|
I would just appreciate a little effort from players. You know…like coming up with a name for your character. Yes, yes, I know you have an 18 STR…what’s his name? Yes, yes, +3 Sword of Slay Stuff…what’s his name?
Then when you get the name it is some pre-pubescent, ridiculous, immersion-rending name that rhymes with b&%&-Muncher...
EDIT- Wow! B-u-t-t got editted! Amazing.
I am pretty strict with the whole naming thing. First, play does not start until your character has a name. Next, if the name is a joke or just sucks I will veto it.
My perspective is that I have to come up with a whole lot more names for one adventure than most of the players will create in their whole lives. I am expected to create people, places, magic items, etc. with names that will inspire them. The absolute least they can do is make a genuine attempt at creating one single name that will inspire me.
[pc] The Doo Doo Man... (laughs)
[gm] uh, you kidding right? (looks disgusted)
[pc] Jimmy...
[me] That would work in a modern game but it's not much of a name
for a Dwarven hero.
[pc] hmm...I'll have to think about this for awhile.
[me] Hey, I have some ideas for Dwarven naming conventions maybe you
can do something with this.
(time passes...)
[pc] I have my name... (excited)
[gm] cool, lay it on me... (afraid)
[pc] Buulvie Varuun
[gm] ... (stunned) ...
[pc] Did you hear me? Is it okay? (worried)
[gm] You have just exceeded all of my expectations... (tears of joy)
|
|
Actually, the more I tried to talk to him and tell him my side of it the more he said it was me and I was a bad DM who couldn't roll with what his players threw at him. Since I wrote the last response, I've decided to not invite them back and have found new players on the Atlanta MeetUps D&D group. He really pissed me off by saying, "A good DM should be able to handle what his players throw at him and roll with it. But thats just coming from someone who's played for 30 years." Real classy, douche.
What you have described is completely out of line for an adult human in any situation. This person was an arrogant whiny jerk and it is unfortunate how many of these people are around. Don't waste any more time on it and just be glad you are rid of him.
Response: "A good player works with the GM to create a fun experience for everyone at the table. But that's just coming from someone with manners, social skills, and a grasp of gaming theory that goes beyond 'I hit it with my sword'."
...smart, resourceful PCs can be a hell of a lot more fun to run games for than a small army of losers...
...I can have people with foibles, weird preferences, etc. but they have to be good, solid roleplayers who bathe and have actual social skills. I have no patience for the dregs of RPG society any more. I would rather not play than play with losers.
Timespike, I am so digging what you are saying that I had to go read your profile and your blog.
Here is my perspective...
I have my own children to raise and I will not make it my job to even attempt to teach another adult how to act like a decent person. The "Golden Rule" is in affect at all times. If they do not have themselves under some modicum of control then they must go away.
|
|
Howdy Ambar,
I am a resident of Kennesaw, GA. If you are still looking for players I am interested in hearing from you. I'm 37 and typically considered a really nice guy. I have been gaming for around 26 years but I will never claim to know it all. I do have some considerable restrictions on my time but if things work out, all is well.
eric[at]kiser[dot]com
|
I guess in a way I'm blessed. I've regularly played with 4 other guys for 2 years and our group is great, we all have different preferences but nobody goes so far as to push each-others buttons. We've got:
I honestly think the reason we all get along, aside from being mature, reasonable adults (nobody in the group is younger than 25, the average age is 30), is that we are all DMs at some time, with this group.
We know what it is like on the DM side of the screen, both in general, and with this specific group of players. It is a lot easier to ask something of your players when they know what being a DM is like, and vice versa we know what kinds of things we can expect from a DM and how they feel. It's kind of a "put up or shut up" thing too.
I'll be honest that despite constant optimization, the few cases my other group has gotten "munchkiny" and derailed a campaign, after a casual discussion asking them to lay off they have been happy - they'd rather play with limited characters than not play and have super-PCs sitting around doing nothing.
(edited)
Undiplomatic comment replace with random smurfing.
Waaaayyyy back when my group actually had a munchkin GM. (He lasted 1 session with us.) We still crack jokes about his quotes/rules -
We finish the low level dungeon, head to town to upgrade gear and were told - You're low level characters, 'you will get drunk and you will spend all of your money doing so'. 'You want colorful (red) clothes? Everyone laughs at you.' (fu fu reference)
This has evolved to our mantra 'You WILL wear brown, you WILL get drunk, you WILL spend all of your money'.
Still gaming with our team since the 80's. Some adds, some losses, some time off here and there but overall a good group.
