In relation to the thread about "bringing them together" -
Your group is all 5th level, all of them members of a long-lived mercenary company totaling in the 100s of soldiers(the company is the focus of the campaign). During the last little fight, the wizard bites it by the enemy wizard.
As per campaign tradition, player creates new character while battle finishes out. Me (the DM) has always said: "backstory does not need to be fully realized - what is important is the background you cereate while playing the character. Please have something though - a reason why your new guy will be there."
Now, I have smart, experienced and good players. My only real pet-peeve is this whole background thing.
They always seem to have these elements in the new character background:
1) Absolutely NO connection to current events connected to the current game. They don't pull from the hundreds of guys already in the mercenary company.
2) A long and complicated backstory. Why they use arrows, what the boots are made of, the tattered cloak, always an orphan raised by X (X = something that is not standard).
3) Again, no connection to current storylines whatsoever.
I wish I could just say: "Hey, when you make your new character, make it a member of the mercenary company - OK". I won't though because I don't want them thinking they are being railroaded - though this is kinda' dumb on my part. They can even keep their long and involved back ground but just add: "...and joined The Company 6 months ago."
They never do it.
It's important to me because it is just easier to integrate the new PC into the game. Focus on the game at hand and not add a whole lot new dimensions on 'how the new guy gets in'.
I have also had a player lose interest in a character after a year of playing it and remark: "I have no reason for my character to be with the group." and when I asked him why he said, "you never gave me a good storyline why he's withthe group."....
... I just kinda' was silent for a bit, but then said, "Dude, it's you character. That's your job."
My Questions:
Should I just say what I suggested above? (Be in the company already).
How much responsibility is it the DM's to 'glue' the group tpgether?
Any suggestions, after of course recognizing what is coming, on how to move this along without railroading?
How do you make your players smarter????? :)
It seems to me that your players don't want to be part of this mercenary company. If this has been or is the centre of your campaign, maybe your players are giving signals that they would like a change.
Of course it's difficult for me to understand without playing in your campaign but the fact that your players must be in this company already seems like railroading. For most players, D&D is as much about where your character comes from as defeating the vilest of villains. A good DM can use character backgrounds to great effect when developing a campaign. For instance, the party could all be 5th level and you bring in a link to Gwarkspawn the Limp, a horrible Necromancer who used to bully one of the party when he was growing up. The players would love an opportunity to dish out some payback now they might have the power to do so...
How about you expand your campaign a little? Allow players to be outside the realms of the mercenary company and see what happens. It could turn out that this company could be the beginning of something much bigger...
Grim: Do you remember back in the day when we used to do this for a living?
Thrud: Do I hell! Glad those days are over...it's much better doing it for fun! THWACK!!!
The company can still be there having an effect but the adventurers just do their own thing, determined by you of course.
One other thing: developing a character is as much your job as the player's. This is because for him to develop, you have to give him the opportunity and boy do players love the opportunity. Try it - you'll see the difference it makes to your game.
Just my tuppence worth...
Thanks Orcwart, this is the reason I come to forums!
I must admit though, I have used your advice a few years ago and the game was total chaos (not the mercenary company game but a different one). All the players ended up doing was going at each other and getting mad at each other. My current issue may be PTSD or sumptin' from that last experience.
I will straight-up ask my current group if they actually want to be in the mercenary company though.
|
This is a tricky one, and I don't have any real solutions. But I'll give you some of my experience, for what it is worth.
I'm running an Eberron campaign, which is a setting new to the players. I wanted a fairly immersive storyline, and I wanted to bring out the facets of the new world. My lot are not great roleplayers, and wouldn't create backgroundsfor their characters even if I asked them, and in any case they would not be able to create particulalry meaningful backgrounds given their ignorance of the setting. So I created characters for them, and tied these into the plot. I was a little concerned about railroading by doing this, but decided I would try this once and see how it went.
