How much is too much?

[tkdco2]

I'm talking about the number of choices in your campaign. There are tons of spells, monsters, magic items, settings, and even classes (if you consider the fan-made classes available on the web during the 2E era). Do you need all of them in your game? If not, how would you determine the maximum?

There's no right or wrong answer for this question; it all depends on your needs.

[geoffrey]

I prefer small numbers of spells, magic items, races, and classes.

For spells, perhaps 100 magic-user spells, fewer than that for clerics.

Magic items? Cook's Expert D&D rulebook has about the right number.

Classes? At least cleric, fighter, and magic-user. B/X's 7 classes is a good number.

Races? One wouldn't be too few.

But monsters? Bring them on. Bring them all on!

[Deleted]

I like to hand pick monsters prior to pursuing campaign development. Then realms take on additional meaning and gravity, for example.

[thecoldironkid]

i like to use only d6's in my game, so everything comes in groups of 6, 36, or 216. (so i can randomly pull from my lists using the dice)

more specifically: 6 spells per spell level; 6 OR 36 monsters (i change my mind a lot); 6 CATEGORIES of magic items, with multiple d6 tables within each category to generate a unique item; i SHOULD have 6 classes, but it's totally a player's choice and i should never have to randomly determine a class, so i only roll with fighter, thief, wizard, and cleric (and cleric is on thin ice).

[tkdco2]

Mar 11, 2021 17:25:07 GMT -6 @doublejig2 said:

I like to hand pick monsters prior to pursuing campaign development. Then realms take on additional meaning and gravity, for example.

Agreed. One campaign I played in had Draconians in Greyhawk. While there's nothing wrong about that per se, to me it just removes "flavor" from the setting. 

[flightcommander]

My personal preference these days is human (only) PCs. I like the three main classes and find no need for others, although every player should feel free to associate their character with some vocation eg a Magic-User who is a merchant, or a Fighting-Man who is a rogue. I prefer the spells from OD&D with wide latitude for players and DM to introduce new ones; likewise the treasures from OD&D are a good starting point but I don't see any reason to limit myself there. As for monsters, I tend to choose subsets that fit a theme (as @doublejig2 ), with the addition of new monsters (including individual, peculiar critters and NPC's) at my whim; again, no reason to limit oneself, and honestly humans are quite often the best monsters.

I'm not a huge fan of new character classes or races (though I used to be) — however if the setting and the additions are unique enough I think it's wonderful. I'm thinking here of, for example, Mountebanks and War Bears from the Hill Cantons.

All that being said, if somebody wanted to run a 5E game and asked me to play, I'd totally go along with it and play a Dragonbjørn Halfling Flameblade Soulstealer™ or whatever needs to happen for everybody to have fun.

[Finarvyn]

It's a great question, and not one that I think I can answer fully. I think "too much" is the point where we wish the material was re-organized into a new edition.

OD&D expanded into several supplements, then AD&D became needed. AD&D expanded into Unearthed Arcana and several other orange-spined supplements, then 2E became needed. 2E was famous for the "handbook" softbacks and a number of "options" hardbacks and eventually 3E was needed. 3E exploded into a huge number of 3rd party supplements and eventually 4E happened. 4E also exploded into new books at an alarming rate, then WotC needed to blow it up and make 5E. 5E is starting to get bloated with supplements (Volo, Sword Coast, Xanathar, Tacha, etc) and sadly I suspect that 6E won't be far away.

I used the term "needed" although clearly not everyone needed (or wanted) a new edition along the way, but somewhere along the line the quantity of official material starts to get heavy and disjointed and spread over a lot of books until it becomes hard to find anything. That's the point where revision is "needed."

I think.

[tdenmark]

When you're running a game more than a few sourcebooks at hand can seem like too much. When prepping a game a lot of material is useful to reference. But it does quickly become overwhelming.

5e is approaching the too much threshold, so certainly 6e is right around the corner. And they'll be sure to make it just different enough that conversion is a pain that is easier to buy the new stuff.

