Sometime in the summer of 1988, I started a D&D (AD&D1) WOG campaign, and I remember using a questionaire to find out what the players were looking for, and how to fit them in. Since then, any new players have come in as "friends of friends", and for one reason or another, the campaign has dwindled down to one player who, with the exception of rare face-to-face meetings, I handle by e-mail and phone.
However, I have volunteered to DM a campaign for a long-defunct D&D club at my university (no idea if it will actually go anywhere). Besides a variety of univeristy requirements (GPA, etc), I decided that the questionaire might be a handy idea again.
FWIW:
YOUR BACKGROUND:
1. Are you familiar with FRPGs?
2. Are you familiar with D&D in general?
3. Are you familiar with D&D 3.5 in particular?
4. Are you familiar with the World of Greyhawk?
PLAY PREFERENCES:
1. The days and times which you are available for play:
2. The Character Races which would you most/least like to play: Human; Half-Orc; Half-Elf; Half-human Elf; High Elf; Wood Elf; Grey Elf; Rock Gnome; Hill Dwarf; Mountain Dwarf; Lightfoot Halfling; Stout Halfling; Tallfellow Halfling; Other (Ordered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for favored, with 1 the most preferred; up to five which you don't want to play, marked: X. You do not have to list any as preferred or disliked)
3. Sex you would most/least like to play: Male; Female. (1 favored; up to 1 disliked. You do not have to list either as preferred or disliked)
4. The Alignments which would most/least like to play: LG; NG; CG; LN; N; CN; LE; NE; CE. (up to 3 favored; up to 2 disliked. You do not have to list any as preferred or disliked)
5. The Class which you would most/least like toplay: Fighter; Barbarian; Paladin; Ranger; Hexblade; Scout; Swashbuckler; Rogue; Bard; Sorcerer; Wizard; Cleric; Druid; Monk; Aristocrat; Expert. (up to 5 favored; up to 5 disliked. You do not have to list any as preferred or disliked)
6. The Party Organization/Employer which you would most/least like to play: Free-Lance Adventurer; Part-Time Adventurer (i.e. charcter has a "normal" job); Military; Police; Lord; Temple; Merchant Group; Mercenary Unit; Bounty Hunter; Bandit; Mobster (e.g., Thieve's Guildmember); Rebel; Other. (up to 3 favored, up to 3 disliked)
7. The Activity which you would most/least like to play: Criminal Mystery (Community); Supernatural Mystery; Politics; High Life; Mean Streets; Normal Job, Frontier/Backwoods; Normal Job, Rural; Normal Job, Urban; Normal Job (Sea); Gladitorial Combat; Jousting Tournaments; Archery Contests; Magic Contests; Eliminating a Bandit Lair; Eliminating a Humanoid Tribal Lair; Eliminating a Crypt (Undead); Eliminating a Temple; Eliminating a Castle; Wandering, Plains; Wandering, Hills; Wandering, Mountains; Wandering, Woods; Wandering, Jungle; Wandering, Arctic; Wandering, River; Wandering, Highway; Wandering, Coasts; Wandering, High Seas; Other. (up to 5 favored; up to 3 disliked)
8. Define a "successful" character: Money; Levels; "Mission Accomplishment"; A convincingly played role; Other. (optional, as many as you'd like)
9. Historical or Fictional "feel" of the setting or charachter you would most like to/not like to play: e.g., Perrenland= Medieval/Renaissance Switzerland; Yeomanry= Merry Olde England; Geoff= Wales; Frost/Cold/Snow Barbarians= Vikings; Rovers= Northen Plains Indians; Wolf Nomads= Mongols; Hardby= Urban Amazons etc. (optional, as many as you'd like. Please list whether these references are for the setting or the character)
Comments?
Last edited by jamesdglick on Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
I often ask players face to face or via email what type of game do they like. If they are min-maxers or power gamers, then they will not work IMC. Everything else does not really matter to me. A better list to gage interest would be.
1) What are your favorite types of movies action, adventure, drama, comedy, etc.
2) List your top five books (comic books are acceptable) and movies of all time.