The results have been mixed. The two better roleplayers have adapted to their characters fairly well. They have a hobgoblin ranger/fighter and a human artificer, seem to enjoy the challenge the charcaters bring, and seem to be in to their characters.
One character has been replaced, in that the warforged fighter/psychic warrior has been replaced by a shifter barbarian. The player felt that the character didn't have a compelling storyline (though his storyline was actually about to kick off when he decided to trade in his character). However, he also played the warforged like a dodgy computer o the blink, and effectively opted out of decision-maing on that basis - it sort of worked for laughs, but ultimately made the character unsatisfying to play.
The arch-power gamer of the group got a changeling paladin/rogue and initially, after complaining how useless the character was in combat, grdually came around and began roleplaying a bit. He has problems with what a paladin should probably behave like (he killed a key NPC last night, basically out of spite) and I will need to deal with this both in-game and out of game too. But overall he has risen to the challenge, barring the recent spectacular lapse.
So the lessons seem to be as follows. You need to get the players to understand that the game needs their cooperation in order for the campaign to work well for everybody. After the NPC-slaying, I halted play and basically informed them that I need them to cooperate, not be silly and petutulant (the paladin provoked a fight after the NPC accidentally hit him with a ranged touch spell during a fight, killed the NPC after the fight, and then claimed the NPC started it - he will be undergoing extensive Attonement therapy). Although it is slightly metagame, I think most mature role-players should realise that the DM is trying to have fun too, and to at least play along with the story he or she is trying to tell, and not sabotage matters.
But, of course, the DM has to be aware of what the players want too. If the storyline isn't compelling, there is either a problem with the storyline or the way it is being told. Arguably I failed to prefigure enough for my player with the warforged, so he wasn't really interested in what was going on for him. I also didn't make it obvious that the character even had a storyline - it was supposed to emerge during play as a big surprise. I guess I waited too long. Or maybe I should have telegraphed it or made it clear from the start, as with the other characters.
I don't know if that helps, or is even relevant. Butmaybe it sheds some light.
Thanks Orcwart, this is the reason I come to forums!
I must admit though, I have used your advice a few years ago and the game was total chaos (not the mercenary company game but a different one). All the players ended up doing was going at each other and getting mad at each other. My current issue may be PTSD or sumptin' from that last experience.
I will straight-up ask my current group if they actually want to be in the mercenary company though.
PTSD?
WHile it is always good to be upfront with your players something tells me asking them if they want to be in the merc company might not be such a good idea. Chances are you'll get a lot of "Oh sure."'s. Be careful that you are getting honest feedback (emphasize you want it and won;t be upset if they say 'no').
Just to add to what I think Aubrey is trying to say...
I had a disinterested player in one of my campaigns; a Cleric of Kord. Since there was little in the way of undead, he found it difficult to integrate with the campaign, even though there were plenty of evil things to kill.
I took note of this and decided the character needed something to get is teeth into. So I had him have a dream where he was visited by a Solar and given the mantle of Prophet of Kord, to uphold his teachings and root out the corruption rife in the city's temples. The player loved it and really started taking an interest in his "chosen one" character. I reciprocated further by developing a Prophet of Kord prestige class and the situation went from strength to strength.
What I'm trying to say is that as a DM you have to keep your ear to the ground and empathise with your players. Listen to the sounds they are making and secretly act on them if it will benefit the campaign. Give each player their own "thing" to strive for and link it tenuously to the main plot, giving the campaign pace and purpose. Get this right and you have the makings of a great campaign. :)
I can relate so well to this. First, the background of all characters. I don't mind the characters having some 'driving force' but I am so tired of it being angst heavy tragedy for every character. The misunderstood loner, the sole survivor of a village's destruction, the 'outsider orphan', etc. Not that one or two of them can't be something like that, but when every single player character has this kind of origin, it can be a bit heavy (lots of potential backstory, and threads for the campaign to weave in, but still....)
