New players filling 'necessary' party roles

[Jaelithe]

Bruunwald wrote:

Hell, some people actually LIKE being told what to do, and some just are there to be social and don't really care into what role they are cast.

This is really an excellent point ... and topical, considering how often I've pointed out that some groups love GMPCs to lead them around by the nose.

Good insertion, Bruunwald.

[LazarX]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

MattR1986 wrote:

You succeeding in combat really speaks nothing to your roleplaying.

Didn't say that it did. I said that if you win every sword duel, your roleplaying as a master swordsman is given concrete support.

And when you spend time building towards that result, you naturally think about how to roleplay that result out too.

The problem is that it's an argument that leads that the only effective role-players are those who play successfully powerful characters.

[DM Under The Bridge]

GMPCs have their place, and can become a real part of the party and setting.

A ruthless dm won't get too attached and will kill them (or grievously harm them) to improve the story.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Lazarx wrote:

The problem is that it's an argument that leads that the only effective role-players are those who play successfully powerful characters.

I'd say the argument is more, "A certain level of optimizing is needed for every character. Some need a lot. Some need very little. And some will require a good deal of system mastery but won't be very mastery."

[Jaelithe]

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

GMPCs have their place, and can become a real part of the party and setting.

A ruthless dm won't get too attached and will kill them (or grievously harm them) to improve the story.

Absolutely. The worst is when you have multiple DMs, your PC when you're playing becomes a GMPC when you're DMing ... and you have to sanction him or her. Sucks to be you, then, but ... them's the breaks.

[Jaelithe]

I had a sarcasm-rife post from a couple of hours ago. This is the only applicable part that survived the editorial pen:

Meta-gaming to the purpose of everyone's enjoyment and to other productive purpose is forgivable—even desirable, at times. Meta-gaming to job the game itself is absolutely reprehensible, and I'll slap it down hard every time I see it. Meta-gaming that cuts into role-playing by, for example, allowing everyone to know everyone else before play begins when it's just not necessary, well ... that falls into the unacceptable category, from where I sit.

[MattR1986]

I disagree with npcs ever being elevated to the forefront the way a pc is. Could they be pivotal? Sure, but calling them a pc implies they're a pc just like the ones the players have

[Jaelithe]

In a campaign where different DMs take turns running for the same party, that's precisely what they are—a PC just like the others, when he or she isn't running the session.

[kyrt-ryder]

'job the game'?

[Jaelithe]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

'job the game'?

Sorry. Slang. "Do a job on," "Get around."

[kyrt-ryder]

I had a feeling that was the usage you were going for. I was more inquiring about in what manner metagaming (outside of cheating [for example, using player knowledge about monster weaknesses or whatnot] of course) is use to 'job the game.'

[Jaelithe]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I had a feeling that was the usage you were going for. I was more inquiring about in what manner metagaming (outside of cheating [for example, using player knowledge about monster weaknesses or whatnot] of course) is use to 'job the game.'

That's actually the one I immediately thought of, kyrt-ryder.

[Dragonchess Player]

Jaelithe wrote:

[metagaming] for example, allowing everyone to know everyone else before play begins when it's just not necessary, well ... that falls into the unacceptable category, from where I sit.

This is probably more a matter of taste, but I find the "random bunch of individuals with no connections before the first play session" to be less acceptable than "childhood friends who band together" or "character A knows character B, who knows character C, who knows character D, who knows character A" groups. It's usually easier (IMO) to work into the backstory how and why the PCs know each other and get/stay together than trying to (realistically) determine the same for a "team" of people that have never met before, come from (possibly drastically) different cultures, and have different (possibly even mutually exclusive or competing) goals; there are also only so many "chance-met" starting sequences that you can go through as a GM without things starting to feel contrived (fights breaking out at a public event, kidnapped/shipwrecked, brought together by a patron/organization with authority over the PCs, etc. are OK once in a while, but they get old fast).

Note this was also brought up yesterday:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

If I were the creator of a new sword-and-sorcery TV show, which is going to have six main characters, I wouldn't instruct six different writers to create one character each and make them promise not to talk to each other. If I did then I shouldn't be surprised that ideas are repeated, tropes are duplicated or missing, there was no sensible reason for these people to be together, there were no interesting background clashes or alliances....in short, it'd be rubbish.