"A good DM should be able to handle what his players throw at him and roll with it. But thats just coming from someone who's played for 30 years."
So a good GM should be the group (censored)? And here I thought I was too easy on my players.
|
My gaming experiences have generally all been good, and I can't complain about the group I have now...except perhaps that there are only three of us. We all have our quirks, of course. I have a habit of overcomplicating everything, our roommate can't seem to get into the character of anything but a weak-willed paladin, and my wife thinks undead are icky and wants to take most of the demons out of Savage Tide.
I was once the type to get angry and frustrated when I got into negative hit points, but I mostly blame bad dice karma. The dice are intelligent, I say! One night I was rolling badly, so I looked at the dice and casually pointed out that, as rocks go, quartz isn't all that hard. Didn't roll below 16 the rest of the night.
But seriously, the way we all got over our loathing of losing was to start taking shots (rum) every time we failed a saving throw (even the DM). After THAT particular experience we couldn't remember why we ever got so mad in the first place. I realize this novel solution won't work for everyone (particularly the underage) but I just thought I'd share. Enough of us are mature enough to matter.
|
My solution to the optimizers/munchkins who seem intent on making D&D their own personal playground at the expense of others enjoyment
"Roll 3 D6 in order for your stats...hah lets see you optimise that"
but I've only ever had to do that once in my whole time with 3.5.
I learnt my lesson the hard way though after a Players options 2E campaign where the two PCs ran rampant over everything I threw at them
Wow.
So optimizing, or playing characters that are powerful is something you grow out of? Is that like saying you are more mature, because you don't care about your character's abilities?
Pretty absurd.
If he's disrupting your game tell him so. If it's just because you don't like his play style, than either let him know you want to run a different kind of game or put up with it. You're the DM.
But don't, for one second, think less about a person simply because they play the game differently. Having played with multiple style groups I can say no side is the best. It's just different.
|
|
Wow.
So optimizing, or playing characters that are powerful is something you grow out of? Is that like saying you are more mature, because you don't care about your character's abilities?
Pretty absurd.
If he's disrupting your game tell him so. If it's just because you don't like his play style, than either let him know you want to run a different kind of game or put up with it. You're the DM.
But don't, for one second, think less about a person simply because they play the game differently. Having played with multiple style groups I can say no side is the best. It's just different.
No, optimizing and playing powerful characters is not the part that some people need to grow out of. it's the "all about me" mentality that seems to go hand-in-hand with it on occasion. i'm perfectly aware that some people can create awesome characters, role-play them well and fit in (I have one in my group), but what happens if one person makes an "optimized" super character when the other three players don't (either because they aren't as mathamatically and strategically minded or because they choose not to), and the DM hasn't planned for it. now you have one character doing everything and running roughshod over the entire campaign. the one guy may be having fun, but the other 4 aren't. at this point he has two options, assuming he's been approached by the DM about it. he can either chalk it up to "suck it up. this is my playing style and everyone will just have to deal", or he can take one for the team, sacrifice some of his own awesomeness so that now everyone can have some fun. That's growing up.
neceros, I admit up front that this is a gross generalization and based purely on acendotal evidence, but in my experience, it is the optimizers that are disruptive. That is not to say the drama queens can not be disruptive, I have just never seen it. Obviously, your experience may differ.
Even someone who is not an extreme optimizer can create a sort of arms race within the game where everyone else has to optimize in order to keep up. I do not want that kind of competition in my game.
I do not think optimizers are terrible, immature people. I do question why they choose role playing games as an outlet though. It seems to me that video games and tactical war games would be a far better fit.
*braces for impact*
|
Got to agree with CourtFool on this one. The guy was running roughshod over my game. He was making other characters abilities obselete by optimizing. And he's an MMO guy. I personally can't stand MMO's, and don't hold anything against those who play them, but you can definitly see it in their character creation and play-style more times than not.
|
|
Timespike, I am so digging what you are saying that I had to go read your profile and your blog.
Here is my perspective...
I have my own children to raise and I will not make it my job to even attempt to teach another adult how to act like a decent person. The "Golden Rule" is in affect at all times. If they do not have themselves under some modicum of control then they must go away.
Thanks! I hope you found at least some of it interesting. I don't even have children, but I have a similar attitude. If the player doesn't care about the fun of the other people at the table*, or just doesn't care, period, that's bad. It's also worth noting that a bad roleplayer isn't always "bad people," it's just that gaming, or gaming with your group, may not be for them. I have some friends that I like as friends but won't game with any more.