3) If three or more are listed below please move to question 4. If less than three are listed below please see question 5.
Conan books, comic books, or movies, Legend, Jason and the Argonauts, Elf Quest comic books, Any Fritz Leiber, Raymond Feist, David Gemmell, J.R. Tolkien, or George R. Martin book, Any book based on mythology, Claw the unconquered, Krull, Dragon Slayer, Excalibur, the original clash of the titans, The lord of the rings movie or trilogy, and Fire and Ice.
4) Which of these movie or literary character do you like the best? and why?
5) In an role playing game you take on the role of a medieval fantasy character and portray him or her like an actor filling a role on a stage. Does this sound like something your interested in?
If you answered no to number five then this campaign is not for you.
...I often ask players face to face or via email what type of game do they like. If they are min-maxers or power gamers, then they will not work IMC. Everything else does not really matter to me. A better list to gage interest would be...
5) In an role playing game you take on the role of a medieval fantasy character and portray him or her like an actor filling a role on a stage. Does this sound like something your interested in?
If you answered no to number five then this campaign is not for you...
-I may have accidentally discovered a hitherto unnoticed difference in DMing phlosophy here. I've often seen discussions of differences in player philosophy, but not DM philosophy.
The questionaire isn't to decide whether or not to accept anyone as a player (so far, I've never rejected a potential player in my life), but to fit them into a character and into scenarios which they will enjoy. The more players you have, the harder it is. After a certain point, you won't be able to give everyone exactly what they want (it's hard enough to do that for one person), but you can at least avoid forcing them into something boring or distasteful.
The background section merely warns me how much preparation the player will need. Obviously, the less familiar they are with the rules or the campaign, the more they'll need to see the rules, particularly if they are min-maxers (see "Play Preferences #8"). It might take a while before they get to play even if thoroughly familiar with both D&D 3.5 and the WOG,* because they'd have to become familiar with all of my rule additions and changes. On the other hand, an actor-type player (which you seem to prefer), might not need to be familiar with the intricate details of D&D 3.5, but they would have to know quite a bit about their bit of the WOG. Both styles are welcome, but I have to handle them differently.
"Player Preference" Question #1 is for my current situation, where I might be running a scenario for a university D&D club. People who are not available very often might end up doing a lot of play by e-mail. Not their fault, but that's the way it is.
Questions #2, #3, #4, #5 and #9 are primarily to figure out where the characters come from, since (as 1st level charachters with 0 XP or close to 0 XP) they will usually come from the same general area. It also helps me determine where their first adventure together will be.
Example: One player wants to be a viking-type beserker (CN preferred), the second is stuck on being a female half-elf ranger (CG or NG preferred), and the third wants to be an urbanite wizard (not fussy about anything else). In that case, the first player can be a Frost Barbarian of the barbarian class (make him a worshipper of Kord or Vatun), the second can come from the Timberway or Loftwood in Ratik, and the third could come from any large town or city. If I make the wizard come from Marner or Ratikhill, it looks like a perfect opportunity to use finish B1 at Quasqueton.
I could consider having both the barbarian and the ranger be Frost Barbarians, and they could even come for the same village. This would give them a pre-existing relationship, whether family members, friends, or "friends" (or even married). This eliminates the "we all met in tavern" nonsense (well, nonsense in most cases). But half-eleves are just too rare in the land of Frost (half-eleves probably fall under "other"). Too bad.
On the other hand, I could have the ranger and the wizard meet while serving in Ratik's army (Ratik has conscription for both men and women). The Ranger will have served in the northern Volunteer Borderer Company, and the wizard will have been a junior spellcaster. I could even do a few light "pre-game" adventures where they could pick up a few XPs before meeting young Frosty from the north, hopefully without getting killed. The players could determine the exact nature of their relationship based on the events of those "pre-adventure" adventures and their personal inclinations. Then, I just have to get them to Ratikhill. Possibly, their units move south to reinforce Ratikhill, and they choose to get discharged there.
Meanwhile, I'd determine if the barbarian has an encounter on his trip from his homeland to Ratikhill, in which case he might pick up some XP before meeting the others. Again, if he does, he hopefully doesn't get killed along the way.