[Jaelithe]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

there are also only so many "chance-met" starting sequences that you can go through as a GM ...

That's probably much more of an issue for DMs starting campaigns time and again. I've never felt my creativity even remotely tested in bringing together a disparate group. Of course, considering that I usually run an adventure or two for each individual player before the campaign proper begins, and some of those characters end up together naturally as a consequence of play rather than contrivance, I likely have a distinct advantage.

Quote:

Note this was also brought up yesterday:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

If I were the creator of a new sword-and-sorcery TV show...

If I found that comparison sufficiently apt, I'd give it much more credence. I don't. The entertainment of individual players is a different matter than that of an audience whose perspective will be identical—that of a viewer.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Jaelithe wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

there are also only so many "chance-met" starting sequences that you can go through as a GM ...

That's probably much more of an issue for DMs starting campaigns time and again. I've never felt my creativity even remotely tested in bringing together a disparate group. Of course, considering that I usually run an adventure or two for each individual player before the campaign proper begins, and some of those characters end up together naturally as a consequence of play rather than contrivance, I likely have a distinct advantage.

Quote:

Note this was also brought up yesterday:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

If I were the creator of a new sword-and-sorcery TV show...

If I found that comparison sufficiently apt, I'd give it much more credence. I don't. The entertainment of individual players is a different matter than that of an audience whose perspective will be identical—that of a viewer.

You've made it clear that your opinions on this matter are perfect for your campaign since you don't use APs and run individual pre-campaign adventures etc. You also said that the round table character creation method would make more sense when running an AP.

So what your telling us is that your opinion on this applies to your campaigns...but not to the rest of us....

I'd give your opinion much more credence if it applied to the general case rather than your own specific case.

[Jaelithe]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

You've made it clear that your opinions on this matter are perfect for your campaign since you don't use APs and run individual pre-campaign adventures etc. You also said that the round table character creation method would make more sense when running an AP.

Should I infer a concession that the reverse is true?

Quote:

So what you[']r[e] telling us is that your opinion on this applies to your campaigns ... but not to the rest of us ....

"The rest of us."

I wasn't aware that you and those running APs/modules were the only people in the thread (or that you'd taken it upon yourself to represent "the rest of" you). (As a matter of fact, in looking back, I see you're not.) In addition, this is not a Pathfinder thread. It's in Gamer Talk, which is labeled as not specific to Pathfinder. Many people run home-brew campaigns, and this is an appropriate place to discuss them.

Quote:

I'd give your opinion much more credence if it applied to the general case rather than your own specific case.

I was addressing the fact that I didn't (and don't) find the television series analogy particularly apt because of the unique nature of role-playing games and the different manner in which an audience/participants are entertained, not claiming that your (and others') points about a different methodology for APs and modules weren't valid. I don't concede the validity of an observation and then change my mind a few posts later.

[MattR1986]

Except what's the breakdown of homebrew groups vs boxed groups? Hard to say. My guess anymore would be about 50/50. Many people want something easy to run and many that aren't too old yet still prefer having customization and full creativity.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

When I'm DMing I usually tell the prospective players the parameters of the upcoming campaign, including the expectations for characters who will be the PCs.

For example, I might tell them to make PCs that will be members of a 'special forces' team, or the fantasy equivalent. I might tell them that they are all mutants. I might just tell them to make a 4th level adventuring group.

They can then discuss rough concepts, go away and make their PCs (they can talk to each other if they want; I encourage it), and when we get together we can talk about previous associations. I find the role-playing is richer for it. I can see no downside, because anyone can say that they don't know anyone else, as long as they have a reason for where they are and why they'll be on the adventure, and I'm perfectly willing to work with them to iron out the details.

Or, y'know, 'You see random strangers in a bar and automatically will trust these five with your life'. But, I find this less satisfactory all round.

[TriOmegaZero]

I enjoy starting campaigns with events that throw the party into life-or-death survival so that they have some common ground. It is hard to come up with unique situations each time and can get as stale as the tavern meetup.

[Jaelithe]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Or, y'know, 'You see random strangers in a bar and automatically will trust these five with your life'. But, I find this less satisfactory all round.

I think we can all agree that this breaks verisimili—

Screw that. It's lame.

