How would you like a game like this?

[XionUnborn01]

I just had an interesting idea for a campaign. First, it requires either new to 3.5 people (which I don't think would be great) or people playing classes they've never seen or read before.

My idea is basically this:
You choose your class from the name and fluff description (assume similar power level of classes) . The DM then goes through the steps of the class, telling you your BAB, skill points and class skills, and the like. Then he goes over class abilities, telling you what they do and daily uses but not if they're SU, EX, or any other things.

Basically it makes a game where the players are learning what their classes can do as they play. Something like a hero discovering their powers for the first time.

For example, class x has an ability to summon armor of light. The player knows the increase to ac, but they might have to learn that it gives DR/good or miss chance. I would say one or two encounters would give them the knowledge, they would realize quickly that they're taking reduced damage but not what overcomes it. Also, they don't know if the armor stays while in AMF, or if it's force or whatever without investigating.

This would require the DM obviously working with players to make encounters and environments are within reason.

What do you guys think? This is just a rough idea so feel free to critique and ask questions.

[ZamielVanWeber]

It makes planning my build difficult and does not guarantee that I will at all enjoy what I am playing. Seems like a risky proposition to me

[danzibr]

Yeah... this maybe isn't the best place to ask :P

I could say that I personally would not like to play such a game, BUT I play with some people who aren't as invested in 3.5 as I am (they play for the interaction), and I think they'd really like it.

[Troacctid]

Maybe for a one-shot, but I could see it quickly becoming frustrating for a longer campaign.

[GilesTheCleric]

How would you prevent someone focusing on knowledge checks or divination spells from obviating this approach?

[nyjastul69]

This is a very group dependent question. This can certainly work with the right players, but I can see where it would completely dissuade others. It will definitely make choosing a character's next level difficult. It would be nigh impossible to build for 20 levels. That said, I could enjoy a game like that, I just don't know that I would. It would really depend upon the presentation.

[Studoku]

Sounds extremely frustrating and there's probably a better system for this than D&D 3.5,

[Lorddenorstrus]

That and some of us have the tier system completely memorized. Short of intentionally picking less played classes that will be harder for veteran players to recognize ... we're going to just know. Also that makes build planning and other stuff harder in the situation we don't guess what we have instantly. Frankly D&D 3.5 is not the system for a game like that.

[XionUnborn01]

How would you prevent someone focusing on knowledge checks or divination spells from obviating this approach?

That would be probably part of the guidelines of the campaign. I don't know why they would agree to play a game where a big part of the game is mystery of abilities and limited knowledge and then expect playing a character based on gaining knowledge to be something that would be welcome.


This is a very group dependent question. This can certainly work with the right players, but I can see where it would completely dissuade others. It will definitely make choosing a character's next level difficult. It would be nigh impossible to build for 20 levels. That said, I could enjoy a game like that, I just don't know that I would. It would really depend upon the presentation.

I'm thinking that this would be a game where you probably single class throughout the campaign based solely off necessity of making the game run effectively.


That and some of us have the tier system completely memorized. Short of intentionally picking less played classes that will be harder for veteran players to recognize ... we're going to just know. Also that makes build planning and other stuff harder in the situation we don't guess what we have instantly. Frankly D&D 3.5 is not the system for a game like that.

Like I said in the OP, the game requires either players new to 3.5 or players playing classes they've never seen before.
That could even mean that you homebrew some classes if you have to. Maybe you make 8 classes and then 4 are in use? This game would be low-op out of necessity because I understand that it's not easy to plan for encounters without knowing your abilities.

[squab]

I think it sounds fun for a session or 3, and that 3.5 definitely isn't the game for this. This wants a game with lots of flexibility in abilities (wow that's a weird phrase) and EXTREMELY rules light. And by rules light, I mean you might want a system that doesn't even use NUMBERS.

Really, I feel like this scenario is much better for a book (or movie or anime or something) rather then an RPG. And the whole "learning your powers" aspect is only really good for one session.

Alternately, this might be great for introducing a bunch of newbies to the game? Basically you're hiding as much information from them as possible so they don't get overwhelmed.

My thoughts on this... play a zero magic campaign. At about third level, each player suddenly has a gestalt level in some casting class. Spontaneous caster. Sorcerer, cleric, druid, something. The players can choose which "class" you want to spend exp in to get to level 20. (Having the caster level be gestalt is very important so they're not hampered down by 3 class levels they don't want.) Now the question is, where the hell did this power come from? How do NPCs react to this power? Do you flaunt it or hide it? Pulling this off will require working with a group you know fairly well tho. Basically introduce it as "this world has no casting and you're starting with a class without casting, but later you'll have the option to get casting classes and basically change your characters entire build into a caster if you want." The point of the sessions playing as a non-caster is basically to reinforce how there's zero magic in this world, before giving it to the PCs.

[Chronikoce]

I think it could be really cool but difficult to pull off. It sounds like something that might fit well in a pbp setting. More focus on roleplaying and using abilities out of combat and plenty of time and spoiler blocks to use for exploration/discovering powers.

At a traditional table game it could be frustrating due to the amount of time that would be devoted to dm-single PC roleplaying interactions as people explore powers.