Question #4 is to find "middle ground" for their alignments, although I think the whole issue is over-rated if you are not a cleric or paladin. Alignment differences by action are difficult to detect, particulalry if people don't mouth off about their alignments i.e. "Hi, I'm Sluffet Pmedger! I'm Lawful Neutral!"
I'll finish the rest later.
*Incidentally, I have never met anyone who was very familiar with Greyhawk. Odd.
4. The Alignments which would most/least like to play: LG; NG; CG; LN; N; CN; LE; NE; CE. (up to [#?]favored; up to 2 disliked. You do not have to list any as preferred or disliked)
I note that you left a number out of the above portion of your questionaire.
Quote:
*Incidentally, I have never met anyone who was very familiar with Greyhawk. Odd.
You have obviously not met many of us from Canonfire in real life.
SirXaris
Last edited by SirXaris on Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
4. The Alignments which would most/least like to play: LG; NG; CG; LN; N; CN; LE; NE; CE. (up to [#?]favored; up to 2 disliked. You do not have to list any as preferred or disliked)
I note that you left a number out of the above portion of your questionaire.
-Should have been "3". That leaves a no-man's land of alignments you don't really like, but don't really hate.
SirXaris wrote:
jamesdglick wrote:
*Incidentally, I have never met anyone who was very familiar with Greyhawk. Odd.
You have obviously not met many of us from Canonfire in real life.
-True. This is different.
But you would think that people would be more familiar with the first full fledged D&D campaign (Blackmoor being ur-D&D).
It is true I prefer a good role-player to a great roll player. This is my preference. To me min maxing and power gaming are the stuff of video games and should not take place in a role playing game. My preference as in my over 20+years of gaming experience. The games that made it fun for me the DM were games in which players developed their characters history and stuck to thr role they explained for their character. Players who focused solely on how to do the most damage or most special effects, always put a horrid taste in my mouth. I knew they would never match my level of imagination and ingenuity. I proved this to a friend of mine by writing what response I would get from three players in his game I met by playing two sessions in his campaign.
He showed me what he had planned for them. I wrote several pages on each of their actions and handed it to him before he started his session. When they finished the adventure after 3 6hr sessions. He asked me how I knew what they would do. I told him they have a singular mindset and cannot help keep the DM entertained.
The campaign folded and he agreed such gamers provide no entertainment value for the DM. I found avoiding these type of gamers prevents DM burnout.
Gotta side with the axe-brandishing savage above on this one. It is true that I probably started off as a 'hack and slash' player WAAAAAY back 'in the day' (high school)...what kid doesn't? But as I got older (mature??? this is debatable), I shifted towards what one sourceguide calls the 'righteous role-player.' Don't get me wrong. I love a GOOD, pitched scrap and prolonged sessions of pure role-play get old after a fashion. Nonetheless, I try to turn a 2D piece of paper with numbers and letters written on it into a 3D character.
...To me min maxing and power gaming are the stuff of video games and should not take place in a role playing game. My preference as in my over 20+years of gaming experience. The games that made it fun for me the DM were games in which players developed their characters history and stuck to thr role they explained for their character...
...and...
Lanthorn wrote:
...It is true that I probably started off as a 'hack and slash' player WAAAAAY back 'in the day' (high school)...what kid doesn't? But as I got older (mature??? this is debatable), I shifted towards what one sourceguide calls the 'righteous role-player.' Don't get me wrong. I love a GOOD, pitched scrap and prolonged sessions of pure role-play get old after a fashion. Nonetheless, I try to turn a 2D piece of paper with numbers and letters written on it into a 3D character...