For me 1e was in a good place just before the survival guides came out.

[Deleted]

Mar 11, 2021 17:25:07 GMT -6 @doublejig2 said:

I like to hand pick monsters prior to pursuing campaign development. Then realms take on additional meaning and gravity, for example.

Having a limited or area-specific bestiary certainly helps with the flavor of a campaign. The Sinbad-inspired campaign I'm planning for sometime down the line necessitates that I rewatch all the classic claymation movies, for instance. If a creature appears or is implied to exist in those, it'll be in the campaign. If not, it won't. Because that's the universe I'd like to present for that specific campaign. The current one was pitched as "3lbb by the book" so its fiction includes all the creatures from Monsters & Treasure and the ecology implied by that. 

[hamurai]

It's too much when it confuses players and DM. That is, when remembering, not looking stuff up. My group and I prefer the game elements to be readily available from memory, that includes class abilities, rules, common spells. If we have to sift through various (or even just one) book to look up stuff all the time, it's too much as it's slowing down gameplay.

[Deleted]

Mar 12, 2021 7:48:38 GMT -6 hamurai said:

It's too much when it confuses players and DM. That is, when remembering, not looking stuff up. My group and I prefer the game elements to be readily available from memory, that includes class abilities, rules, common spells. If we have to sift through various (or even just one) book to look up stuff all the time, it's too much as it's slowing down gameplay.

To be honest, this can sometimes be a problem even in the simplest of rules sets. I ran a few S&W Whitebox games in 2016 and I had this one player (we've all met the type) who insisted on being a Magic-User but couldn't be bothered to remember what any spell effects did and didn't use the index cards I gave him. As you can imagine, when we played anything more complicated than that, the problem was amplified. (Now thankfully there's not that many spells in Whitebox and most of them are super self-explanatory so it didn't create much of an issue there. I was still somewhat miffed by it.)

[mgtremaine]

Mar 12, 2021 8:02:29 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Mar 12, 2021 7:48:38 GMT -6 hamurai said:

It's too much when it confuses players and DM. That is, when remembering, not looking stuff up. My group and I prefer the game elements to be readily available from memory, that includes class abilities, rules, common spells. If we have to sift through various (or even just one) book to look up stuff all the time, it's too much as it's slowing down gameplay.

To be honest, this can sometimes be a problem even in the simplest of rules sets. I ran a few S&W Whitebox games in 2016 and I had this one player (we've all met the type) who insisted on being a Magic-User but couldn't be bothered to remember what any spell effects did and didn't use the index cards I gave him. As you can imagine, when we played anything more complicated than that, the problem was amplified. (Now thankfully there's not that many spells in Whitebox and most of them are super self-explanatory so it didn't create much of an issue there. I was still somewhat miffed by it.)

Huh.. I have to admit I have never met the type. That's an oddity indeed. (Most people I've played with who can't bothered are fighters.)

As for me I stick to core classes of whatever edition. Monsters there can never be too much, magic there can never be too much, spells I have no problem with researched spells. Theory of Expanding Universe. ;p

-Mike

[howandwhy99]

Mar 11, 2021 16:39:40 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

I'm talking about the number of choices in your campaign. There are tons of spells, monsters, magic items, settings, and even classes (if you consider the fan-made classes available on the web during the 2E era). Do you need all of them in your game? If not, how would you determine the maximum?

There's no right or wrong answer for this question; it all depends on your needs.

I think of all those things as toys in the toy box and when I am creating a game world I use anything and everything I would like to be in it. I would not limit my color palette, but neither would I think I have to use every color every time. I'm for players also having a say in what can be added to the random campaign lists, what is included and what is excluded.

[hamurai]

Mar 12, 2021 8:02:29 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Mar 12, 2021 7:48:38 GMT -6 hamurai said:

It's too much when it confuses players and DM. That is, when remembering, not looking stuff up. My group and I prefer the game elements to be readily available from memory, that includes class abilities, rules, common spells. If we have to sift through various (or even just one) book to look up stuff all the time, it's too much as it's slowing down gameplay.

