There are a couple of other posts that brought up the topic. And I was discussing this with a friend of mine. So I thought I'd continue the subject here to get other input.
Themed adventure parties used to be very common.
1) Dwarf - A group of dwarves from the same clan going out to take the old mine back from the hobgoblins.
2) Holy - The church sends out a group to close the infernal gate. Might include a support cleric, an archer cleric, a paladin, and a mystic theurge. Maybe not all divine spell casters. Maybe just a lot of ranks in knowledge religion and very devout in the faith.
3) Military - Alpha team sent to solve problems for the crown. Everyone has to be able to fight well enough to have been able to function in the military. So eldritch knight, fighter, barbarian, ranger, fighter/rogue, beefy draconic sorcerer, etc...
4) Covert - Unacknowledged sneak team to solve non-force problems. Rogue, monk, bard, ranger, shadow sorcerer, cleric/rogue, arcane trickster. Not necessarily multiclass with rogue but must take significant skill ranks in stealth and normally not heavy armor.
5) Nature - Trying to solve problems between civilization and nature with harmony. Druid, archer ranger, fey sorcerer, melee ranger, and primitive barbarian. The nature loving builds.
6) Nobility - A young scion and his retainers. Aristocrat, bodyguard, advisor, personal physician, and tutor.
7) Arcane – The intelligentsia send out a team to recover the Staff of Grimwand before anyone else. So wizard, mystic theurge, arcane trickster, eldritch knight.
Used to see things like that all the time. And we had a blast with it. It also makes it easier for a GM of a homebrew campaign since he doesn’t have to try to come up with nearly as many plausible hooks for wildly different people. Have you ever tried it? How did it go?
I’m not sure when it changed. Almost never see it now. Now almost every group is composed of an ecclectic band of anti-social misfits that require major suspension of plausibility to imagine why they are together.
The people I have asked are not at all interested in giving themes a try. Do you know when/why it changed? Or can you say why you wouldn’t want to try it?
Just curious.
|
I love theme games!! During the Forgotten Realms living campaign in 3.X days, my friends and I did a clan of dwarves called the stonesplitters. I was the cleric there. Best fight we had? We ended up fighting a frost giant. Even the dwarven wizard was in melee with it, beating him with his axe! Wonderful time there.
Then during Eberrons living campaign, halflings on raptors. Great line there when we got to the dungeon. "So you guys get off your raptors then?" To which we reply, "No, no we don't". When the GM realized we were still medium sized, it was a wonderful reaction. I think even he enjoyed that one. Plus we were all related there too (I'd have to look up how though).
Beyond those, we've done an all St. Cuthbert run. That was a bit over the top at time (our priest playing out Jack Bauer). We've tried an all red wizard group, but that oddly didn't last long. An all elf run at one point. And some more that I can't recall off the top of my head.
I personally prefer if the players all get together with the DM and choose a common theme for their characters.
I love theme games!! During the Forgotten Realms living campaign in 3.X days, my friends and I did a clan of dwarves called the stonesplitters...
But are you still seeing themed games? I'm not and for some reason no one seems interested in giving it a try.
btw: halflings on raptors sounds like a blast!
I'd love playing a theme game. My group doesn't do I often, but the ideas are great.
Also, extra nerd points for halflings on raptors.
I was once the DM for a game where the party was the Hand of Talos. It was 6 players. 5 fingers and the cleric that lead them. That game was awesome.
I haven't seen anyone do anything like that in a while.
We did it with our third party. We were running three parties consecutively - all at different levels.
The first two parties were the main parties - the third one was for one offs and fill its and actually had two (or perhaps three) different GMs - at various points. The concept was that the local dwarf community had re-discovered another mine entrance - and they weren't too sure about it. So it was a good old fashioned dungeon - in that each DM could add pretty much what they liked - so long as it was a closed adventure and didn't affect lower down.
As I say - sessions with that party were 'fillers in' so they never really lasted for more than a session or two at a time. It was fun and it filled a hole in the game schedule.
|
|
But are you still seeing themed games? I'm not and for some reason no one seems interested in giving it a try.
btw: halflings on raptors sounds like a blast!