*Which is really what most behavior classified under "munchkin," "power gamer," and/or "rules lawyer" falls under. There is something much more important to that player than their fellow players having fun, whether they realize it or not. There's a great episode of the Sons of Kryos podcast (episode 55) that deals with that. Jeff, Judd, and Storn may not be the final authority on all things game theory, but I'd at least put them in the same category as Monte Cook, Robin Laws, Luke Crane, and John Wick.
No, optimizing and playing powerful characters is not the part that some people need to grow out of. it's the "all about me" mentality that seems to go hand-in-hand with it on occasion. i'm perfectly aware that some people can create awesome characters, role-play them well and fit in (I have one in my group), but what happens if one person makes an "optimized" super character when the other three players don't (either because they aren't as mathamatically and strategically minded or because they choose not to), and the DM hasn't planned for it. now you have one character doing everything and running roughshod over the entire campaign. the one guy may be having fun, but the other 4 aren't. at this point he has two options, assuming he's been approached by the DM about it. he can either chalk it up to "suck it up. this is my playing style and everyone will just have to deal", or he can take one for the team, sacrifice some of his own awesomeness so that now everyone can have some fun. That's growing up.
There's another option: make it part of the story. If you have one combat god, and a couple of competent and heroic, but obviously less-powerful characters, why not call it what it is and work with it. Unless you're playing a supers game (or Mage: The Ascention which is essentially the same thing) the odds that Mr. or Ms. Wargod can be in more than one place at a time are slim indeed. Let them keep enemies busy while the other go sneak off and do something else while he's kicking ass, and just switch back & forth between Mr. Stomp and the rest of the party. Or, have him captured and make the others rescue him. (If it sounds like I'm speaking from experience, I am.) There's a lot you can do with that set of circumstances as long as everybody buys in.
neceros, I admit up front that this is a gross generalization and based purely on acendotal evidence, but in my experience, it is the optimizers that are disruptive. That is not to say the drama queens can not be disruptive, I have just never seen it. Obviously, your experience may differ.
Even someone who is not an extreme optimizer can create a sort of arms race within the game where everyone else has to optimize in order to keep up. I do not want that kind of competition in my game.
I do not think optimizers are terrible, immature people. I do question why they choose role playing games as an outlet though. It seems to me that video games and tactical war games would be a far better fit.
I can empathize with what you are saying.
However, perhaps what I think an optimizer is differs to what you do. Someone who directly upsets your game, someone who has no care for anyone else and demands the spotlight on his character simply because of the mechanics gives my kind a bad name. They are not optimizers, they are munchkins. Admittedly, you did use this word in your original post. I apologize.
I have a general distaste for the word munchkin because it denotes less than worthy of the default gamer.
On the other hand, in my experience, it is the pure story tellers who disrupt the game more than I would. I have one person in my group who continually ensures that everyone knows he's the boss of the party, taking hours of game time to go shopping -- in character -- to talk to every single npc he can find, then finish out his day. Four hours later the other 3 of us can start to do something.
|
|
neceros, I admit up front that this is a gross generalization and based purely on acendotal evidence, but in my experience, it is the optimizers that are disruptive. That is not to say the drama queens can not be disruptive, I have just never seen it. Obviously, your experience may differ.
Even someone who is not an extreme optimizer can create a sort of arms race within the game where everyone else has to optimize in order to keep up. I do not want that kind of competition in my game.
I do not think optimizers are terrible, immature people. I do question why they choose role playing games as an outlet though. It seems to me that video games and tactical war games would be a far better fit.
I can empathize with what you are saying.
However, perhaps what I think an optimizer is differs to what you do. Someone who directly upsets your game, someone who has no care for anyone else and demands the spotlight on his character simply because of the mechanics gives my kind a bad name. They are not optimizers, they are munchkins. Admittedly, you did use this word in your original post. I apologize.
I have a general distaste for the word munchkin because it denotes less than worthy of the default gamer.
On the other hand, in my experience, it is the pure story tellers who disrupt the game more than I would. I have one person in my group who continually ensures that everyone knows he's the boss of the party, taking hours of game time to go shopping -- in character -- to talk to every single npc he can find, then finish out his day. Four hours later the other 3 of us can start to do something.