To be honest, this can sometimes be a problem even in the simplest of rules sets. I ran a few S&W Whitebox games in 2016 and I had this one player (we've all met the type) who insisted on being a Magic-User but couldn't be bothered to remember what any spell effects did and didn't use the index cards I gave him. As you can imagine, when we played anything more complicated than that, the problem was amplified. (Now thankfully there's not that many spells in Whitebox and most of them are super self-explanatory so it didn't create much of an issue there. I was still somewhat miffed by it.)

Oh yes, we have such a player in our group. He insisted on playing a druid ever since we started our 5E group and he never could remember any of his class ability rules and spells. Truly annoying, even when we started the 4th campaign he played the druid with hardly an idea how it worked. Funnily enough, in oour last campaign he played a sorcerer and quickly memorized the rules and best spells. In our current campaign, he's playing a druid again  

That aside, of course it can happen in light-weight systems, too. That's increasingly a problem when you're of the type that tries a lot of different systems on the side, like I do. I do mix up stuff in similar games from time to time, too. Like, D&D, DCC, Hackmaster, lots of OSR - all so similar.

[Deleted]

Mar 12, 2021 12:34:07 GMT -6 mgtremaine said:

Mar 12, 2021 8:02:29 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

To be honest, this can sometimes be a problem even in the simplest of rules sets. I ran a few S&W Whitebox games in 2016 and I had this one player (we've all met the type) who insisted on being a Magic-User but couldn't be bothered to remember what any spell effects did and didn't use the index cards I gave him. As you can imagine, when we played anything more complicated than that, the problem was amplified. (Now thankfully there's not that many spells in Whitebox and most of them are super self-explanatory so it didn't create much of an issue there. I was still somewhat miffed by it.)

Huh.. I have to admit I have never met the type. That's an oddity indeed. (Most people I've played with who can't bothered are fighters.)

As for me I stick to core classes of whatever edition. Monsters there can never be too much, magic there can never be too much, spells I have no problem with researched spells. Theory of Expanding Universe. ;p

-Mike

Oh? I assumed most RP groups had at some point entertained "that one guy." Of course there's so many varied hobby tropes and such wide differences in geography and culture among us there's gonna be major exceptions. You dodged a bullet there. 

[tetramorph]

Less is more.

Boundaries inspire creativity.

3 classes, 4 races, 8ACs, 3d6, 1d20, S&S style single saving throws = joy.

In my most recent house rules I even eliminated any shared spells between MUs and CLs.

[tkdco2]

Rolemaster is an example of too many classes.

[geoffrey]

Mar 12, 2021 15:43:16 GMT -6 hamurai said:

I do mix up stuff in similar games from time to time, too. Like, D&D, DCC, Hackmaster, lots of OSR - all so similar.

Something I've toyed with is mixing Moldvay/Cook's B/X with 4th edition Hackmaster's 8-volume Hacklopedia of Beasts (containing over 1,600 monsters!).

[robertsconley]

So I started with AD&D 1st edition and its list of classes. Then in 1985 I switched to Fantasy Heroes, and in 1988 I switched to GURPS. I stuck with GURPS for two decades for my setting, the Majestic Wilderlands. So when I started playing around with OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry, I went through my notes and records make a list of the different character types that were played. While GURPS and Fantasy Hero allowed players to mix and match in near infinite combination. In practice, like in life, certain players gravitated to certain roles. Most of them grounded in my Majestic Wilderlands setting. So there were Fighters, who took a lot of combat skills and combat abilities. And the same for Mages, along with Clerics and Thieves.

Because I stuck with the same setting for so many years, because I incorporated what happened in the previous campaign are part of the next. What I found some options became popular and players in new campaigns would setup their character in the same way. For example mages that were not only magic-users but also happened to be members of the Order of Thoth and thus had the magical quirks and talents that I established for that order in previous campaigns.