-Hmmm... This has never been a long run problem. I never consciously thought about this before starting this thread, but there are some things I do which I didn't intentionally design to bring out the role player hiding deep within every min-maxer, but might have that effect nontheless:
1) I have a very thorough character creation process (see intro'). Some is done before a face-to-face session, some of it is done face-to-face. It is a combination of the desires of the player, campaign consistency, a little bit of randomness, and my (unerring) judgement. Eventually, we know who their family members were, even if they are no longer living (in the case of a bastard or anonymously placed orphan, I know), and I have an idea of who their mentors were (we might even do a few "pre-adventures" with them). If any of the characters knew each other "before", we figure that out. I guess that by the time we get to THE ADVENTURE itself, it's a little hard not to role play. You might consider that to be an excessive amount of hand-holding, but I don't have a problem with it. For some reason, I think creating characters is fun. In a way, as a DM, I get to constantly create new characters. Maybe that's one of it's appeals.
2) I spend a lot of time on the characters' "off time." Nowadays, I usually handle this by phone or e-mail, because face-to-face with my one remaining player is so rare- I need to reserve face-to-face for life an death stuff which better shown on a map. But if you spend a lot of time doing stuff which doesn't involve casting spells or using weapons, the player is sort of stuck developing a personality. Of course, there is role playing in action, too (or there should be), but it's more obvious when you search a new village looking for a place to stay, or getting your horse shoed, trying to figure out who to talk to (and trust) at the tavern, if anyone (introverts may miss out on opportunities, but they also avoid trouble). True, even here, Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, Intimidate, and Gather Information (roll playing) has a part, but you still have to kick it off (and round it out) with role playing.
As a side line (or side track), I thought it would be neat to play a campaign where you just played someone living a relatively "normal" life in the WOG (an extreme example of question #6, "Part-Time Adventurer"). Say, start of as a guy who guy who just finished his apprenticeship and is stricking out on his own (or maybe farmer or fisherman or miner), and go on from there. Something dangerous might happen--you could get drafted; be the target of a crime; be in a natural disaster; face "workplace" danger-- but years could go by without a single "adventure". Haven't found any takers for that one, or even "Part-Time Adventurer" from question #6. But that would be the ultimate in role play. In CY 578, I'd like to raise wheat in Veluna, plus a garden. It's a little cool for tomatoes, but I can probably swing it if I plant in late Flocktime, I can harvest during Goodmonth. Hopefully, the neighbors aren't jerks...
3) Maybe I have a higher tolerance for min-maxers.
4) It might be that I've been "lucky" in that even the min-maxers aren't so min-maxi. You reference video games (which gets blamed for everything, but anyway). Everyone I've ever DMed was born between 1968-1971, and everyone I've ever played with would have been born in the 1960s or 1970s. If you're right, could it be a generational thing? Perhaps if this thing I'm working on here actually gets started, I might be in for some culture shock.
jamesdglick wrote:
...
6. The Party Organization/Employer which you would most/least like to play: Free-Lance Adventurer; Part-Time Adventurer (i.e. charcter has a "normal" job); Military; Police; Lord; Temple; Merchant Group; Mercenary Unit; Bounty Hunter; Bandit; Mobster (e.g., Thieve's Guildmember); Rebel; Other. (up to 3 favored, up to 3 disliked)
7. The Activity which you would most/least like to play: Criminal Mystery (Community); Supernatural Mystery; Politics; High Life; Mean Streets; Normal Job, Frontier/Backwoods; Normal Job, Rural; Normal Job, Urban; Normal Job (Sea); Gladitorial Combat; Jousting Tournaments; Archery Contests; Magic Contests; Eliminating a Bandit Lair; Eliminating a Humanoid Tribal Lair; Eliminating a Crypt (Undead); Eliminating a Temple; Eliminating a Castle; Wandering, Plains; Wandering, Hills; Wandering, Mountains; Wandering, Woods; Wandering, Jungle; Wandering, Arctic; Wandering, River; Wandering, Highway; Wandering, Coasts; Wandering, High Seas; Other. (up to 5 favored; up to 3 disliked)...
9. Historical or Fictional "feel" of the setting or charachter you would most like to/not like to play: e.g., Perrenland= Medieval/Renaissance Switzerland; Yeomanry= Merry Olde England; Geoff= Wales; Frost/Cold/Snow Barbarians= Vikings; Rovers= Northen Plains Indians; Wolf Nomads= Mongols; Hardby= Urban Amazons etc. (optional, as many as you'd like. Please list whether these references are for the setting or the character)...