Your right there... any flavour of Roleplayer who hogs the limelight in that way at the expense of others needs to be taken aside and asked quietly if they could tone it down..and if they aren't well then you have the option of ignoring the attempts of the story teller to dominate the table ..In the case above I'd say.."Yes you find (or don't find)everything you need and I'll give you the information you gathered later"..same goes for players who insist on playing lone wolf...either run them in a seperate session or give them minimal attention during the session.(it's different if someone wants to adventure solo to gain back XP after losing a level though...in that case I'd definitely organise an one on one session but he would have to fit in with party down time)As for the Munchkins..and I do mean it in the same way as Neceros...Well(digs out BoVD,Draconomicon, UA,Libris Mortis,Ghostwalk and Lords of Madness) two of us can play at that game.
I agree, neceros. We can debate endlessly on labels. What it comes down to is disruptive players.
I have, personally, had more unfortunate experience with munchkins than drama queens. So I tend to get twitchy as soon as someone uses Charisma as a dump stat.
|
|
Two can play at the optimizing game, and as I have something like 200 d20 products to draw on in print alone, and as I'm the GM none are banned or restricted...
Besides, it's much easier than that. Legion devils, man. Legion devils. Throw six of those at the players and watch them run like hell. They'll all have +28 to hit with those longswords they use, PLUS flanking bonuses, and unlike most creatures, you can't just pick one or two off to ease up the pressure, because they share hit points in a big ol' pool. If that still isn't hard enough, just give the legion devils crusader levels...
Take two aspirin and call me in the morning. If your munchkin trouble is not fixed by then, I would sya that you will need surgery.
Besides, it's much easier than that. Legion devils, man. Legion devils. Throw six of those at the players and watch them run like hell. They'll all have +28 to hit with those longswords they use, PLUS flanking bonuses, and unlike most creatures, you can't just pick one or two off to ease up the pressure, because they share hit points in a big ol' pool. If that still isn't hard enough, just give the legion devils crusader levels...
Ahem. Well, my paladin sorcerer could potentially have an ac twice as high as your to hit. :)
The best thing to do to a munchkin is:
1. Tell him he's being a jackhole.
2. If that doesn't work, enforce a one splat book per player rule. Core + one book only. Works wonders.
Besides, it's much easier than that. Legion devils, man. Legion devils. Throw six of those at the players and watch them run like hell. They'll all have +28 to hit with those longswords they use, PLUS flanking bonuses, and unlike most creatures, you can't just pick one or two off to ease up the pressure, because they share hit points in a big ol' pool. If that still isn't hard enough, just give the legion devils crusader levels...
Ah, yes. I remember fondly the spit-take I almost took when I read their stat block....
Okay, for the online uneducated (like me!). What qualifies a player to be a munchkin or an optimizer?
|
Someone with a +40 grapple check at 8th level probably qualifies. Basically someone who makes a character combo that could take on the rest of the party and win or someone who pumps an aspect of their PC so much that the bonuses to the pumped area are unbeatable without the DM specifically targeting said area or trying to exploit the PCs weaknesses.
I have a druid in my game at 10th level with a +41 grapple check. He tells me that he could have added another 4-8 to that number with some items but didn't want to make his PC 'overpowered'. When he is in shapechange as a large creature he can grapple almost any huge creature within 4CR of the party and the creature has a 15% or less chance of winning a grapple(usually, there are exceptions). There are no large creatures that can touch his grapple.
I have a 10th level rogue-type in my game who has a 33 AC and is TWFing doing an average of around 75 damage a round. The most he has done in a round is 140ish.
I have a 10th level wizzo in my game who can effectively end most combats in one spell because he sculpts lower level spells(glitterdust, black tenticles, fogs, etc) and has pumped DCs for them into the 25+ range. He is unhittable most times because of adjurant jump (immediate action to teleport 10' away when targeted with an attack) and even when nailed down has displacement, mirror images, or invisibility and an AC of 28+ at any time.
That is how I figure out what is a munchkin/optimizer although there is some differences in the two. A munckin seems to want to overpower the game where an optimizer tries to pump one area of their PC to the exclusion of most others.
Besides, it's much easier than that. Legion devils, man. Legion devils. Throw six of those at the players and watch them run like hell. They'll all have +28 to hit with those longswords they use, PLUS flanking bonuses, and unlike most creatures, you can't just pick one or two off to ease up the pressure, because they share hit points in a big ol' pool. If that still isn't hard enough, just give the legion devils crusader levels...Ah, yes. I remember fondly the spit-take I almost took when I read their stat block....
I passed over them when I was looking for devils to challenge my lvl 8 group - If I had taken a Troop of those (CR 9), this would have been a nasty encounter, with a total +36 attack bonus for each creature, and 152 hp for the bunch. The individual damage might not be that high, but nearly every attack would be a hit. Nice hint!