When the campaign starts you have the 'how do these backstories touch' complication, 'how does the group form and why do they stay together' question (the players are usually a lot more motivated than the characters). As a character leaves, it's always easy for a new player character to be met...but how to tie them to the party without doing it literally is a challenge and a half. and yes, if you can get them to pick something logical that ties their backstory into the campaign, so much the better. But such a challenge. Now, if you had the mercenary company as a framework, it was lazy on their part as players not to use it as a 'link' even if their backstory preceded their joining the mercenary company.
I think i would have insisted, had i already had that good a framework available, and let them use their backstory as to why and how they ended up contacting the mercenary company.
|
|
While it is always good to be upfront with your players something tells me asking them if they want to be in the merc company might not be such a good idea. Chances are you'll get a lot of "Oh sure."'s. Be careful that you are getting honest feedback (emphasize you want it and won;t be upset if they say 'no').
I agree wholeheartedly. When my current campaign kicked off, there was initially a lot of roleplaying and not much (if any) combat. My group began to get a bit twitchy (see above re their roleplaying preferences) so I asked each of them, independently over the email (so they wouldn't just run with the crowd and could be a bit honest individually) how things were going. They all said (more or less) that the campaign was interesting, but all the investigation was maybe a bit too much and they wanted to kill something. So I upped the violence, and we were all happy.
It is important to get feedback, for everyone's sake. A bored or unhappy group is not much fun to sit in front of, so you do need to identify what they want. Normally, a bit of minor campaign tailoring, rather than a complete overhaul, will do the trick. A few days thinking (so best to do this out of game) will normally lead to a solution where your campaign's thrust is preserved, but stylistically it suits the players more.
|
|
I can relate so well to this. First, the background of all characters. I don't mind the characters having some 'driving force' but I am so tired of it being angst heavy tragedy for every character. The misunderstood loner, the sole survivor of a village's destruction, the 'outsider orphan', etc. Not that one or two of them can't be something like that, but when every single player character has this kind of origin, it can be a bit heavy (lots of potential backstory, and threads for the campaign to weave in, but still....)
Now, if you had the mercenary company as a framework, it was lazy on their part as players not to use it as a 'link' even if their backstory preceded their joining the mercenary company.
I think i would have insisted, had i already had that good a framework available, and let them use their backstory as to why and how they ended up contacting the mercenary company.
I think that your problem was probably not to do as Mrannah suggested, and actually get involved in their background creation. While you don't want to railroad, you need to tie them to the mecenary company, and if they don't do that on the first attempt, tell them to try again or give them hints as to what you want them to do. There is little point in a character going on about his village being destroyed by a marauding red dragon if you don't intend to use that, or it conflicts with your campaign. The players are relying on you create the world for them - that probably includes quite large chunks of their characters' backgrounds too. So I wouldn't feel ashamed in vetoing or interferring in some aspects of these things, if a more cohesive and enjoyable campaign will come out of it.
I find background to be really important to the characters in my game. I usually ask for a written back story at the beginning of the campaign (about 500 words), and reward the players that give me one a free regional feat (I play in the FR). I also tell them that their back stories will come up sometime during to game. I like the characters past to be well defined, and personally dislike it when they change things 'on the spot'.
Example:
Player: "No I shouldn’t have to roll to know what a beholders eye-rays are! My parents were killed by a pack of rabid beholders when I was two! That’s why I was raised by my uncle."
DM: "That... that wasn’t in your back story."
Player: "Well, why else to you think my parents left me on my uncle's doorstep?"
DM: "Wait... how did they do that if they were DEAD!?"
I've had problems with making games around a characters back story, only to have a player change an important part the session before. I find this is an easy way to avoid that.
I don't think it's railroading to ask the players to go along with what you have planed. At the start of a campaign I tell the characters: "Write whatever you want for your history, but you need to be in (name of random city), and you need to have a reason to stay."
Not to ‘preach to the choir’ or anything, but DMing is a lot of work. The least your players could do is take care of their own involvement.