Our last couple groups of characters haven't been so much, which saddens me a bit. Over the years the group of course changes up and different players don't like the theme groups as much. The primary reason I get is that a theme group cuts down on character individuality, which in some ways I guess it does. People want to play what they want, and when you start to set limitations, people want to push back to keep their options open.
Of course that's not to say theme parties always work or non-theme ones dont'. One of my favorite campaigns, a Rifts one, was a bunch of oddball characters who just kind of ended up working together, nothing to relate them to each other besides all being hired by the same guy.
One of the nice thing about some of the Paizo APs is that it tends to lend itself a bit to theme groups in a way, all the characters having to have something to lend itself to the campaign already. With a bit more push behind it, could come up with some awesome concepts for some of them.
I would most definitely like to see more theme groups out there.
And the halflings were quite enjoyable while we played them. I had a halfling warmage and it was fun riding around raining down destruction! I believe we had a ranger and a barbarian as well in that group, I don't remember the stats so much as the characters in that group. Boy were we violent little things :)
|
I'm a big fan of the themed game. I'm currently writing a couple for my players to choose from for our next campaign. I'm not a very strong writer so the plots are either linear, ripped off, or both.
Option 1) Start as either kids/0th level and do a Walking Dead style campaign.
Option 2) Thieves Guild: earn your way in, then ascend the ranks and take over the Guild. I'm converting some of my favourite "jobs" from popular heist movies like Heat & The Town.
... One of my favorite campaigns, a Rifts one, was a bunch of oddball characters who just kind of ended up working together, nothing to relate them to each other besides all being hired by the same guy...
That brings up another reason I like themed group. Sometimes (not saying always) the oddball group of characters can't seem to find a reason to cooperate.
I remember one party with:
LN Undead hunter paladin
CN Cleric/Necromancer specializing in animating
N Druid protecting nature
LN Court Wizard pushing back the wilds to let the city expand
All they did was bicker (in character) until the campaign fell apart.
All parted need "a tie that binds." Theme games just make it easier.
A Jolly Pirate Club
With Jolly Pirate Nicknames
All parted need "a tie that binds." Theme games just make it easier.
I agree that all parties need something in common. But some groups/players are so in love with their individuality that they actively oppose any sort of "a tie that binds" kind of thing.
I'm in an All-Sorceror game starting soon. Think X-Men in a fantasy setting...
That was one of the threads that made us think about this subject.
Hope you guys have a blast =)
Well, I suppose it all depends on what you mean by a "theme".
It's a short hop over a low turnstile from "theme" to "railroad".
I probably resemble Kydeem's view of a player "so in love with their individuality" that I would resist most "themes" if by "themes" we mean situations like many described above.
A big part of my enjoyment does actually come from creating unique and interesting characters. I might on a rare occasion enjoy the change of pace that a "theme" of a group of dwarves or priests of a single god might provide, but I'd get my fill of that pretty quickly I think.
One "theme" I would probably enjoy is a party made up of the same class, but that's because for most classes you can still have a pretty wide range of character building options. I'd love to do an all wizard or all druid campaign, for example.
All parted need "a tie that binds." Theme games just make it easier.I agree that all parties need something in common. But some groups/players are so in love with their individuality that they actively oppose any sort of "a tie that binds" kind of thing.
At base level the tie is "we're playing together and do our characters will more or less stock together."
It's meta, but there it is.
Well, I suppose it all depends on what you mean by a "theme".
It's a short hop over a low turnstile from "theme" to "railroad".
I probably resemble Kydeem's view of a player "so in love with their individuality" that I would resist most "themes" if by "themes" we mean situations like many described above.
A big part of my enjoyment does actually come from creating unique and interesting characters...
All of those examples are ones I ran, played in, or my friends had played in. (Or at least as close as I can come in PF terms to what I remember from way back then.) Few of them were at all railroad-ish.
The first one was probably the closest to a railroad since it was a long term giant dungeon crawl. But other than all of the players starting with the same subrace of dwarves we could be any class or build we wanted. We had a clan elder (homebrew priest/expert), fighter/rogue/tunnel rat, dwarven defender, a cave creature druid, and there was something with some arcane spells (but I don’t remember what).