Stefan
Okay, for the online uneducated (like me!). What qualifies a player to be a munchkin or an optimizer?
Munchkin is derogatory, whereas an optimizer is just someone who appreciates the math behind a character.
Munchkins will make impossible characters simply because they want to make it, prove it, or ruin it. They don't care about the game, only their character and their power.
An optimizer plays the game, but plays it well. This is a pretty broad group label, though, so it can't be brought down much more than someone who likes the mechanics, but not at the sake of fun and game.
|
|
Besides, it's much easier than that. Legion devils, man. Legion devils. Throw six of those at the players and watch them run like hell. They'll all have +28 to hit with those longswords they use, PLUS flanking bonuses, and unlike most creatures, you can't just pick one or two off to ease up the pressure, because they share hit points in a big ol' pool. If that still isn't hard enough, just give the legion devils crusader levels...Ahem. Well, my paladin sorcerer could potentially have an ac twice as high as your to hit. :)
The best thing to do to a munchkin is:
1. Tell him he's being a jackhole.
2. If that doesn't work, enforce a one splat book per player rule. Core + one book only. Works wonders.
Your second option also works well as a litmus test. Have a new player and want to see if they are a munchkin? Say "core+1 only" and if they get upset you probably have a munchkin.
|
|
Your second option also works well as a litmus test. Have a new player and want to see if they are a munchkin? Say "core+1 only" and if they get upset you probably have a munchkin.Besides, it's much easier than that. Legion devils, man. Legion devils. Throw six of those at the players and watch them run like hell. They'll all have +28 to hit with those longswords they use, PLUS flanking bonuses, and unlike most creatures, you can't just pick one or two off to ease up the pressure, because they share hit points in a big ol' pool. If that still isn't hard enough, just give the legion devils crusader levels...Ahem. Well, my paladin sorcerer could potentially have an ac twice as high as your to hit. :)
The best thing to do to a munchkin is:
1. Tell him he's being a jackhole.
2. If that doesn't work, enforce a one splat book per player rule. Core + one book only. Works wonders.
I don't think I'd ever do that to a player. If they're playing, for instance, a paladin, I see no reason why they can't use (for instance) complete warrior, the book of exalted deeds, complete champion and complete divine. All of those are tailored to the specific type of character they're playing. A paladin with power attack, divine might, improved shield bash, divine shield, battle blessing, resounding blow, awesome smite, and quell the profane isn't game-breaking at all, but it sure would be fun to play.
I've found it's best to just make players show me what they're doing and approve it.
Then again, my bad guys tend to be pretty nasty, too.
|
|
Besides, it's much easier than that. Legion devils, man. Legion devils. Throw six of those at the players and watch them run like hell. They'll all have +28 to hit with those longswords they use, PLUS flanking bonuses, and unlike most creatures, you can't just pick one or two off to ease up the pressure, because they share hit points in a big ol' pool. If that still isn't hard enough, just give the legion devils crusader levels...Ah, yes. I remember fondly the spit-take I almost took when I read their stat block....I passed over them when I was looking for devils to challenge my lvl 8 group - If I had taken a Troop of those (CR 9), this would have been a nasty encounter, with a total +36 attack bonus for each creature, and 152 hp for the bunch. The individual damage might not be that high, but nearly every attack would be a hit. Nice hint!
Stefan
Oh, and don't disregard the crusader levels! Having strikes that increase the whole group's attack bonus, or replenish that hit point pool will make them even nastier. Pretty much anything from the devoted spirit and/or white raven disciplines will do the trick.
Your second option also works well as a litmus test. Have a new player and want to see if they are a munchkin? Say "core+1 only" and if they get upset you probably have a munchkin.
I do not think that is necessarily true.
Ask for a character concept. If all you get is crunch, then be leary.
I do not think that is necessarily true.
Ask for a character concept. If all you get is crunch, then be leary.
The problem is: Until further into the session I play, the character is just a shell until I conceive of a personality.
The way I learned to play D&D way back when was mechanically. I had to learn how to play D&D because my friends all knew it already, so I Was behind. Therefore, I worried about the crunch more than anything else so I could get it right faster.
Now days, I love to role-play, but that part of the character comes with time, over-layed onto the mechanics of the character. It's just how my mind works.
I hope that my post did not come off as some kind of under-handed attack on you or your play style. I said 'leary' because even if the test has a positive result does not mean for certain that an individual is a munchkin. I am simply playing the percentages.
