So, Im trying to get a game for the new reign of winter adventure path.
But among my friends there is a very small amount of people who want to play.
So someone came up with an idea, 2 characters per player, with 3 that would give us 6.
Now I know in my game i can do what i wish, but how practical is this? The only problem i can think up comes in initiative and RP aspects.
This will also be my first time GM'ing, any ideas of what to get?
|
I've literally never, in 30 years of gaming, seen multiple characters per player work well. It will be incredibly difficult for a novice GM to make it work at all, especially (as you mention) in the realm of meaningful roleplaying.
IMO, you'd be better off giving the PCs a boost. Maybe advance them on the Fast XP track, or 20-point buy, or max HP, or two or all three? With three players, that would probably be enough for modern APs.
What do you mean by "any ideas of what to get"?
BTW, if you concentrate on making the game fun -- which, IMO, means not using multiple character per player -- your players will talk to their friends, and you'll have people asking to play sooner than you think.
Ok, I mean, I have the core rulebook, on pdf, and a physical APG, and im the only ones with them(one person has played RPG's before, 3.5 dnd, and someone else plays society with me.)
IS there anything else i should get, I'm thinking a bestiary box.
So will fast XP allow them to over power the encounters?
how about 25pt buy?
I got a friend who may be interested. But im not sure he will get along with the other guy(Who wants me to make a Pony race from My little pony into a playable race, and this guy is a serious RP'er)
I just want to get this together before interest dies. Any examples of why two characters will not work?
|
|
As a novice GM, I'd stick with the core rulebook and the APG for a while, in terms of character options. (The Gamemastery Guide is a great book, too, BTW, and worth getting.) Once you're comfortable, you'll probably want the Ultimate books, but if you're anything like me, too much stuff too fast can be paralytic, rather than liberating. So I'd wait.
If you don't have physical minis, I think the Bestiary boxes are great. (You can also get cheap common minis in big lots of eBay.) I've actually considered getting them myself, for convenience, and I own literally thousands of pre-painted minis.
I'd recommend that you ask your players to get at least the PDFs of the core books. They're only $10 (and you could get them printed and bound for another $10 or so). There's nothing wrong with sharing, it's just not convenient, especially away from the table.
Fast XP isn't overly quick compared to Medium. With three players, I'd think it would work well (but I am just eye-balling, so fair warning). Roughly, Fast XP results in PCs a level higher than Medium XP. (For example, 15,000 XP on the Medium track is 5th level; it's 6th (exactly) on the Fast track.) It will make a difference -- and at certain levels, especially for spellcasters, the difference will be significant, but that's sorta the point, right?
I gave my PCs something analogous to 25 point-buy, and I regret it. It's just too much, IMO, and results in characters that are so perfect, stat-wise, they actually become less interesting. I'd compensate elsewhere. I'll be using 20-point buy (equivalent) in future campaigns I run.
|
About a year ago we were in the exact situation you describe; just two regular players. We kept on getting a third player for a week or two, but then they'd vanish. We were just wondering whether to try two characters per player, when we got a third regular attendee.
Three PCs, rounded out by a GM NPC, can work quite well, especially if you use a 25-point buy.
Running two characters is a disaster waiting to happen. We were only prepared to try it out of desperation, and then only because we've both got far more years of RPG experience than I care to mention; it's hard enough to run one character well - trying to do two at the same time is more than twice as difficult!
If you're a first-time GM you probably don't want to run a GM NPC either. I'd urge you to try really hard to find a third player; if you still need an NPC to fill out the party let it be a shared character run by the players.
Ok, So three players with Fast Xp and 20 point buy.
Only question is if i should make that race the one guy wants me to.
*Sigh*, He seem dead set on it. I guess i will try to explain that we are novices and still learning.
This may crash before it gets off, with m and my friend fighting over who wants to GM. HE wants to create his own epic adventure with roughly 2 months of RPGing under his belt. While i want to run an adventure path because we are novices.
Back in the day, my friends and I often ran multiple characters and there were never any problems with it. Then again, we were mostly interesting in having fun killing monsters and getting treasure rather than auditioning for the Actor's Studio, so to speak. :-)
I run four PCs solo and have for some time. Two would be super easy for me and they would have well fleshed backgrounds and fully RPd personalities.
*Sigh*, He seem dead set on it. I guess i will try to explain that we are novices and still learning.
This may crash before it gets off, with m and my friend fighting over who wants to GM. HE wants to create his own epic adventure with roughly 2 months of RPGing under his belt. While i want to run an adventure path because we are novices.