[kyrt-ryder]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I enjoy starting campaigns with events that throw the party into life-or-death survival so that they have some common ground. It is hard to come up with unique situations each time and can get as stale as the tavern meetup.

Heh, one twist I once threw on the tavern meetup was including a bowling alley (complete with worker girls setting the pins back up after each player's turn.)

Made for an amusing backdrop to the party's initial assembly.

[Sissyl]

At some point, cliches are cliches for a reason. By now, we are caretakers of an inheritance big enough to allow ourselves to use the cliches it comes with. Honestly, it was a long, long time since I started a group in an inn, with an old man in a cloak offering to sell them a map to some treasure. I have never played rescue the princess from the dragon. Can't we allow ourselves that joke at our own expense?

[Matt Thomason]

Sissyl wrote:

At some point, cliches are cliches for a reason. By now, we are caretakers of an inheritance big enough to allow ourselves to use the cliches it comes with. Honestly, it was a long, long time since I started a group in an inn, with an old man in a cloak offering to sell them a map to some treasure. I have never played rescue the princess from the dragon. Can't we allow ourselves that joke at our own expense?

Awww, crap. *Now* I finally understand why my groups always looked at me funny when I had the old man in a cloak offering to sell them a princess just before they went off to rescue the dragon from the animated treasure map :(

[DM Under The Bridge]

Sissyl wrote:

At some point, cliches are cliches for a reason. By now, we are caretakers of an inheritance big enough to allow ourselves to use the cliches it comes with. Honestly, it was a long, long time since I started a group in an inn, with an old man in a cloak offering to sell them a map to some treasure. I have never played rescue the princess from the dragon. Can't we allow ourselves that joke at our own expense?

Actually, an old man in a cloak offering to sell a map to some treasure is a hook we have never used. So if you got heavy into the description and made it memorable, with the old man clearly hiding something, it wouldn't at all seem cliché or done to death for the players I know.

[Sissyl]

Exactly.

[DM Under The Bridge]

Matt Thomason wrote:

Sissyl wrote:

At some point, cliches are cliches for a reason. By now, we are caretakers of an inheritance big enough to allow ourselves to use the cliches it comes with. Honestly, it was a long, long time since I started a group in an inn, with an old man in a cloak offering to sell them a map to some treasure. I have never played rescue the princess from the dragon. Can't we allow ourselves that joke at our own expense?

Awww, crap. *Now* I finally understand why my groups always looked at me funny when I had the old man in a cloak offering to sell them a princess just before they went off to rescue the dragon from the animated treasure map :(

I concede a chuckle at that one.

Or how about a map leading a a giant animated map and a hoard of slumbering dragons guarded by princess cultists!

[Malachi Silverclaw]

I could've sworn I once saw an adventure where we had to rescue a dragon from a princess... : /

Anyway, if we're talking clichés, then the PCs murder the old man for no reason before he has a chance to give them the map. Or after.

True story: I was at a Games Day event in London in the mid-eighties and joined a game of Stormbringer (great game!). We were given pre-gens, I was about 20 years old and the other eight or so(!) were stereotypical 14 year olds.

We started off in the clichéd bar waiting for the clichéd old man/map/plot hook. The DM wanted to give us a chance to role-play so my barbarian from the Weeping Waste sipped his pineapple juice slowly at the bar. The most stereotypical and clichéd 14 year old player had his PC chat up the barmaid; said something he thought was sophisticated, like 'Show us your t$@~' or something on that level. Amazingly she declined. The guy tried to grab her but she got away. The barman, who also owned the bar, came over to the table and politely said, 'Best of order please gents. That's my daughter, and she's got work to do.'

'Right, I kill him. I kill him with my axe.'

Silence.

DM: What?

Knob'ead: Yeah, I kill him with my axe, does 17 damage kill him?

Long story short, the barman died, the city watch turned up, we all pointed to the murderer who got arrested and killed while resisting (with a surprised and betrayed look on his face because we hadn't helped him fight the guards! Remember the point of this clichéd pub scene was the cliché of 'you meet some strangers in a pub' and we hadn't met yet), and the rest of us had to go to another pub in order to meet the plot hook.

How do plot hooks always know what pub we're in?

[SweetAnubis]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

How do plot hooks always know what pub we're in?

metagaming.....

[Sissyl]

I remember playing a figure scenario at an inn along with fifteen other players. One guy goes first, he plays the innkeeper, and says "I am going to go out and serve food to my guests."