I can relate so well to this. First, the background of all characters. I don't mind the characters having some 'driving force' but I am so tired of it being angst heavy tragedy for every character. The misunderstood loner, the sole survivor of a village's destruction, the 'outsider orphan', etc. Not that one or two of them can't be something like that, but when every single player character has this kind of origin, it can be a bit heavy (lots of potential backstory, and threads for the campaign to weave in, but still....)
When the campaign starts you have the 'how do these backstories touch' complication, 'how does the group form and why do they stay together' question (the players are usually a lot more motivated than the characters). As a character leaves, it's always easy for a new player character to be met...but how to tie them to the party without doing it literally is a challenge and a half. and yes, if you can get them to pick something logical that ties their backstory into the campaign, so much the better. But such a challenge. Now, if you had the mercenary company as a framework, it was lazy on their part as players not to use it as a 'link' even if their backstory preceded their joining the mercenary company.
I think i would have insisted, had i already had that good a framework available, and let them use their backstory as to why and how they ended up contacting the mercenary company.
the thing with character's have angst riddled histories is that it is the thing that sets them apart. take for example AOW, if your character was jimbo, the happy go lucky, honest-as-the-day-is-long, ordinary Joe... why on earth would he take up adventuring? look at society today, most of us have regular jobs, with regular home lives and families... but, there are those few who have that something, a little extra that drives them on to other, more wild things.
an interesting character background can make the difference between a mundane character, a jobber if you like and an extrordinary character. IMHO adventurers are a rare breed and should be given as much artistic licence as you would like to be given... that said it would be nice if they were a little more inventive, the standard ones are just a little chichéd to say the least.
as a DM i am prepared to accept a lot from my players but they have to back up their artistic writing talents with in game roleplaying. if that drow, raised by dwarves as one of their own cant meet with what i as the DM would consider to be the way he/she should act then i would see it as my duty to show them the error of their ways... if that means they suffer an XP penalty... so be it!
I can relate so well to this. First, the background of all characters. I don't mind the characters having some 'driving force' but I am so tired of it being angst heavy tragedy for every character. The misunderstood loner, the sole survivor of a village's destruction, the 'outsider orphan', etc. Not that one or two of them can't be something like that, but when every single player character has this kind of origin, it can be a bit heavy (lots of potential backstory, and threads for the campaign to weave in, but still....)
When the campaign starts you have the 'how do these backstories touch' complication, 'how does the group form and why do they stay together' question (the players are usually a lot more motivated than the characters). As a character leaves, it's always easy for a new player character to be met...but how to tie them to the party without doing it literally is a challenge and a half. and yes, if you can get them to pick something logical that ties their backstory into the campaign, so much the better. But such a challenge. Now, if you had the mercenary company as a framework, it was lazy on their part as players not to use it as a 'link' even if their backstory preceded their joining the mercenary company.
I think i would have insisted, had i already had that good a framework available, and let them use their backstory as to why and how they ended up contacting the mercenary company.
the thing with character's have angst riddled histories is that it is the thing that sets them apart. take for example AOW, if your character was jimbo, the happy go lucky, honest-as-the-day-is-long, ordinary Joe... why on earth would he take up adventuring? look at society today, most of us have regular jobs, with regular home lives and families... but, there are those few who have that something, a little extra that drives them on to other, more wild things.
an interesting character background can make the difference between a mundane character, a jobber if you...
that should read clichéd
This is what has always worked in my campaigns. I ask each person to answer some questions about their character. Things like "Does your character have a family? What does the family consist of? What is your character's best characteristic? What is your character's worse habit? etc. These questions are designed to tactfully "force" the player to think about his/her character's background, personality and reason for adventuring. After I write down their answers, I create a background for the character based on these answers. For example, Character A comes from a family of fishmen in a small village. He hates the sea and the smell of fish and longs to see the world and finds the tales told by the village elder of his young, adventuring day to be fascinating. Seeing his interest, the village elder becomes his trainer,giving him his first lessons with an old rusty sword and shield and later, a handful of coins to start him on his way. Character B says she comes from a merchant family, where she was the pampered only child. Unwilling to marry the man her father chose, she cut off her hair, disguised herself as a young man, and used her great voice and musical accomplishments to propel her career as a bard. My job for Character A is to find the small village where Character A was born, document his family, their social standing, and their various personalities. If he says he has 3 brothers and 2 sisters, that's what I give him. He chooses his own first name and surname from a list of appropriate names for his race/country. For Character B, I decide that her family is well-known in the small town I have decided she was born in and that her running away was interpreted as a kidnapping by her family who have posted rewards for her return. Eventually, I create someone hired by her wealthy father to find her, which makes a great red herring in any adventure.