Ideally, the most experienced person will DM (in my own group, I introduced D&D - for all intents and purposes, anyway - to everyone, so I ran nearly all the time early on). If they are not willing to (or insist that they are no good at it, which is perfectly valid), then the onus falls to others (in this case you).
If you are running the game, you are in charge of about a thousand times more things than any PC. Run what you are comfortable with. I echo everyone else's opinions thus far - keep it simple (I actually recommend core to start, and APG later on), run pre-made stuff (I like Crypt of the Everflame for a beginner's module, but it's only a single adventure), and try mostly to simply not fail spectacularly (which I've seen some people do, though not in PF).
If he is willing to run, that's his call, but two months is honestly not that much time playing. I played for a few years before I ran anything. I still think waiting a little longer would have benefited me. I would recommend the same things I did to him as well. Sitting down together and hammering these things out before you actually play is critical.
Well I dont have that much in DM'ing either(with only roughly 5 months of playing) but i have read up the most on it.
What worries me is that he wants to make his own adventure right off the bat.
In my playgroup several people run multiple characters, and It works out very well. HOWEVER... they are also very experienced as GMs, and quite used to playing multiple roles at once.
|
Since you are a beginning DM, I would strongly recommend you try running a few short modules first before trying an AP. Many groups never finish an AP.
Why are you so eager to run the brand new AP? Worried about getting all six volumes? PDFs of older APs not good enough for you? Yes, getting the subscription price and having both the real book and PDF is great. You have not even had a chance to look at much of it yet though, you may not end up liking it.
I think it better to have 2/3 regular consistent players than consistently getting disrespected by flakes who had no business claiming they were willing to show up regularly and then do not. Sometimes it can be forgiven, real life does change on us. Other times, it may be the fault of the GM or PCs being a jerk and making the new player feel unwelcome. Sometimes, no one is being a jerk, but the play styles just do not match. All too damn often though, people claim they are going to show up commonly, and prove themselves to be nothing more but just be a damn flake that never should have opened their mouth about playing more than a game or two just to try it out.
With two players, I would say try 2 PCs each. It will not be easy but at least if the three of you regularly get together and play instead of being stood up by others, you will work things out and discover solutions. I highly suggest each player try at least one character/class that they are already familiar with. You seem to have some new people, I think Fighter and Cleric would be the easiest, even the cleric could just swap spells for healing. Having another PC should prevent the cleric player from feeling he is nothing more but a heal bot.
With three players, I think an NPC that the players take turns playing might be better. Take turns either week to week or battle to battle but not round to round. Six real characters is a lot for a group. Six bodies such as Druids or Summoners are not nearly as bad as six real character classes.
You might also want to try sp? gerstalt sp? though I really think the action economy of four real single class characters works better for the game then three double class characters.
About those ponies. I think Paizo did an April fools day joke a year or two ago about a Pony Finder game. I think they even made a few Pony races/classes. You might not have to create it at all. I am personally sick and tired of most of the classes. I think I may ask to play some such nonsense in the near future.
are these the ones you are speaking off?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nieL-7CivO4/TZDR-ULqtrI/AAAAAAAACtE/j8Va1GHxsZY/s 1600/Ponyfinder+Unicorn+%252827%2529+text+fix.jpg
Im using them.
With three players, I think an NPC that the players take turns playing might be better. Take turns either week to week or battle to battle but not round to round. Six real characters is a lot for a group. Six bodies such as Druids or Summoners are not nearly as bad as six real character classes.
Agreed. Actually, you are going to need a grand total of 5 characters in the party, in the long run. 4 of which are PC's, and for you that means one of those 4 has to be a NPC under the control of one of the other players.
Now, if that 4th PC that is controlled by another player settles permanently into being controlled by that player, so that she controls TWO characters, give that player an extra helping of treasure or xp. It should be something small.
The 5th should be a NPC Expert who has ranks in Ride, Handle Animal, and Profession (Cook). What he does is just drive the wagon that stores the PC food, and cooks it for the PC's. He needs to be paid at least according to the core rule guidelines. You, as DM, can use the Cook as a mouthpiece, giving advice and such, or if you need to pass messages or packages along to the PC's. Do not give any combat capacity to the Cook. You can also use the Cook as a torchbearer/lantern wielder for the party in dark areas, but he will likely want a higher wage for risking his hide (skilled pay).
When I started pen and paper roleplaying we've often only been two or three guys (including gm) so we used 2 chars per player. Those times we were only 1 player +GM we even did 2 PCs for the player and one for the GM. It worked for us. At least better than not playing at all.
Back then (I guess it was around 1988) roleplaying games were not very well known where I live.