Fool. The second player, playing the huge half-orc barbarian, goes next. "I jump down from the balcony here, to just behind the innkeeper as he comes out from the bar, and cleave him in two with my giant axe!" A crit splattered innkeeper all over the room.

The things people can do when they don't have any real task to do...

[RDM42]

Jaelithe wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

there are also only so many "chance-met" starting sequences that you can go through as a GM ...

That's probably much more of an issue for DMs starting campaigns time and again. I've never felt my creativity even remotely tested in bringing together a disparate group. Of course, considering that I usually run an adventure or two for each individual player before the campaign proper begins, and some of those characters end up together naturally as a consequence of play rather than contrivance, I likely have a distinct advantage.

Quote:

Note this was also brought up yesterday:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

If I were the creator of a new sword-and-sorcery TV show...

If I found that comparison sufficiently apt, I'd give it much more credence. I don't. The entertainment of individual players is a different matter than that of an audience whose perspective will be identical—that of a viewer.

But you are giving them that prior background' you are just playing it out rather than hammering it out at the table, but it's still there. You are just utilizing a different method of getting there using 'prequels' rather than starting at the point past the prequels.

[Jaelithe]

RDM42 wrote:

But you are giving them that prior background' you are just playing it out rather than hammering it out at the table, but it's still there.

"Playing it out." "Role-playing game."

Kinda see what I'm gettin' at? ;)

[Grey Lensman]

Jaelithe wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

But you are giving them that prior background' you are just playing it out rather than hammering it out at the table, but it's still there.

"Playing it out." "Role-playing game."

Kinda see what I'm gettin' at? ;)

It depends on what part of the story is important to you, and to the players. After seeing and playing the origin story so many times a lot of people just want to skip it and get to the main plot (and I have played non-d20 games that have this assumption built into character generation). Others might think the origin story is indispensable.

Back to the original question.

Forcing new players into any role isn't cool, but letting them know what the party is lacking is perfectly fine. I hate feeling like I am just another warm body doing the same stuff 3 other people around the table are doing, and other players I know feel the same way.

When the party needs another healer, but the player wants to do some kind of monster hunter, suggesting the inquisitor class isn't a bad idea. The great thing with having a plethora of options is you can often have your cake AND eat it too.

[Jaelithe]

So ... interesting, integral origin: Play it out.
Run-of-the-mill rendezvous: Skip to the meat.

[kyrt-ryder]

One note though: there's a pretty big gap between 'origin story' and the formation of the party.

[MattR1986]

Its becoming quickly apparent that anyone who started in their mid to early teens (especially if you started in 2e or before) has at some point murderhobo'd a bartender or storekeep (or been an accessory to it) for no other reason than he can and has then had to fight through guards and then run out of town before being overwhelmed by the popo, never to return to that town again for fear of arrest and/or death.

I recall many games beginning that way within the first 20 minutes

[RDM42]

Jaelithe wrote:

RDM42 wrote:

But you are giving them that prior background' you are just playing it out rather than hammering it out at the table, but it's still there.

"Playing it out." "Role-playing game."

Kinda see what I'm gettin' at? ;)

But then you are presuming what occurred prior to that prequel. Unless you decide to play out their life from conception on. A starting point is picked no matter what.

[137ben]

MattR1986 wrote:

Its becoming quickly apparent that anyone who started in their mid to early teens (especially if you started in 2e or before) has at some point murderhobo'd a bartender or storekeep (or been an accessory to it) for no other reason than he can and has then had to fight through guards and then run out of town before being overwhelmed by the popo, never to return to that town again for fear of arrest and/or death.

I recall many games beginning that way within the first 20 minutes

I started in my early teens and I never did that.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

MattR1986 wrote:

Its becoming quickly apparent that anyone who started in their mid to early teens (especially if you started in 2e or before) has at some point murderhobo'd a bartender or storekeep (or been an accessory to it) for no other reason than he can and has then had to fight through guards and then run out of town before being overwhelmed by the popo, never to return to that town again for fear of arrest and/or death.

I recall many games beginning that way within the first 20 minutes

That was the standard start. It was more common than not.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed quite a bit of back and forth. Guys, let's dial this back or it will be locked. Thanks!