-These go to how the party is put together, and in part what their rationale for adventure is. Different charcters may have different rationales, of course, and thsi allows for that.
jamesdglick wrote:
...
8. Define a "successful" character: Money; Levels; "Mission Accomplishment"; A convincingly played role; Other. (optional, as many as you'd like)...
-This really goes to the players' motivations. You are clearly looking for those who want to fill "a convincingly played role" and perhaps "mission accomplishment." Perhaps I am, too. I just take a roundabout way to get them there.
Last edited by jamesdglick on Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:22 am; edited 1 time in total
In reading your above post, jamesdglick, I thought I'd make a comment about forcing role-playing. Lots of people disparage hack-and-slash and promote role-playing. However, the hack-and-slash is what I've always enjoyed most about D&D. When I DM or play, role-playing comes naturally and I don't need to force it. I let the players decide how much interaction they want to play out with NPCs.
The only reason I bring this up is because of all the time you mention taking on having your players come up with such extensive backstories for their characters. First, some players may not be interested in doing all that. They just want to make up a character and get into some battles. Second, when so much effort is put into a character, the player naturally becomes more attached to it. That means that, as a DM, you are going to be more likely to upset your players if you kill them, curswe them, or otherwise, mess with their characters. I had one player who quit because I had his character's wife kidnapped by the Jingling Mordo Circus.
I'm just advising you to ask your players if they really want to go to all the trouble of making up such an extensive background for their character.
He makes a good point about role-players vs. hack n slashers. The former group comprises followers of Lirr while the second, Erythnul.
In truth, some folks prefer to delve more deeply into the psyche' of their characters than others. Furthermore, I have found that, in general, veteran players tend to have the experience (pun intended) to better don that masterful role-playing aura. But, for others, it is true...they just wanna cut, slice, dice, bludgeon, pierce, etc.
In the end, I guess a good DM finds a happy medium that serves the overall 'needs' and interests of his/her gaming group.
In reading your above post, jamesdglick, I thought I'd make a comment about forcing role-playing. Lots of people disparage hack-and-slash and promote role-playing. However, the hack-and-slash is what I've always enjoyed most about D&D. When I DM or play, role-playing comes naturally and I don't need to force it. I let the players decide how much interaction they want to play out with NPCs...
-Well, as I said, the PCs don't have to interact with PCs. There's nothing wrong with playing an introvert. Sometimes, it might be safer.
SirXaris wrote:
...The only reason I bring this up is because of all the time you mention taking on having your players come up with such extensive backstories for their characters. First, some players may not be interested in doing all that...
-Well, I'm interested in that.
It's my world, and I'm welcome to it.
I haven't found that it really takes that much effort on their part. In theory, I could do it all myself, but I think it's better to get their input since it is their character, after all, and they have to live with it.
SirXaris wrote:
...Second, when so much effort is put into a character, the player naturally becomes more attached to it. That means that, as a DM, you are going to be more likely to upset your players if you kill them, curswe them, or otherwise, mess with their characters...
I want my players to be attached to their characters, and so do they (otherwise, they wouldn't have become attached to them... ). If it makes them a little less reckless, or increases empathy for their fellow players (see below) that's good in my book.
Incidentally, I've always had a pretty high fatality rate IMC. I give each new character an unofficial "lifeline" I figure some god[dess] is looking out for them, but after that, I let the chips fall where they may. It never seems to keep them from coming back. I'm down to one player now, but that's because of distance (and one real death).
SirXaris wrote:
...I had one player who quit because I had his character's wife kidnapped by the Jingling Mordo Circus...
-That was so despicable of you. You are completly unworthy of Canonfire. Leave!
Just kidding.
On one level, I'd say I like your player's intensity (I guess Argon would love it, too), but I think we'll all agree that he should have used that motivation to get her back from the Jingling Mordo Circus. There's no accounting for maturity...
Really?! He left for that? You sure that wasn't just an excuse? Sheesh.