Yes, some people choose an angst driven character. The half-orc badly treated by his tribe, who eventually decides he's better off on his own. How he decides to team up with whatever motley crew of characters the other players have decided on is up to him. My job is to create the tribe that rejected him, who, though they never liked him, feel insulted by his desertion...
In my most recent campaign, rather than the standard "we meet in a tavern," each character was given a reason created by his storyline to arrive in a tiny hamlet. The halfling rogue had been brought up as a guerilla fighter in a land ruled by an evil Duke (who had recently been brought to justice). Having lived an adventurous life, she had no wish to settle down peacefully. Besides, the Duke's evil minion had escaped justice! She decides to visit the hamlet to talk a famous, retired adventurer into helping her find him. The wizard in the party had been tutored by this retired adventurer wizard, but had gone to the big city to seek his fortune. Instead, he found too much competition and a high cost of living. He visits the wizard's niece, who lives in the city, to see if she can find him some employment. She is a seer and is not surprised to see him. She tells him that her divinations have told her that her uncle is in danger and asks him to accompany her. Of course, they need a strong fighter to guard them on their journey to the hamlet...enter our party's fighter. (On the way, there is short side-trek that allows the fighter and wizard to role-play a bit). When they get to the hamlet, they find the uncle missing. Clues lead them to a wayside shrine and an unconscious cleric. When they revive the cleric, he tells them that the uncle was generously donating to the shrine's upkeep when they were attacked by thieves and he was knocked unconscious. Enter the party's cleric who has a definite reason to track down the thieves and convince the fighter and wizard to help (indeed, this abduction scene was role-played, giving the cleric a true story to tell.) They are invited by the niece to the uncle's house to look for clues. There they find a young girl sneaking out the door with a valuable statue. Wait! She's no young girl, she's a thieving halfling! (The halfling, finding the house empty, decides to take the statue that the wizard has left unguarded and then return it the next day, in the hope that the wizard will be impressed and agree to help her track down the evil minion). The player of the halfling has some talking and convincing to explain herself and what could be more appropriate than offering to help them find the uncle in return for not turning her into the local militia? The niece then offers to equip them with a few necessary items and bids them to find her uncle as she takes up residence in his house. The wizard is eager to find his former mentor, the warrior is delighted to find a mission in which she can begin to prove herself, the cleric is self-righteously determined to track down these thieves and kidnappers, and the rogue, well, it's better than a jail cell and who knows? it does sound exciting!
Whoops! I realize in the last post, I never got to the thread about introducing a new character! Okay, so the party follows the trail to an underground dungeon... After several sessions, the player of the fighter has to quit due to some real life issues. Her character decides to bring a couple of prisoners back to justice and a new player creates a half-orc barbarian. Before the regular session, the barbarian is set upon in his sleep and captured by the same dastardly group behind the wizard's disappearance (a slaving organization, who kidnapped the wizard to pay him back for past attacks on their organization). The half-orc comes to the table, reviving from being knocked unconscious in a jail cell. He comes up with a plan to trick the his jailers and while he's distracting them with this...the other players hear voices and go to investigate...catching the jailers by surprise.
My players didn't know there wasn't originally a jail cell in that part of the dungeon, but it wasn't hard to create one to serve this purpose. With imagination, all things are possible. Just find a reason for the new player to be...in the 3rd level of a dungeon, in the middle of a swamp...in the city...or wherever.