The holy warriors was pretty wide open. We picked a neutral god that almost any race, class, personality (as long as not extremely good or evil) could consider. We had different races and classes that just had to have a devout tie to the same church. The church patriarch would basically give a task like “the Kingdom of Wizzle is threatening to expel our priests. Make sure that doesn’t happen.” We could try anything from ingratiating diplomacy, threatening dire consequences, to fomenting a revolt in favor of a more accommodating government.
The covert group was one we decide on almost by accident. The prior campaign we had had a bunch of potential easy things spoiled by the heavily armored tank characters. The next one no one wanted to play an armored tank. So we decided to intentionally go the other direction and all be at least kinda sneaky. Some things were easier. Some where a lot harder. But it was interesting.
The nobility one was definitely the most sandbox-ish. Since the fickle spoiled noble could basically follow his whims and it was perfectly plausible in character.
I think all of them were as much of a "unique and interesting character" as the player wanted. A system as big as PF still gives you a bazillion possibilities even if you say "must be able to sneak" as the only limitation.
But in all cases we had a reasonable excuse to be together. We were working toward a more-or-less common goal. The theme helped make us consider our build in relation to the other player’s builds. What would work well together. More importantly what would NOT work well together. (Did not have an animator and undead hunter in the same group.) We might still have things that no one in the group was good at, but we then considered ways to compensate as a group.
For example: The arcane group did not have anyone with a decent charisma or much in the way of social skills. So as a group we had plans for each of us to prepare certain spells (detect hostile intent, seek thoughts, eagles splendor, tongues, charm person, friendship, etc…) when a social encounter seemed likely. But it helped make us a team as we figured out how to make up for that lack.
Recently I was watching another group. None of the PC’s had anything to do with each other. No one had brought a face character. It was very obvious that no one felt they should do anything to take care of the lack. “I brought DPS that’s my job. Someone else can take care of it.”
All of those examples are ones I ran, played in, or my friends had played in. (Or at least as close as I can come in PF terms to what I remember from way back then.) Few of them were at all railroad-ish.
Everyone has a different definition of "railroadish."
I think all of them were as much of a "unique and interesting character" as the player wanted. A system as big as PF still gives you a bazillion possibilities even if you say "must be able to sneak" as the only limitation.
So long as "the player wanted" to play a dwarf, play a particular type of cleric, or otherwise fall into line with your "theme" sure. But in general I "want" to have more options available to me, so these would feel constrained and limiting to me.
Which is not to say that I wouldn't play, but it is to say that there are plenty of character options I would "want" to play that could not be playable in this set of constraints, so they are, by definition, not "as unique and interesting" as I could want.
Recently I was watching another group. None of the PC’s had anything to do with each other. No one had brought a face character. It was very obvious that no one felt they should do anything to take care of the lack. “I brought DPS that’s my job. Someone else can take care of it.”
There is absolutely nothing in your "theme" approaches which addresses this problem, and in fact the themes fundamentally restrict opportunities to build varied characters instead of expanding them. You are asserting that somehow playing a "theme" makes the players think more about how to make a balanced party. That is pure supposition and does not match my own experience. Whether players think about party synergies is totally orthogonal to the concept of playing a theme based campaign. Players either do it or they don't, and that means either within the constraints of a theme or without them. My group usually thinks about party synergies and having them choose from within the limited options of one of these "themes" would not change that, it would just make it more challenging.
Which might even be fun for a short time. Once in a blue moon. For a lark.
All parted need "a tie that binds." Theme games just make it easier.I agree that all parties need something in common. But some groups/players are so in love with their individuality that they actively oppose any sort of "a tie that binds" kind of thing.
This is a frequent "problem" with my gaming group. So many of them like to have very unique builds and tend to be reluctant when it comes to the idea of picking a theme that they all follow. I would definitely like to try a theme game at some point, but I don't know if it would ever really work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I suppose it all depends on what you mean by a "theme".
It's a short hop over a low turnstile from "theme" to "railroad".