So when it came time to write the Majestic Wilderlands supplement. I went through those notes and logs and fleshed those that either cropped up over and over again. Or those I used to define NPCs.

I had clerics with some details altered for each of the ten main deities of my setting.
I had Fighters along with soldiers, paladins of Mitra, Berserkers (monster hunting holy warriors for Thor), Myrmidon of Set (Lawful Evil Paladins)
I had Magic-Users along with Mages of the Order of Thoth, Wizards of the Trehaen, Runecasters, Theurgists, and Artificers.
In place of Thieves I had various types of rogues like Burglars, Thugs, Montebank (street magic-user), Merchant Adventurer, and Claws of Kalis (Assassins).

Together these classes reflect much of the life of my setting developed over the years. And they seem to work nearly everywhere I used them in the past decades. I think because their foundation rest on my observations on what players did rather than guessing what they may like.

[Deleted]

Mar 12, 2021 20:12:14 GMT -6 robertsconley said:

So I started with AD&D 1st edition and its list of classes. Then in 1985 I switched to Fantasy Heroes, and in 1988 I switched to GURPS. I stuck with GURPS for two decades for my setting, the Majestic Wilderlands. So when I started playing around with OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry, I went through my notes and records make a list of the different character types that were played. While GURPS and Fantasy Hero allowed players to mix and match in near infinite combination. In practice, like in life, certain players gravitated to certain roles. Most of them grounded in my Majestic Wilderlands setting. So there were Fighters, who took a lot of combat skills and combat abilities. And the same for Mages, along with Clerics and Thieves.

Because I stuck with the same setting for so many years, because I incorporated what happened in the previous campaign are part of the next. What I found some options became popular and players in new campaigns would setup their character in the same way. For example mages that were not only magic-users but also happened to be members of the Order of Thoth and thus had the magical quirks and talents that I established for that order in previous campaigns.

So when it came time to write the Majestic Wilderlands supplement. I went through those notes and logs and fleshed those that either cropped up over and over again. Or those I used to define NPCs.

I had clerics with some details altered for each of the ten main deities of my setting.
I had Fighters along with soldiers, paladins of Mitra, Berserkers (monster hunting holy warriors for Thor), Myrmidon of Set (Lawful Evil Paladins)
I had Magic-Users along with Mages of the Order of Thoth, Wizards of the Trehaen, Runecasters, Theurgists, and Artificers.
In place of Thieves I had various types of rogues like Burglars, Thugs, Montebank (street magic-user), Merchant Adventurer, and Claws of Kalis (Assassins).

Together these classes reflect much of the life of my setting developed over the years. And they seem to work nearly everywhere I used them in the past decades. I think because their foundation rest on my observations on what players did rather than guessing what they may like.

Do you find that newer players who join your games as time goes by continue to gravitate towards the same archetypes, especially since the setting encourages it so much? Or has it been the exact same group for all these years? 

[hamurai]

Mar 12, 2021 18:56:50 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Mar 12, 2021 15:43:16 GMT -6 hamurai said:

I do mix up stuff in similar games from time to time, too. Like, D&D, DCC, Hackmaster, lots of OSR - all so similar.

Something I've toyed with is mixing Moldvay/Cook's B/X with 4th edition Hackmaster's 8-volume Hacklopedia of Beasts (containing over 1,600 monsters!).

I have the HM5 Hacklopedia of Beasts, and it's been a good resource for many games already.

[robertsconley]

Mar 13, 2021 5:33:20 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Do you find that newer players who join your games as time goes by continue to gravitate towards the same archetypes, especially since the setting encourages it so much? Or has it been the exact same group for all these years? 

I ran four different campaigns for three different groups using the current version of my Majestic Fantasy rules.

The latest group has a Human Cleric of Thor, a Half-Viridian Montebank (street wizard), A Viridian (demonic race) Artificer (ritual only caster), Halfling Knight, A Human Paladin of Mitra, A Human Merchant Adventurer, and a Half-Elven Montebank.

