game functions. To be clear, I am not saying there is only one way to do it, but a DM that allows this and a DM that doesn't are going to have campaigns that work in different ways. As it turns out, the rules and the character options and the DM's decisions and the campaign world are bound up with each other in ways that are a bitch to untangle. Changing one affects all the others!
I am a mediocre DM but I understand the basics.I'm sure you are a great DM. In fact, I think everyone who comes to these forums is a great DM because they are taking the extra time to learn about the hobby and improve. But in those 25 years of DMing--have you ever been a player? Have you experienced the restrictions that DMs can place?
I have been a player plenty of times before and I'm happy to play whatever character type is around. Perhaps part of the disagreement here is just down to personality. The first time I played WFRP I wanted to play the Witch Hunter, not knowing how the career system worked. I rolled up a coachman who drove a manure cart! That made clear the flavour of the setting, not to mention it was hilarious. For one more example, years ago I played in a 3rd edition game with race/class options limited to humans, dwarves, fighters and thieves. It was fun, I played a dwarf fighter (possibly most boring race/class combo in the universe) and had a great time. No problem there for me.
Most of the time I would prefer to play in a DM's 'precious campaign world' with any number of strange restrictions. At least this indicates he sat down and thought about what kind of game he wanted to run, or what made sense to him, or what he thought would be cool. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But that appeals to me much more than a world with unexamined 15th c. knights and Thracian gladiators and Blackbeard shoehorned together.
That's what we are all striving for! What I'm saying is, anybody can do this without extra supplements or rules. With kits, players can create a specific character by picking from a list, not out of the world you present. And that is exactly my complaint! What I want is for the players to build a character in the world I have presented to them, by doing things like reading the setting info I send them before the game, or picking up cues from NPCs, or by asking me questions about the game, or by playing!In my experience, I found that when I loosen the iron fist a bit and allow players to flex their imagination with their characters, they become way more engaged in the world because they have created a specific character in the world that I have presented to them.
For example. I have one player who comes in with a mental picture of his character beforehand. I work with him to make that happen - then he spends most of the session on his phone. I have another player who says "tell me what kind of world it is" and then creates a character that fits within the setting I describe to him. He is my golden boy, takes a huge interest in the setting. Most players are somewhere in between.
To get the players engaged, obviously the DM has to present an interesting, vivid and playable world. But some players have the imagination, the interest and the motivation to engage with the setting in-depth and some don't. My experience tells me that sitting at home looking over a list of character options is not helping anybody to engage more fully with the imagined world.
I never seem able to run a game in the same system twice, so it's always different for me!How many of you use proficiencies and specializations? Hate em or love em?
For NON weapon proficiencies, what I often do is make my players roll (or pick) a previous career they had before they became adventurers. Then we assume a kind of broad competence in that area, plus know-how based on character class. More comprehensive skill-roll systems can be cool too and I have no objection, if they don't overstay their welcome (or lead to degenerate play, like the dreaded Diplomancy).
But I hate weapon proficiencies/specializations. That shit is the worst!