Hi All,
In my experience, I have always found it best to have a pre-game session where all of the players and I get together to discuss what type of game/campaign we are interested in pursuing. Typically, this is a fairly open discussion so that people’s interests and concerns can all be voiced and listened to. From this emerges the game’s framework regarding the tone, style, types of adventures, acceptable source materials for character creation, etc.
After that, I hammer out a player’s packet that provides the agreed upon vision and relevant starting information. In this packet I always include an adaptation of the Shadowrun RPG’s twenty questions. These questions help the players determine their characters’ backgrounds, motivations, etc. I ask my players to try and have the majority of the questions filled in prior to the first actual game session. After the game’s start, they are welcome to improve and add to the framework as they flesh out their characters in play.
Once the campaign is underway, I periodically solicit feedback in the form of post session questionnaires. These questionnaires have the following questions:
1) What did you think about this session?
2) What specific things did you do that you feel I should consider in awarding role-playing experience?
3) Was there any particular player that you feel deserves special mention for influencing your enjoyment of this session?
4) How interested are you in the current scenario?
5) What things would help increase your enjoyment of the scenario?
6) Overall, on a scale of 1 – 5, how enjoyable was the session for you? (1=Unsatisfactory, 3 = Average, 5 = Excellent)
7) Do you feel that you are making progress towards your goals?
8) What do you look forward to in coming sessions?
9) Do you have any additional comments or concerns?
Completed questionnaires then give me some insight into what I need to be improving upon or working into the campaign. This is of course in addition to general discussions about the game with the players both as a group and individually.
On the subject of when players decide to change out characters or need to add in new ones, I have found that by having decided on the type of game, my players know what types of characters will work in the existing game without too much difficulty. This I believe is in a large part due to the fact that they were all involved in deciding on what type of game we would be playing from the outset.
Now all this isn’t to say that every game we start up runs for years and is always smooth sailing. Far from it. :-) However, we do tend to have fewer false starts and many of our games do last for at least their main story arcs.
In closing, the best way in my experience to have a game that is fun for everyone is to keep the lines of communication open. By being able to talk about what is and is not working, everyone is then empowered to create the best-shared story/adventure possible.
I hope some of the above is useful and good luck with all of your campaigns.
Good gaming,
Mark
Hi All,
In my experience, I have always found it best to have a pre-game session where all of the players and I get together to discuss what type of game/campaign we are interested in pursuing. Typically, this is a fairly open discussion so that people’s interests and concerns can all be voiced and listened to. From this emerges the game’s framework regarding the tone, style, types of adventures, acceptable source materials for character creation, etc.
After that, I hammer out a player’s packet that provides the agreed upon vision and relevant starting information. In this packet I always include an adaptation of the Shadowrun RPG’s twenty questions. These questions help the players determine their characters’ backgrounds, motivations, etc. I ask my players to try and have the majority of the questions filled in prior to the first actual game session. After the game’s start, they are welcome to improve and add to the framework as they flesh out their characters in play.
Once the campaign is underway, I periodically solicit feedback in the form of post session questionnaires. These questionnaires have the following questions:
1) What did you think about this session?
2) What specific things did you do that you feel I should consider in awarding role-playing experience?
3) Was there any particular player that you feel deserves special mention for influencing your enjoyment of this session?
4) How interested are you in the current scenario?
5) What things would help increase your enjoyment of the scenario?
6) Overall, on a scale of 1 – 5, how enjoyable was the session for you? (1=Unsatisfactory, 3 = Average, 5 = Excellent)
7) Do you feel that you are making progress towards your goals?
8) What do you look forward to in coming sessions?