I've had some time to think about it, and this jogs a few recollections:
ca. DEC 1988: After a visiting player's character went off on a mission of his own, two characters were entering Kalmar Pass on their way to Quasqueton. A player I'll call "Bob" decided to turn psycho-killer and shot it out with his real-life friend, "Bill", bow vs. crossbow. Bow won, and Bill was a tad upset. Bob's character then got himself killed while throwing a flask of oil at the next farmhouse he saw. I guess that took some of the sting out of it for Bill...
At this time, I was just using the place of origin table and the birth table found in Dragon 80-something (the gray one with a woman onit) and in Unearthed Arcana, so there are obviously reasons that palyers get attached to their charachters even without a lot of detail (like yours). Of course, one player knocking off another one might be rather extreme, but you get the point.
ca. JAN 1989: After rolling a Drow Elf Thief with what he seemed to think was an insufficiently low strength score, the aformentioned "Bob" requested that he start off his new character--who came from a colony in the Hellfurnaces, IIRC--on a beach on the north coast of the Amedio (he came from a colony in the Hellfurnaces). This wasn't where the other players were (I forget where they were), and I pointed out that the Amedio was a tough place for a single 1st level character to be, but he really wanted to. So everyone else took a break to see how his journey would go. His charachter faced due north, marched into Jerlea Bay, and started swimming. His strength score wasn't as high as he would have liked, but his constitutiuon was pretty good. It's amazing how far you can swim before you drown using the AD&D1 rules...
I may have told Argon and Lanthorn that I don't mind min-maxers, but that was a tad much, even if a rather amusing one. Besides increasing the amount of detail each character has, I have since put a limit on the number of characters who can come from a region, and the number of characters one player gets...
I haven't seen Bob since 2003 (he moved to Florida, and I hadn't started my Play-by-e-mail concept yet), but I can still mention "Bob's little swim" and get a laugh out of Bill.
Lanthorn wrote:
He makes a good point about role-players vs. hack n slashers. The former group comprises followers of Lirr while the second, Erythnul... In the end, I guess a good DM finds a happy medium that serves the overall 'needs' and interests of his/her gaming group...
-Personally, I'd put myself in the "role-player" category (I haven't played myself since the summer of 1992), but I think that a player trying to maximize his chances of "success" (however defined) is role playing to some extent. People do it in real life (at least the smart ones ). In my current real life venue, students decide which major (or "Knowledge" sub skill) to take. That's basically min-maxing. Deciding whether to buy a box with wheels (because it's cheap) or an SUV (because you can stuff your whole family in it) is also min-maxing.
Ever think of allowing your players to run two characters (completely different classes, for that matter) to help offset the mortality? That way, if one character dies, the player still has another to keep the game's momentum going...
...Ever think of allowing your players to run two characters (completely different classes, for that matter) to help offset the mortality? That way, if one character dies, the player still has another to keep the game's momentum going...
-Sort of, but in different places. Currently, one charachter is at a tower/way stop just south of the juncture of the Jewel and Handmaiden. The other is in Marner (currently going through a "pre-adventure" phase). But I never allow them together to avoid "psychic character syndrome." They're like matter and anti-matter. If they ever meet, they explode.
Hasn't happened yet.
If the party gets wiped out (easy now, with one player), I just shift to a different setting (that keeps the new characters from having perfect memories of what the old characters experienced). It's not like the WOG is short of adventuring sites.
It is true that you can run into the dilemma you've noted above, but I have played with many people who are quite adept at keeping their 2+ characters true to their concepts and personalities. If not, I, as DM, interject and keep them honest. Give it a shot sometime. You may be surprised how some players are able to juggle two (or more) characters! I currently run a campaign with my long-time friend (who also is my DM in turn...we switch back and forth) who is an amazing role-player. Paladin, priest, ranger, mage, bard, elf, dwarf, human...each is unique and different. I am typically impressed with his shifting of hats.
It is true that you can run into the dilemma you've noted above, but I have played with many people who are quite adept at keeping their 2+ characters true to their concepts and personalities. If not, I, as DM, interject and keep them honest. Give it a shot sometime. You may be surprised how some players are able to juggle two (or more) characters! I currently run a campaign with my long-time friend (who also is my DM in turn...we switch back and forth) who is an amazing role-player. Paladin, priest, ranger, mage, bard, elf, dwarf, human...each is unique and different. I am typically impressed with his shifting of hats.
