Talk:Running a Golden Tower Campaign (The Golden Tower)

Tell Them "No"?

There's some pretty horrible advice on this page. At least the first thing listed (about the Aasimar/Cactae) makes sense and gives an explanation (though why the hell you can't just tell them that it defeats the plot points?), but the others give no apparent explanation. Why can't we play as a member of the Emirate of Dervaland? Why does this specific campaign setting have a restriction against the value of magic items? Not to mention that all these "important plot points" make me wonder if you're writing an entire campaign setting or just a single adventure.

This campaign may not be in the same class as Ravenloft, but it just might shut them up for fear of it turning into Ravenloft.

That's horrible. Do you seriously want this campaign setting to be DM vs the players? If you do I'll shut up, but if you don't that is really stupid advice. Surgo 16:23, 16 February 2009 (MST)

Some D&D players can be hard-headed. I want to get this out of the way before I begin. It has been my experience that telling a player the reasoning behind something (be it a particular house rule, deific behavior, game physics or feat "interpretations") opens the table for lengthy debate. YOU DO NOT WANT A DEBATE AT ANY POINT OF A GAME, WHETHER IT'S DURING DOWNTIME OR NOT. This is why I call the DM restrictions list the "NO" column. It's just easier to say NO than to argue it out. The DM can simply invoke the rule presented at the top of page 19 of the Dungeon Master's Guide and that works just as well, especially in the case of home brewed campaigns.

Going back to my comment about D&D players being hard-headed, I noticed you glossed over some explanations given in the "NO" column. If you were not content with the reasoning behind magic item restrictions (namely stopping munchkins before they start), I present the argument of Perryn. For those that want to play an evil character despite Character Creation suggestion #4 and the Racial restrictions found in the "BANNED" list, I say a PC cannot be an evil character in this campaign. Again. Because the Emirate of Dervaland is a lawful evil country, with most of its populace being evil a PC cannot be an evil character from the Emirate of Dervaland in this campaign (NOTE: PCs can be non-evil tiefling expatriates of this country, as stated in the "NO" column.) Due to the impending war with the kingdom of Pecostan, a PC cannot be an evil character that is a current member or ally of the Emirate of Dervaland.

If you had noticed the tags on the article page you'd know that YES, I am writing a whole campaign and such is my intent. I have compiled as much to make this campaign setting a reality, as much as a fantasy game can be real. As I read the last paragraph you wrote concerning DM vs. players, it makes me think that YOU are a PC under a DM who is running this campaign. There are things that players should not know which are for DM EYES ONLY and you as a player should not read this article at all. If you are a DM, I hope you are running this game as intended and you are specifically telling your players not to look on this article and NO to requests that openly flaunt the rules and restrictions set down.

On a closing note, if you are going to read the article (or any other), I insist that you please read thoroughly. Please. --Gedren56 15:14, 27 February 2009 (MST)

There's a difference between "this campaign" and "this campaign setting" and your page is listed under "campaign settings". The idea that no evil character can ever be made and run in this campaign setting completely boggles my mind. The fact that this is supposedly a campaign setting and not a single adventure also makes this page amazingly confusing, as none of these could really be considered important plot points for the campaign setting as a whole. Surgo 15:10, 27 February 2009 (MST)

And yet they are. Important, that is. The reason why no evil character can be run in this campaign is because I intended the DM to run those characters. Did you see the disclaimer at the bottom? I wasn't finished making this campaign, because not enough has happened in this campaign to warrant running an all-evil PC group and saying, "hey, evil PCs in this campaign setting are OK". I tried to be easy when I first started running the campaign, and I decided to err on the side of good PCs only. My apologies if your PC is hindered as a result. --Gedren56 15:20, 27 February 2009 (MST)

I don't think you're quite getting it. "The reason why no evil character can be run in this campaign is because I intended the DM to run those characters" is fine. It is also entirely different from "no evil characters are allowed in this campaign setting". And this is a page about a campaign setting. Surgo 15:22, 27 February 2009 (MST)

I agree; I'm not getting it. What is the difference between a campaign and a campaign setting? Keep in mind that I am not feigning ignorance, I am asking questions about a line being drawn between two terms i thought were interchangeable that I did not know existed. --Gedren56 15:27, 27 February 2009 (MST)

No big deal. A campaign setting is something like Forgotten Realms, or Eberron, or some stuff here on the wiki. It's a world with a populated map and interesting personalities, with cosmology and already-built stories, in which all sorts individual campaigns can be run. A campaign, on the other hand, is one DM's game within that campaign setting. The setting describes the world, and the campaign itself is the DM's story being told in the world. The example of "no evil PCs" isn't something you'd put in a campaign setting because that's really specific to the campaign (individual game) itself -- the setting can certainly have stories told where the PCs are evil, even if one individual storyline doesn't involve evil PCs. Surgo 17:30, 27 February 2009 (MST)

That clarifies a lot. Thanks, man. Now let me clarify: I did not intend for evil PCs in the campaign OR the campaign setting (only evil NPCs), due to the ass-hattery that players commit when given the opportunity to be evil (or for that matter, chaotic neutral; See "Murdering Babies in a Holy Temple".) What I am trying to prevent is the stress associated with such behavior. I know it may seem harsh, but I have learned over my period as a DM that if you lay the hammer down early you can get a decent gaming experience and move the game along to a point where the PCs would like to continue the adventure. I phrased the previous sentence in such a way to illustrate a fact about certain gamers: they are looking for escapism and power they do not possess in real life.
It has been my misfortune to run into cheaters, munchkins, power gamers, min/maxers, otherkin, furries, dracophiles and combinations of the aforementioned in my short time as a D&D player and DM. All of these types of players have exhibited behavior that have been disruptive to the game. As such, my actions are colored by such experiences and I have put these restrictions into place so no one else has to reinvent the wheel. Case in point: when I have allowed a player of those types full access to magic items (i.e., using all of their starting gold to buy a magic item instead of only being able to purchase a magic item worth half of their starting gold) as a DM, they abuse the item. When I have allowed a person to be chaotic neutral, they take that as free license to commit evil atrocities under the banner of free will and neutrality. I've called those kinds of people out on their alignments and they respond that it wasn't an evil act, because they're chaotic neutral. If this is how they're gonna behave as neutral characters, imagine how they'll behave as evil characters! So I nixed the evil alignment from player access and restricted their staring gold usage in regards to buying magic items of any sort. In reading my previous statements, I should have stated my experiences as a reason for my rules because they are relevant to the conclusion that brought forth the rulings.

You say that campaigns and campaign settings are different so I guess you want to see evil PCs in this campaign setting, not necessarily in the campaign. I strongly discourage you from taking that action, but you are free to do what you want since I cannot control what you do with this campaign setting on your end. --Gedren56 08:27, 28 February 2009 (MST)