I will jump on the bandwagon with the others and say that I don't think 3.5 would work well for this. As squab mentioned, magic doesn't really work unless you have the full text of the spell. I mean you could try to prepare and cast based purely on flavor text for spells but sometimes the effect is pitiful and useless compared to the embellished language that can appear in spell flavor texts.

[The Evil DM]

Ed Greenwood wrote an article called Keep Em Guessing in Dragon Magazine issue 49 page 81 in his recurring article Up On A Soap Box where he proposed essentially the same thing the OP is proposing. The difference is he advocates describing all game mechanics in a subjective format - meaning a player can tell if another player or creature is stronger than himself but has no number.

As a DM who has done this several times for short term game and one offs I can say it is very interesting and it works just fine with D&D.

The strength of the method is it forces all players to really role play and leave behind the mechanics.

The weakness. DM is now responsible for all game mechanics, PC and NPC. It is very difficult to manage with high level characters and large complicated battles.

Mr Greenwood also advocates use as a means to introduce new comers into role playing and slowly revealing game mechanics to them as they learn to play.

Search for PDF Issue 49 Dragon Magazine and you can find a copy.

[OttoVonBigby]

I see a potential issue in terms of justifying it fluff-wise: most classes involve training, which means a mentor, and if I'm a 1st-level monk or whatever, I'm going to know that my 12th-level teacher can "slip magically between spaces," as if using some sort of door-through-dimensions spell. So that then becomes a career goal for me, and if I have any kind of experience with any game (including video games) where new abilities get unlocked with time, it becomes something I outright expect.

Presenting mechanics in vague terms, trying to dissuade players from thinking about NPC/monster numbers, and discouraging in-character references to feat names and even some class names...yes, I definitely do all that. But I almost feel like fluff-wise it makes *more* sense for the player to know what's ahead of him w/r/t his own class.

At least for most classes. Something less training-based, like psionics or sorcerer/warlock-type classes, this idea could be pretty awesome (but yeah, only with the right group).

[XionUnborn01]

I think it could be really cool but difficult to pull off. It sounds like something that might fit well in a pbp setting. More focus on roleplaying and using abilities out of combat and plenty of time and spoiler blocks to use for exploration/discovering powers.

At a traditional table game it could be frustrating due to the amount of time that would be devoted to dm-single PC roleplaying interactions as people explore powers.

That's one of the concerns that I had was having to spend a lot of one on one time but a PBP would perfect for this setting. The idea I had was something akin to the movies or shows you see where Something!(tm) happens and then people gain powers and as they go they realize new ways to use them and new abilities. I was thinking that Incarnum might be a good system to use for it, but maybe creating different paths of one the incarnate and the totemist, maybe set the melds up almost like Cleric domains that you make pairs of for different themes?


I will jump on the bandwagon with the others and say that I don't think 3.5 would work well for this. As squab mentioned, magic doesn't really work unless you have the full text of the spell. I mean you could try to prepare and cast based purely on flavor text for spells but sometimes the effect is pitiful and useless compared to the embellished language that can appear in spell flavor texts.

I agree that spellcasting would be a nightmare which is why I would use homebrew classes or something like Incarnum. Choosing something like flaming hands might be cool right away but compared to other spells it's pretty boring.


Ed Greenwood wrote an article called Keep Em Guessing in Dragon Magazine issue 49 page 81 in his recurring article Up On A Soap Box where he proposed essentially the same thing the OP is proposing. The difference is he advocates describing all game mechanics in a subjective format - meaning a player can tell if another player or creature is stronger than himself but has no number.
...Snip...
Mr Greenwood also advocates use as a means to introduce new comers into role playing and slowly revealing game mechanics to them as they learn to play.

Search for PDF Issue 49 Dragon Magazine and you can find a copy.

I will look for that issue and I agree that It could be a good way to introduce new people. This would necessitate having a short arc that's resolved, setting it up like a short tv series or a movie so that they get a feel for their character's early abilities and then letting them choose from there if they wish to continue in that style or make it a more traditional style of game.


I see a potential issue in terms of justifying it fluff-wise: most classes involve training, which means a mentor, and if I'm a 1st-level monk or whatever, I'm going to know that my 12th-level teacher can "slip magically between spaces," as if using some sort of door-through-dimensions spell. So that then becomes a career goal for me, and if I have any kind of experience with any game (including video games) where new abilities get unlocked with time, it becomes something I outright expect.

Presenting mechanics in vague terms, trying to dissuade players from thinking about NPC/monster numbers, and discouraging in-character references to feat names and even some class names...yes, I definitely do all that. But I almost feel like fluff-wise it makes *more* sense for the player to know what's ahead of him w/r/t his own class.

At least for most classes. Something less training-based, like psionics or sorcerer/warlock-type classes, this idea could be pretty awesome (but yeah, only with the right group).

I'll point again to how I've said that this necessitates classes the player's haven't seen before and might require homebrew. I realize that if you're training with someone, you'll expect to learn what they know which is why it's set up as new abilities that they are just learning of. I don't want to throw someone into a campaign where they've been training with someone on how to snatch an arrow out of the air and then expect them to be surprised when they learn to do it.

I agree that an alternative class like psionics would be a good idea, I think Incarnum might be easier to set up but I'm fairly unfamiliar with psionics so that might be why.