Is this a good campaign idea?

[xykonthelich]

So in this new campaign setting that I am making, I cam up with this idea that I think is really good. Im just not sure if I am making some huge mistake.

So I have this huge world that I am creating for the setting and so that is theoretically covered. The main concept about it that I think is really cool is: the PCs all start out as level 1 Commoners in a small peaceful village. The way that they progress in levels of classes besides Commoner is by gaining xp in the zone of expertise that the new class contains(example: a PC wants to become an assassin so they seek out an assassin's guild or an individual assassin and find some way to recieve training from them.)(example: a PC wishes to be a bard so they attempt to join a travelling group of troubadors for a time and gain xp under them.). So any levels that are gained by the character while under a sort of training would go to that class. If the character is not gaining xp in any specific class's area, then any levels that they gain are levels of Commoner. That may seem very restricting but I am working on a way to enable the PCs to turn their Commoner levels into some other class
(not without earning it of course).

I think that the original hook to pull the PCs out of their village is some completely unexpected goblin raid that wipes out the village and forces them to seek shelter elsewhere. This raid could also lead to the first adventure of the campaign.

Well thats not even the half of it but I would appreciate imput from all you experts. This is my first campaign setting as you can probably figure out. So yeah, feel free to make suggestions and asks questions.

[Aegis013]

How on earth would you keep the party together? It sounds like either everybody would agree to be the same class, or everybody would split up.

[xykonthelich]

How on earth would you keep the party together? It sounds like either everybody would agree to be the same class, or everybody would split up.

Yeah sorry I forgot to mention that. Well obviously they all start out together as they live in the same village, but I am in the process of developing a system that allows them to split up and fit each of their "scenes" into a single session. Any further suggestions about creating that system would be welcome. Also, I have already discussed this idea with my players and they all think that it would work very well, even if they were split up, if we had a good system for working that out. I also know that some of them would still stick together for segments of the campaign(as in team up for some adventures and cooperate for a while) which would make that a little easier.

Thanks for asking that though.

[Saint GoH]

We actually used to do this. If the DM is good, it works well. If the DM is not the greatest, there can be some serious party split. Basically what needs to happen is the DM needs to sit down with each player individually one session, and roleplay their beginning (finding the assassin's guild, comedic troupe, so on so forth) as well as a small encounter that symbolizes what their chosen profession would be doing (some skill checks are all thats really necessary). Here's where its difficult. The DM has to work the individual stories so that all the characters end up at the same place and wanting to work together (sometimes it requires a slight amount of railroading and a little bit of player cooperation) but the end result can be really awesome.

[Kol Korran]

the problems i see are several:
- the party are adventurers. they do adventures. adventures often take more than one level. what if they level in a dungeon? or in the middle of a jungle where the rogue can't find a guild?? or some other far away place? or in a country where the cleric's faith isn't worshiped? or their presence is needed in the city so the druid and/or ranger can't level?

- from some level up, it's strange for the characters to seek tutors- how much "training" does a wizard need before you call him a wizard? when is a fighter a true weapon master? what do you do when they reach these high levels?

- what are you doing with this downtime? are the players going to roleplay each PC's training? if so, it gets boring after a while, and the play becomes focused on one character several times, over and over and over again. also- most players hate roleplaying these parts- the cleric preaching his faith, the fighter training, bard learning new songs and so on.if you're not going to play it- what does this rule add to the game? how does it make the game any better? (this is a good rule of thumb in any case a rule is introduced. the system is rule heavy enough as it is).

is it supposed to add "realism"? i'd suggest to change what is real. most people who are highly successful in their fields (from leaders, scientist and even combat specialists) so so by a combination of four elelments: basic training, natural skill, constant challenging situations to practice the skill (which adventures suffice), and autodidaction. an ability to improve one self, learn, advance and explore by yourself is a constant mark of most highly successful individuals.

a great school or tutor may help, but mostly in the field of providing challenging situations.

- i'd advise against this sort of advancement. it seems to add complication without and seen advantage (at least to me).

all this said, you're the DM and you know your party more. you seem interested in giving a good game, which is the foremost important thing. good luck!