-Lanthorn
-On the other hand, if they each player only has one character, and the want more bodies, they have to go to NPCs.
I hope I didn't come across as being critical. My intention was to give you a different viewpoint to consider. That's all.
I do as Lanthorn suggested when I don't have enough players, but I've found that doesn't prevent players from becoming attached to their PCs. Don't get me wrong, I want my players to be attached, I just want them to be able to let go if the character dies. That player I mentioned above who quit the campaign (we were in college then) just because his PC's wife was kidnapped (she wasn't even a PC, just a name on his character's record sheet! ), isn't the only experience I've had with players becoming too attached to their characters. When a player whines about their PC dying, I make them roll up a new PC and I choose their background - and I make it a very common, shallow one.
jamesdglick wrote:
-On the other hand, if they each player only has one character, and the want more bodies, they have to go to NPCs.
Role Playing!
This, I don't like as a DM. I hate having to run multiple NPCs that have joined the party, including NPC party members, henchmen, mercenaries, and hirelings. That is just too much work for me when what I want to do is focus on playing the bad guys. I just let the players run such individuals with my rare intervention when they try to have that NPC do something completely out of character.
I have used character trees as they call them. Where one player makes three characters. If he gets tired of playing one we can insert one of his other characters into the story. Other times when one of the characters in the tree die, another character from the tree could wind up becoming more of a prime time player. All characters in the character tree know each other as friends or family, perhaps they once served in an army or were childhood friends. Many possibilities to choose from.
Combat is part of the game though, it is not the only part.
Combat is part of the game though, it is not the only part.
Later
Argon
Says the guys whose Avatar picture is a muscular barbarian toting a battleaxe. I love the irony! Maybe it's time to use a picture of a thesbian or bard, Argon.
(But I agree with you..combat, good...role-play, good, too!)
...This, I don't like as a DM. I hate having to run multiple NPCs that have joined the party, including NPC party members, henchmen, mercenaries, and hirelings. That is just too much work for me when what I want to do is focus on playing the bad guys. I just let the players run such individuals with my rare intervention when they try to have that NPC do something completely out of character...
...Hmmm. I actually get a kick out of running the NPCs. Of course, the players give the NPCs guidance/orders, and depending on the NPC's nature, they generally follow it to one extent or another.
Argon wrote:
...All characters in the character tree know each other as friends or family, perhaps they once served in an army or were childhood friends. Many possibilities to choose from...
-I touched on this before:
jamesdglick wrote:
...This would give them a pre-existing relationship, whether family members, friends, or "friends" (or even married). This eliminates the "we all met in tavern" nonsense (well, nonsense in most cases)...
I try do this for starters, and with any replacements. The WOG might be fantasy, but not that much of a fantasy. Any situation where a new charchter just wanders into the Welcome Wench and tries to join a party has to be role-played, because only a complete idiot would want to go into a life and death situation with a group of completely unvetted strangers. The complete strangers wouldn't be that eager to bring a complete stranger into their group either, but they at least have the advantage of numbers. Of course, Detect Evil/Alignment helps a little as to motive, but you could still putting your life in the hands of a pack of idiots.
So in general, I think party members would normally consist of groups where everybody knew at least one other person in the group, either as family (out to 7th cousin), friends from their home of origin, or former colleagues, which is why they are there in the first place. At the least, you would have a good idea of their alignment (although I think this concern is exaggerated) their capabilities and their judgment.
...And that's where character background comes in handy!
One exception is impoverished hirelings (who are desperate) and henchmen (who at least know the reputation of the charcter for whom they'd like to work).
Another exception might be if the "authorities" have detailed someone to be part of a party, in which place the new character would come that organization (temple, government, guild, whatever). Of course, there should be a reason that the authorites are willing to do that i.e., they have to earn their spurs and gain some cred'. Thinking of an example Nerdcav gave, rescuing a kidnpped boy from a group of bugbears would help.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
I've filled out smaller job applications! 