9) Do you have any additional comments or concerns?Completed questionnaires then give me some insight into what I need to be improving upon or working into the campaign. This is of course in addition to general discussions about the game with the players both...
if i remember correctly the hero builder's guidebook had a similar section in it. i know it was aimed at 3rd ed new players but that doesn't stop some of the points it raised from being valid. in the AP's i play in and the one i will soon be running it is recomended that all the players have a character tracking sheet so that they can pre plan what they want to do with their character for a number of levels. of course nothing is set in stone so if a player decides he wants to change something that he has done with a future level then it's all well and good, as long as those changes are recorded.
now dont get me wrong, i'm not new to the game, i too have been playing for more than twenty years and am still in a group with the same guys i started out with all that time ago. GH has always been our prime choice for our campigns and yes the things that are happening in the new AP's have far reaching consequences for the world as a whole, that does not mean that we, as DM's and indeed as players too, should not be afraid of change.
at the end of the day it is entirely up to you as an individual if you decide to use a 'cohesive begining' then as Marcos has said above it is best to take some time out before you begin the campaign to set up some guidelines for character creation and be sure to 'remind' players that these rules will apply to any substitute players for either character death or an unsatisfied customer.
if this aint a viable option then you can always go down the route of DM pregenerated characters. while this can be decidedly less satisfying to players at least you know the character will fit in with your particular campaign.
once again, as with everything in D&D, it boils down to personal choice
I knew a DM who had a habit of introducing new PCs as prisoners, with no memory, hog-tied, naked, with a satsuma in their mouth.
They'd be rescued, given the gear of the dead guy, and off you go...
It kept the game moving, at least!
I love that!
Update:
I spoke to all but one of the players in this group. I learned something new!! They know nothing (collectively) of basic military tactics and protocol - a big deal in this mercenary inspired campaign.
First off - I am a big sticlker for player knowledge vs. character knowledge and not mixing them. I believe DnD 3.5 has done a good job of adressing this issue with feats and skills.
Also, I'm the only guys with real military experience in all 3 of my groups. I assumed everyone had the same knowledge as me.
So, in this case, I advised said players on certain skills and feats tehy could use to adress thsi lack of IRL knowledge of military tactics and life in general.
How this was working out in play was the players would get confused when I set up a prime "ambush of supply train" encounter. This turned into a near TPK due to the failure of setting up this ambush and not following basic ambush rules (ie: ambuscade formation and not attacking the lone scout hundreds of yards ahead of the supply train).
This, in turn, produced some feelings of the DM vs. the players - something I try to avoid - due to me seeming to take advantage of the fact they personally have very little knowledge of things I subconciously put into my games.
Obviously, I too fell into the trap of using personal knowledge for troops that were war1 level with some good leaders. My baddy "leaders" were a little to good. This environment produced some disinterest amongst some of my players.
No More! (hehe - I'm so dramatic)
on a side note:
I'm a vetreran of 2 other major DnD forums and I gotta' say... you guys are great. No one flamed me or called me stupid after my first inquiry.
Thanks
My typical method of introducing a new PC mid-adventure—which is usually where the old one got himself killed—is to have the good guys rescue him. Whatever it is they rescue him from either didn't have the time or intelligence to steal his equipment so he still has it.
The other method is by introducing them as an old friend of one or more members, possibly a friend of the one who just got dropped to minus ten who joins up to seek vengeance. At at higher levels, they might instead be a minor celebrity of the world who has a reputation for being trustworthy.
|
I knew a DM who had a habit of introducing new PCs as prisoners, with no memory, hog-tied, naked, with a satsuma in their mouth.
They'd be rescued, given the gear of the dead guy, and off you go...
It kept the game moving, at least!
Gods, there are some wierdos behind the screen!
FH
Can I just emphasize...it WASN'T ME! (honest!)
|
|
My typical method of introducing a new PC mid-adventure—which is usually where the old one got himself killed—is to have the good guys rescue him. Whatever it is they rescue him from either didn't have the time or intelligence to steal his equipment so he still has it.
The other method is by introducing them as an old friend of one or more members, possibly a friend of the one who just got dropped to minus ten who joins up to seek vengeance. At at higher levels, they might instead be a minor celebrity of the world who has a reputation for being trustworthy.