The first full campaign I played with the rules had a Half-Viridian Fighter, a Human Mage (Magic User who is a member of the Order of Thoth), and a Elven Montebank.

Another group had a Dwarven Rune-caster, a Human Cleric of Silvanus (Forest god), A Human Thug, a Halfling Fighter, a Human Knight, a Human Mage (MU, Order of Thoth).

Viridians and Half-Viridians come up because two of the group opted to adventure around Viridistan. Which as at this point is ruled by a Council founded as the result of what some PCs did in the 1980s. Viridistan has loosed up considerably. While in contrast City-State of the Invincible Overlord has gotten grimmer because another PC who played a Myrmidon of Set (LE Paladin) managed to become Overlord after two decades of intermittent play. Another PC played a GURPS fighter type was his rival for the throne. We settled it with a board game played between the three of us.

batintheattic.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-invincible-overlord-is-dead-long.html

[Deleted]

Mar 12, 2021 17:50:03 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

Less is more.

Boundaries inspire creativity.

3 classes, 4 races, 8ACs, 3d6, 1d20, S&S style single saving throws = joy.

In my most recent house rules I even eliminated any shared spells between MUs and CLs.

Though I prefer simpler rulesets to more complex ones (OD&D to AD&D, for example), I'm not sure I agree that less is always more.

For me, one of OD&D's strengths is its flexibility and modularity. The ability to add onto it allows for campaigns to be customized in various ways. I think that using the rules as written (or close to it) as a ceiling rather than a floor can inhibit creativity. There's no reason, for example, not to create a knight class distinct from fighting-men, if there's a chivalric order in the campaign.

I also don't want to straightjacket players. There's value to be had from letting them help shape the campaign world to an extent rather than requiring them to take/leave the campaign as they find it. So if they are eager to try something out (like playing a new race of cat-people, for example), why not let them?

Add-ons have to be done thoughtfully and modified or abandoned if playtesting reveals problems. But it seems to me that almost from the beginning D&D players began tinkering with the rules and expanding them in various ways. Part of the game's appeal (for some of us anyway) is the ability to do so. The degree of expansion is really just a matter of taste. Personally, I don't want the overall ruleset to be much more complicated than Holmes or B/X, but even then I think there's room for more classes, spells, magic-items, and monsters without putting any strain on the game or the DM's ability to run it.

I'm not against limitations if they exist for purposes of a particular campaign world (e.g., there are no clerics because all the gods perished in a war of the gods and now whatever limited magical healing is to be had is relegated to a class of necromancers). But I see those kind of thematic limitations as being different from a blanket less-is-more approach to the game and its rules.

I don't feel too strongly about any of this though. I've played in Tetramorph's less-is-more game and had a good time. I just would not want his less-is-more game to be the only option I had, if that makes sense.

[jeffb]

Mar 12, 2021 7:48:38 GMT -6 hamurai said:

It's too much when it confuses players and DM. That is, when remembering, not looking stuff up. My group and I prefer the game elements to be readily available from memory, that includes class abilities, rules, common spells. If we have to sift through various (or even just one) book to look up stuff all the time, it's too much as it's slowing down gameplay.

This.



As to the general subject-

As a DM, nothing annoys me more than having to reference 2 or more books to run a adversary. 3.X/PF are the worst- between having to reference special/supernatural abilities, , spells/spell like abilities, conditions imposed by special/spell abilities, feats, etc. Absolutely ridiculous. 5E is slightly better, but spellcasters are still a PITA.

This is why I love DW so much- just some tags to describe how each monster/adversary works in the world and in the encounter, HP, damage, and armor if any.

As for classes/races. I prefer fewer classes with a narrative mechanic to really differentiate each PC from others- I've adopted 13th Ages background system to every O/TSR game I run, instead of messing with "skills" or getting into all the subclasses or "builds". Whitehack has a similar mechanic. Races- as mentioned in the demihuman level limits thread recently- I have grown to loathe demi-humans in general because 99% of the time they are played as the stereotype and/or for meta purposes.