Your approach is just alien to me, not to imply 'wrong'. As I mentioned in another thread, I view role playing games as interactive stories. If I do not know what kind of story I want to tell, how do I even begin?
I understand the point of view from Neceros, especially given all the options that a player has (potentially) at their disposal. However, I would strongly discourage you from looking at characters as a shell until you start playing the character.
This detracts from something very fundamental to roleplaying: letting the character dictate who they are rather than the player.
I know this sounds weird, but try this technique. Go out to a park, a mall, some public place and watch people walk by. Pick out a person, and then try and write an imaginary life's story for that person going by simply what you know about them from looking at them.
That is usually how I approach character development. The character concept is more important than the character's abilities. Just because they don't have the best abilities doesn't mean they aren't heroic. In fact, the most heroic acts have often been accomplished by people you'd never expect to be able to achieve those things.
|
|
I have a couple of suggestions that might help get your game off on the right foot before it even begins by promoting good character development and role-playing (if that's what you like) and limiting/ redirecting the power-gaming tendancies of some players.
Like many 3.5 players, I tend to come up with a character concept based on mechanics- classes/ PrCs/ abilities I like or want to try out and then build a brief outlook-on-life for the character. I used to let the character develop as I played and had a pretty good time doing that. However, I've gotten a lot more out of my gaming since I've been using the following role-playing 'tools'.
I have a friend who sent started up a home-brew campaign and before he DM'ed the first session he made everyone send him a detailed backstory for his/ her character. I have this 'character questionnaire' that I used for that purpose and have continued to use it in developing all my characters' backstories and personalites since then.
The questionnaire is essentially 100 questions asked in a format like a TV interview that you answer in first person as your character. The questions range over topics of family members and relationships, personal tastes and opinions, physical traits, other people's opinions of you, your childhood and education, people who influenced your life, political and religous views, prejudices, personal preferences for 'off-duty' R&R, self image, etc. I've found that even after I have a pretty solid character concept, I'm surpirised by the answers I come up with. The character just sort of emerges- and it's quite often very different from what I had originally imagined (and very different from how I personally would answer and different from all of the other characters I make, as well). In addition, it becomes much, much easier to get into, and stay in, character while I'm at the table. My characters are robust and a lot more fun to play. It's really improved my role-playing. I'm much less inclined to min-max, as it goes against what my character would do (now that I know him so well).
As the DM, you get to approve of these character concepts as you read them or tell the player he needs more substance or that his idea simply won't work in your campaign and then offer some advice that might help him get where he's wanting to go. You'll find the power-gamers will redirect their energy into making better characters with more life than anything they've played before (I know- I was one of those power-gamers). They have a larger investment in the characters after all that hard work AND they know their characters better and become better role-players.
Second, in our games we always have a stipulation that each PC has to have at least 1 rank in a Craft or Profession skill at 1st level. They weren't born adventurers, they made a conscious decision to become adventurers. The rationale is that they had to have done/ learned something useful in life (besides killing monsters) before setting out on their own. There's always some opportunity to use that skill somewhere along the line. When I first started doing this I hated having to waste a skill point. As a result, I used it whenever I could just so I could get some use out of an otherwise 'useless' skill. I found it improved the game for me as I was on the lookout for opportunities and therefore was thinking like my PC- which is always a good thing.
Hopefully this can help your game both as a DM and as a player. If not, then disregard it. If anyone's interested in the questionnaire, I'd be happy to email it to you.
jmweber9(at)yahoo.com
Game on.
Oh, I wasn't offended. :)
I have a similar sheet I like to use for my character backgrounds, but most of the time my group just ignores it. Just the type of group I have, unfortunately. If you would like to see it, it's posted here:
[url=http://www.neceros.com/forum/index.php?automodule=downloads&showfile=12]15-Minute Background]/url]
I'd love to see that questionnaire. I'm always looking for stuff to improve my game, mechanically and literally.
|
|
Oh, I wasn't offended. :)
I have a similar sheet I like to use for my character backgrounds, but most of the time my group just ignores it. Just the type of group I have, unfortunately. If you would like to see it, it's posted here:
I'd love to see that questionnaire. I'm always looking for stuff to improve my game, mechanically and literally.
That questionaire looks pretty cool. similar to some of the assignments back in high school (what is the main character's family tree? why does he lust after the capulet chick? what does mercutio see in him? etc...). I'm gonna give them to my players to fill out and see what happens. Thanks.
also, fixed your link. one fo the brackets is backwards and it's 10-minute according to the website...
If you're looking for character inspiration, try checking out PC Pearls.