All you really need is a fourth character and you've got yourself a party, maybe you could make an NPC to tag along. Stat up that bodyguard fellow from the start of the AP and have him come along to save the kidnapped noblewoman, if/when he dies, replace him with some other non-plot-essential character.
With 3 players is really not necessary to double up. My recommendation would be to strongly encourage the players to play classes that function well in small parties. Classes like the summoner and druid are best for this because their powerful pets keep the numbers of the party up, though for a beggining group the summoenr is a bit complicated. The paladin and the bard are good choices, as are the inquisitor alchemist and magus. These characters have diverse abilities that would allow them to cover gaps in a small party. Basically encourage them not to play highly focused classes (fighter, rogue, wizard, cavalier).
Give them a slightly higher point buy to start (20 or 25) and then just run the adventure normally. You dont need to do fast xp because they will already be splitting 4 players worth of xp and treasure 3 ways increasing their individual share.
All of that said, I'd recommend something a little shorter to start out then a full AP. A couple modules maybe, there are even a few that tie together for something a little longer, to get you guys in the swing of things.
I've done it successfully. I had a loudmouths elven wizard and his monk sister who had taken a vow of silence. It helped that she was just there until I needed her.
On the the one hand I suggest trying two characters each, because its something we've all done before. On the other hand I suggest not being worried about having 3 players (as opposed to 4 or 5). If the characters can spread around their talents a little and the GM isn't actively trying to kill them, the game should play out just just fine.
|
You can run an adventure with 3 normal characters, no problem (though I recommend letting them do a 25-point buy during character creation), and you won't have to do fast XP. Just be careful with combat encounters. I recommend that you help your players avoid extremely dangerous situation by finding alternative solutions to combat.
I do agree that it's probably better to start off running some modules rather than jumping right into an AP or right into writing your own adventure. Crypt of the Everflame is a good introductory module.
But here's my *real* advice: have fun playing with your friends, and don't get competitive about who's playing what or who's running what games. If you feel like something's not going well, talk it out, but don't blame people for having different ideas about what the game should be. Pathfinder's not worth losing friends over. ;)
|
(Who wants me to make a Pony race from My little pony into a playable race, and this guy is a serious RP'er)
Eh? How come a Ponies can't be seriously RP'ed? Have you seen some of the stuff out there for ponies?
A group of friends in a tavern.
In a battle against a Fierce Dragon.
Learning what a hero truely needs.
Surviving in the dark grim future.
And so on and so forth. ;)
Really it isn't too hard to make a proper Pony with the Advanced Race Guide.
Doesnt Crypt of everflame have a continued story from lvl 1-5 that spans 3 modules?
That could be nice.
Actaully that player is the one with the most RPG experiance, having several books from DND 3.5.
Doesnt Crypt of everflame have a continued story from lvl 1-5 that spans 3 modules?
That could be nice.
Yes it does, Masks of the Living God and City of the Golden Death are sequels to Crypt of the Everflame.
A group of friends in a tavern.
In a battle against a Fierce Dragon.
Learning what a hero truely needs.
Surviving in the dark grim future.
Oww... That hurt my brain.
*Sigh*, He seem dead set on it. I guess i will try to explain that we are novices and still learning.
This may crash before it gets off, with m and my friend fighting over who wants to GM. HE wants to create his own epic adventure with roughly 2 months of RPGing under his belt. While i want to run an adventure path because we are novices.Your friend isn't a "good roleplayer" if he's fixated on bringing "My Little Pony" to Golarion. He's a gimmick player which is roleplaying's evil opposite twin. If he was a good roleplayer, than he'd play something that fit within the guidelines you set.
If he's so deadset and epic, and that sure of himself, turn the tables on him, and let HIM GM.
That's not something we can really judge, and whether it's because of what he wants to bring in or the fact that he wants something from out of world is irrelevant. He may be too focused on a concept the GM isn't prepared to run with, but that doesn't automatically make him a bad RPer. He may be bad at compromising for the good at the group, but that's another issue unrelated to how well one can role-play.
I have a person in my group - it must have been 6 straight characters where he played a Bard. Every time. Bard, Bard, Bard. Same class. Same feat selection. Same skills. Generally the same personality. He was good at Role-Playing it. He never varied from it, but some people want certain things in their game. If it's reasonable, the GM should make an effort to make it happen.
I'm still waiting for a campaign where I can play a particular paladin I have in my head (Paladin of Shelyn, specifically). If it's something a GM can work in, it's worth the effort to do so. Likewise for weird races. Some things can be too odd, or OP, or whatever to let it - and I don't advocate it in this case because they are beginners - but that doesn't mean a player is necessarily bad at RPing - or even a bad player.