Monsters- I'm of the opinion that most D&D monsters are just so...goofy? silly? childish? ridiculous? Others are clearly built around a metagame purpose. I'd rather have a small book of really well thought out monsters with good fictional game purpose than volume upon volume of goofy Monster Manuals- all editions are guilty of this. I stopped buying all the monster books after 1E because I might find only a half dozen or so out of 200 I'd actually use. These days if I'm homebrewing adventures, I prefer the modern method of just a basic set of stats for certain generic "types" (ala DCC RPG, 13th Age, Sine Nominee Games, 4E) and assigning a few tags in my notes to the stats ala Dungeon World- "Swarm opponents. Call for help. Messy.". If they cast spells, I just give a one/two word description like "bolster friendlies" instead of referencing a spell in a book. It may give those creatures a +1 on rolls, or maybe I'll decide the monsters morale improves and they really get coordinated or berserker like. If the ability does damage, I usually improv that based on how tough the monster is. In general, I improv alot when it comes to numbers and monsters. Rules lawyers and RAW folks hate me. But I just don't believe as a player gaming the system and knowing how everything works ,makes for fun D&D. I know others MMV.

[tetramorph]

@dungeonmonkey , your reply to my post made me go back to the original post and rethink things.

tkdco2 asked how much is too much in a campaign. I mistook the question to be that of rules, especially in terms of player mechanics.

I still would hold firm that few and simple game mechanics, both for referee, but especially for players, is freeing. And, if I read your post right, it looks like we both agree on that one.

But I know see that the real question is about the campaign itself. In which case, I agree with you @dungeonmonkey . The simplicity of original edition is what allows for the infinite variability of campaigns to grow in complexity as we play. Its flexibility and modularity being what is truly best about it. Monsters, treasures, magic items, NPCs, developing histories and relationships -- that is the very stuff of good campaigns.

So, to return to the OP and the actual question posed, I would therefore agree with hamurai that it is "too much," when the players start getting confused.

Thanks for steering me right (again!), @dungeonmonkey . Fight on!

[tkdco2]

Rules count too. Rules, races, classes, etc. They're all covered in the question.

[geoffrey]

Mar 15, 2021 8:03:17 GMT -6 jeffb said:

Monsters- I'm of the opinion that most D&D monsters are just so...goofy? silly? childish? ridiculous?

Agreed. But I like that sort of thing, hence my liking for the 8-volume Hacklopedia of Beasts for HackMaster.

[tkdco2]

When running AD&D, especially 2E, I've decided to stick to the core rulebooks, including Legends & Lore. I have most of the Player Handbooks since I was a fan of kits back in the day, but these days I'm more inclined to use them merely as suggestions on how to roleplay characters. The Player's Option books count as "too much" for me. I never bought any of them, and they have no place in my games.

Monsters depend on the setting. I won't put orcs in a Dragonlance game, nor will kender and draconians appear in my Forgotten Realms games.

As for settings, I have a few favorites. Forgotten Realms tends to follow the kitchen sink approach, but there's so much written that I can pick and choose what I like to give it enough flavor. Fortunately, most of my friends aren't too familiar with the Realms, so I don't have the problem with players insisting on what is "canon" in the FR. I will not game with those players.

[scottenkainen]

In my current campaign, we started with the 3 LBBs only, but I started polling the players on what rules from the supplements they want to include. So in our case, "enough" is determined by majority vote.

[Merias]

In my OD&D 3LBB campaigns I have used the core classes plus my own Warden (Ranger) class and my own Thief variant. I like to create my own monsters, Zenopus's one-sheet guide in his Holmesref is great for that, otherwise the old S&W monster book is what I use as a reference. Magic is a mix of by-the-book (I add the Greyhawk spells in) and unique magic items.