[Deadmanwalking]

MattR1986 wrote:

Its becoming quickly apparent that anyone who started in their mid to early teens (especially if you started in 2e or before) has at some point murderhobo'd a bartender or storekeep (or been an accessory to it) for no other reason than he can and has then had to fight through guards and then run out of town before being overwhelmed by the popo, never to return to that town again for fear of arrest and/or death.

I recall many games beginning that way within the first 20 minutes

Yeah, I started on AD&D 2E when I was...10, maybe? Still never did this.

[Moro]

Jaelithe wrote:

So ... interesting, integral origin: Play it out.

Run-of-the-mill rendezvous: Skip to the meat.

This is exactly the type of silly and unnecessary barb I was speaking of in my earlier post.

"My way of doing things: fun and awesomesauce!!"
"Anyone else's idea of a fun way to get started:trite and boring."

This is simply not so, and the onetruewayism is a little ridiculous.
Other people/groups do things differently than you and yours, and they have just as much fun and enjoyment. Does this really offend you this much, or do you just not grasp the concept?

**disclaimer** All of the above references to "you" are meant to be generalities. I know I quoted Jaelithe, but I do not mean to call this poster out specifically. Their post just happened to fit with what I was saying beforehand.

[Irontruth]

In general this thread strikes me as a lot of "this works best for me, so it is clearly best period".

[Jaelithe]

Moro wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

So ... interesting, integral origin: Play it out.

Run-of-the-mill rendezvous: Skip to the meat.

This is exactly the type of silly and unnecessary barb I was speaking of in my earlier post.

"My way of doing things: fun and awesomesauce!!"
"Anyone else's idea of a fun way to get started:trite and boring."

This is simply not so, and the onetruewayism is a little ridiculous.
Other people/groups do things differently than you and yours, and they have just as much fun and enjoyment. Does this really offend you this much, or do you just not grasp the concept?.

Evidently you didn't grasp that that's exactly what I meant.

Spare me the self-righteousness. I was basically agreeing with the poster above.

[Matt Thomason]

Irontruth wrote:

In general this thread strikes me as a lot of "this works best for me, so it is clearly best period".

I'm unsure how exactly that differentiates it from all the other threads on the site. Or indeed, the internet.

[DM Under The Bridge]

MattR1986 wrote:

Its becoming quickly apparent that anyone who started in their mid to early teens (especially if you started in 2e or before) has at some point murderhobo'd a bartender or storekeep (or been an accessory to it) for no other reason than he can and has then had to fight through guards and then run out of town before being overwhelmed by the popo, never to return to that town again for fear of arrest and/or death.

I recall many games beginning that way within the first 20 minutes

Well the counter to that is that the barkeep is a retired murderhobo. Once had a dwarven dual axe fighter barkeep take out half of the party. He relished the chance to use his old skill and he felt drawn back to the barbarity. This freaked out the rest of the party (not split into chunks) with his philosophy and ramblings of the old days, and they backed away slowly.

He went on to resume his adventures.

[Jaelithe]

MattR1986 wrote:

Its becoming quickly apparent that anyone who started in their mid to early teens (especially if you started in 2e or before) has at some point murderhobo'd a bartender or storekeep (or been an accessory to it) for no other reason than he can and has then had to fight through guards and then run out of town before being overwhelmed by the popo, never to return to that town again for fear of arrest and/or death.

I never did that myself (and I started with AD&D, 1st Edition), but I DM'd for a paladin who fell less than ten minutes into playing for doing just that: A general store owner gave him lip, and he ran the guy through.

Needless to say, he played chaotic neutral fighters after that. :)

[137ben]

Matt Thomason wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

In general this thread strikes me as a lot of "this works best for me, so it is clearly best period".

I'm unsure how exactly that differentiates it from all the other threads on the site. Or indeed, the internet.

Well obviously this thread seems that way to me, so clearly it is the best example of such a thread, period.

[DM Under The Bridge]

That general store owner should have showed some respect.

[MattR1986]

Many players would feel it was cheap and you just added a random and unlikely leveled npc to punish their bad behavior. Even if it was though thems the breaks when you act like a stupid dick.

But I'm chaoti..

a rock teeters on a hill near you.

Nevermind.

[Jaelithe]

DM Under The Bridge wrote:

That general store owner should have showed some respect.

Damn it.

LOL