Low-level games are really not a problem, unless the PCs are in some empty wilderness or miles underground.
It can always be assumed that the local village has a supply of low-to-mid-level fighters, rogues, rangers etc.The problem comes with spell-casters. The local priest can't just drop everything and go chasing loot, and wizards are supposed to be rare and mystical, not just sitting in a bar, rolling on the 'rumour table'.
High-level games are where the suspension of disbelief comes crashing down. Such characters are the rulers of kingdoms, leaders of armies, the voices of the gods, and should be unique.
Having one die should be a catastrophic event, but if the player just gets his 4D6 and rolls up a new character to fill the same party role, it loses all impact.
It's the equivalent of the Pope and the Supreme Commander of Nato sticking their heads round the door,and saying "Hey, I heard a scream! Do you need a hand?".
It seems to me that your players don't want to be part of this mercenary company. If this has been or is the centre of your campaign, maybe your players are giving signals that they would like a change.
Of course it's difficult for me to understand without playing in your campaign but the fact that your players must be in this company already seems like railroading. For most players, D&D is as much about where your character comes from as defeating the vilest of villains. A good DM can use character backgrounds to great effect when developing a campaign.
I take the view that it is the players responsibility to fit in with the campaign, as much as it is the DM's responsibility to help out the players. If they dont want to play in the style of game you are proposing they should say so, rather than arrange characters without a reason to be in the game. If someone wants to play a character who is a misfit loner they have to be aware that in general they wont fit-in (hence the misfit tag) and wont have many NPC connections (hence the loner tag). I frequently remind my players that there will be consequences to their character background choices, and downtime choices where background tends to be further developed.
Getting out of game feedback is the best way to sort this out.
On the issue of introducing new characters this is difficult especially if the party death catches you by surprise (as it often does) Sometimes the best way is the most obvious. In one game one of the two fighters left the group. The Cleric party leader went to his temple and said we need some more muscle. They referred him to a barbarian who had done some work for the church before, had a good rep and owed them for some healing magic. From there it was easy.
It seems to me that your players don't want to be part of this mercenary company. If this has been or is the centre of your campaign, maybe your players are giving signals that they would like a change.
Of course it's difficult for me to understand without playing in your campaign but the fact that your players must be in this company already seems like railroading. For most players, D&D is as much about where your character comes from as defeating the vilest of villains. A good DM can use character backgrounds to great effect when developing a campaign.
I take the view that it is the players responsibility to fit in with the campaign, as much as it is the DM's responsibility to help out the players. If they dont want to play in the style of game you are proposing they should say so, rather than arrange characters without a reason to be in the game. If someone wants to play a character who is a misfit loner they have to be aware that in general they wont fit-in (hence the misfit tag) and wont have many NPC connections (hence the loner tag). I frequently remind my players that there will be consequences to their character background choices, and downtime choices where background tends to be further developed.
Getting out of game feedback is the best way to sort this out.
On the issue of introducing new characters this is difficult especially if the party death catches you by surprise (as it often does) Sometimes the best way is the most obvious. In one game one of the two fighters left the group. The Cleric party leader went to his temple and said we need some more muscle. They referred him to a barbarian who had done some work for the church before, had a good rep and owed them for some healing magic. From there it was easy.
sorry I mis posted. The part from "I take the view... is my opinion not Orcwart's - sorry Orcwart
In games I've played in (as a player) we always had someone with leadership feat. I always pulled replacement players out of the leadership - after asking the player of the character with leadership.
Basically, I lost a PC and the party was deep in a dungeon. The character with leadership had a system set up with his cohort directly supporting the party while all his followers handled the support system on the surface (base camp, supply runs, et al.).
Next session, after I lost my character, one of the followers showed up to deliver a message and find out what the PC's needed. An attack from the baddies pinned the messenger follower to the party. He stayed and fought - and it was my new character. The follower was an expert3 and I just remade him as a rogue7. The DM also determined that the expert3 was just replaced by another exp3 looking for work on the surface.