I probably resemble Kydeem's view of a player "so in love with their individuality" that I would resist most "themes" if by "themes" we mean situations like many described above.
A big part of my enjoyment does actually come from creating unique and interesting characters. I might on a rare occasion enjoy the change of pace that a "theme" of a group of dwarves or priests of a single god might provide, but I'd get my fill of that pretty quickly I think.
One "theme" I would probably enjoy is a party made up of the same class, but that's because for most classes you can still have a pretty wide range of character building options. I'd love to do an all wizard or all druid campaign, for example.
I tend to "GM" by "utilizing" some of the "Paizo" "roleplaying" "modules" and "Adventure Paths" as my "themes".
... Everyone has a different definition of "railroadish." ...
I have never seen the term 'railroad' used in such a way that it had anything to do with how the players decide to manage the character creation. I have only seen it used in relation to the 'openness' of the campaign plotline and how the GM manages things.
... So long as "the player wanted" to play a dwarf, play a particular type of cleric, or otherwise fall into line with your "theme" sure. But in general I "want" to have more options available to me, so these would feel constrained and limiting to me.
Which is not to say that I wouldn't play, but it is to say that there are plenty of character options I would "want" to play that could not be playable in this set of constraints, so they are, by definition, not "as unique and interesting" as I could want ...
There are always constraints and limits. It is part of having a rules system. If you really want to get into semantics of 'unique' and 'interesting' the conversation will quickly devolve into a flame war which I don't want to bother with.
I've never seen a person that tried, be unable to find a PC that will be fun to play with 1 limitation added to the build. I have seen lots of people decide it is unacceptable immediately on the subject even being brought up. So I don't bring it up with those people anymore....There is absolutely nothing in your "theme" approaches which addresses this problem, and in fact the themes fundamentally restrict opportunities to build varied characters instead of expanding them. You are asserting that somehow playing a "theme" makes the players think more about how to make a balanced party. That is pure supposition and does not match my own experience...
I feel an adventure party with a theme helps in the following way.
Most of the players I have met spend time thinking about building characters (some of us spend way too much time). Over the last say 1/3 to 1/4 of a campaign, most of the PC build for the next character is often finalized prior to the campaign even being picked. Once a campaign is picked, they try to use some vague word smithing to shoehorn that build into the campaign. Then complete the last few details. The PC does not have anything to do with any of the others since it was essentially designed in complete isolation. I've been working on it for months. I've finally got it exactly where I want it. I'm not changing it just because you have a conflict or nobody can cover X.
If the group decides on a theme, it seems to mostly eliminate that. {By the way, looking back I didn't really make that clear. All but the Dwarf campaign was player choice to have a theme and what the theme was. It was not mandated by the GM.} Nobody's build that they have been working on for the past month was likely to be a (for example) religious devotee of Irori. So now everyone is starting over. They are discussing it as a group at the same time. They know what each other is or is not considering. They think about whether it makes sense for X to be with Z and if they can work well.
In every case where I have seen a theme tried, it helped make the PC's fit together and behave as more of a team. Even when it was the same players that previously made characters that could not get along together and would not work as a team.
Is that they only way to make a good team? Of course not. But I have seen it help and I have never seen it hurt.
Besides, I find it to be very fun. To me, it enhances the sense of realism which makes immersion simpler.
Would I want to do it all the time? No. But it surprises me the number of people that won't even consider it. Some even get offended that I brought up the subject. {shrug} I don't understand that.
|
|
None of the players in my group can ever pick an idea and stick with it. We all get together and talk about different ideas for characters and how they'll work together as a group, but then next week we sit down to play and everybody shows up with something completely different.
Our GM tried a theme campaign once. He talked it over with us and we decided our theme would be "gnomes". Come game day, I was the only one that actually built a gnome.
I think a dedicated theme game might be fun, but at my table it'll never happen.
The only themed party we had was an accident. We had 4 bards and a necromancer, so we jokingly said we were a death metal band on tour.
The GM didn't have much time to plan ahead, so he had us write up two characters each and would decide at the first session. When we all presented our first choices it was just too good to pass up.