EDIT:
He can claim a heritage from Chainmail, for all I care. "My Little Pony" does not a roleplayer make.
By itself, no. But neither does a character that fits in perfectly with the setting.
|
|
Oww... That hurt my brain.
Why? Even Ponies have to prepare for battles. War always has it's costs. The land of Equestria is no different.
Heck they even have bar room fights and seedy taverns.
For something more in line with the thread.... Well there should be some amount of give and take in a group between the GM and players to make sure that everyone has fun. No one person should dictate everything around them in a cooperative game like Pathfinder.
Anyway back to making headaches. ALLONS-Y!
(Oh my, how could I have forgotten Ponyfinder! The rules are already right there for Pathfinder Ponies.)
*Sigh*, He seem dead set on it. I guess i will try to explain that we are novices and still learning.
This may crash before it gets off, with m and my friend fighting over who wants to GM. HE wants to create his own epic adventure with roughly 2 months of RPGing under his belt. While i want to run an adventure path because we are novices.
I think you should give it a shot... if it's a case of folding a bit, or not playing at all...
Just make sure EVERYONE at the table realizes that your all learning, and it COULD be a disaster...
Give his pony a shot... if it doesn't work out, then he can bring in a more 'standard' character. But really, if he's iffy about playing at ALL.... I wouldn't be quick to kill what little interest he DOES have in it.
As for 2 characters? I dont' recommend it. It's a very complex game.. and there will be a lot of options and rules and abilities you will forget on ONE character sheet.... let alone TWO!
I recommened going with the 3 characters, 25 point build and above all, start SMALL on a campaign level... get a couple of one or two night adventures, try out the characters, try out the rules, and see what does and doesn't work.
If everything works... at the end of the adventure, keep going with an AP or something, but I would try to avoid homebrew world building and homemade campaigns until you know you like the game ;)
I friend gave me an idea, Have the secondary chracters be messed over so they cant roll play, like cut out the tongue of the rogue, or have a Deaf oracle.
Oh we all like the game, We have Rp'ed before at PFS.
|
|
Eh, there's no need to judge your pony-loving friend one way or another. Like I said, the main thing is to have a fun time with your friends.
My brothers and I ran a pretty fun two PCs per player game once. The only problem that I ended up having is that I came to like one of my players a lot more than the other one. But that evolved over time.
But my original point is: if you're very new, it's probably easiest to learn by running the game as close to the normal assumed game conditions as possible. That's why I'd just run 3 PCs, one per player, with a high point buy, and start with a published adventure.
But if you think something else would be more fun, by all means go for it!
I friend gave me an idea, Have the secondary chracters be messed over so they cant roll play, like cut out the tongue of the rogue, or have a Deaf oracle.
Something I haven't seen anyone else mention...
3 players is NOT underpowered. Pathfinder as a system really tried to reign in 'large' groups.
In 2nd Edition, our DM regularly ran a group of 9-11 with no problems whatsoever.... NOW, the game breaks a bit if you get around the 6 mark. That DM has said he would never run more than 5 in pathfinder.
And most AP's and modules are designed for 4 players. So honestly, 3 should be able to do it with little difficulty, and honestly SIX would probably be too many characters ANYWAY.
Honestly the biggest problem you'll have is not only having 3 players... it'll be having 3 INEXPERIENCED players... and doubling up characters will NOT solve THAT problem Probably make it worse.
If you want to pad it a little bit in their favor, give them some cushion to make a few mistakes.. what I would recommend is 25 point buy (honestly, our DM believes in 'Epic characters' anyway so that's what we do 95% of the time. However, I might go with [b/max HPs[/b] for the players just so they can take a hit or two as they learn the massive amount of twists and turns in this game.
If you do that, then 3 players should be fine.
Better idea, instead of upping their attributes overall, just max out their hit dice each level. That will give them the endurance they need to have the time to learn of their stupidity.
If they still don't get it, up their Con scores before racial adjustments to 18. Enjoy 4 more hp per level, and high Fort saves.
|
|
You could just do something small and exploitative to work out how the game works until you get a better mastery of the rules as well.
Just fight some goblins or something, or run something where the PC's can die without it hindering things too much. Run it very sandboxish and learn how you and your friends play styles work together.
PFO is going to unfortunately be a PVP gankfest but we got a great module out of the first kickstarter in the form of the Thornkeep book. It's a great sandbox style adventure without any kind of dedicated quest or timeline. You can pretty much do whatever you like.
Oops, almost forgot the ponies! Spartan Training! The Dark Brotherhoof!