PDA

View Full Version : Forming a Party



Farlion
2009-08-27, 07:34 AM
Theres something that has always bothered me when playing myself.

You start a new party, everyone rolls up characters and makes some background story.

Well, somehow you meet (or run into each other) and somehow you get to know each other.

Now here is where it happens. Theres always one or two characters that my character would never, ever want to walk around with. Be it, that I could never trust them, they are of no use to us, or they are just simply to weird to hang around with.

Then I mostly make some comments, reflecting my characters attitude, everyone ignores it and they take everyone along, just because they're PCs and we don't want to be jerks.

Now, in this forum people seem to play the weirdest class/race combinations out there, but the party doesn't seem to care.

All these warforged, feys, half-drows, tieflings and all the other subtypes are suspicious from the beginning on. How can they find adventuring parties?

Ok, some of it is surely a personal interpretation of how racist your character is, but my question is:

How is this handled in your groups? Can 4 of the players reject taking along the 5th one, because he rolled up something useless/scary/obnoxious/crazy? Does your DM intervene? Does the 5th player feel personally insulted?


Cheers,
Farlion

bosssmiley
2009-08-27, 07:40 AM
Look at any swords-and-sorcery story, or spaghetti western, or film noir for that matter. Generally the protagonists don't initially trust one another, but they need each other to get rich/beat the bad guys. Mutual self-interest draws and keeps adventurers together. Greed trumps a lot of prejudice.

Trust? That either develops over time, or you get "I have the gun; you dig" double-cross and back stab hijinks.

Grumman
2009-08-27, 07:54 AM
All these warforged, feys, half-drows, tieflings and all the other subtypes are suspicious from the beginning on. How can they find adventuring parties?
The town decided "All these freaks have to go!", and everyone got exiled on the same day?


How is this handled in your groups? Can 4 of the players reject taking along the 5th one, because he rolled up something useless/scary/obnoxious/crazy? Does your DM intervene? Does the 5th player feel personally insulted?
I actually devote the first session to character generation. It means everyone can get input from the others if they want help optimising or just want to avoid an all squishy-wizard party, and it lets me make the veto before they put too much work into their gnome-hating kobold trapsmith.

Oh, and what Bosssmiley said: it doesn't matter if you're evil, just as long as you can recognise a path to power and riches when you see it.

kamikasei
2009-08-27, 07:55 AM
Now here is where it happens. Theres always one or two characters that my character would never, ever want to walk around with. Be it, that I could never trust them, they are of no use to us, or they are just simply to weird to hang around with.

Then I mostly make some comments, reflecting my characters attitude, everyone ignores it and they take everyone along, just because they're PCs and we don't want to be jerks.

If you think your character and theirs are incompatible, bring it up before play starts. There are cases where this is a genunine concern ("I'm a Ranger with favoured enemy: Gnoll because gnolls massacred my entire village." "I'm a gnoll." "...") but mostly you're just expected to be open-minded people willing to work with others who appear odd on the basis that you have shared goals and some kind of expectation of trustworthiness (someone's vouched for them, you're thrust together by necessity, you're ordered together by an authority, you have some leverage over them, whatever).


Now, in this forum people seem to play the weirdest class/race combinations out there, but the party doesn't seem to care.

All these warforged, feys, half-drows, tieflings and all the other subtypes are suspicious from the beginning on. How can they find adventuring parties?

By a remarkable contrivance, parties tend to form out of people who can look past an odd race or class. Indeed, the Changeling Beguiler or Aasimar Binder hasn't much of a leg to stand on in dismissing others as inherently untrustworthy because they look strange or have remarkable and mysterious powers.


How is this handled in your groups? Can 4 of the players reject taking along the 5th one, because he rolled up something useless/scary/obnoxious/crazy? Does your DM intervene? Does the 5th player feel personally insulted?

It should never reach that point. If one character is genuinely a misfit, it should be caught at chargen, not once the game is in play. This applies to race and power, to alignment, to concept and attitude, you name it.

If the group know what character Bob's playing, and wait until they're all in the game before saying "hey Bob's character, you're weird and creepy, get lost", then the group, not Bob, are at fault.

JeenLeen
2009-08-27, 08:31 AM
My group tries to work out any major kinks before the game starts, talking over our character concepts and such. If there are conflicts, we try to figure out how we can work around them, but warn the guy creating the more bizarre character that such is a cost for making that personality. If I make an evil wizard for a good party, I should be aware that if they figure it out, I'm in trouble.


I do recall one time, in-char, things went too far and a character got kicked out by the party. We were mercernaries, early in the game before we really had time to build trust, and one of our guys was a pyromaniac who went crazy in an ancient library we were raiding for a book. He had earlier burned random bushes in a town. We kicked him out after completing our mission. He was cool with it, had had his laughs with the concept, and was willing to create a more team-friendly (i.e., not get us killed by the guards) character.

We did discuss it out-of-character first, warning the offending player that his character wasn't working with the group and that our characters wouldn't be willing to work together much longer. I think if we had done it without warning he would have been upset.

Kol Korran
2009-08-27, 08:56 AM
two things that worked in my groups:
1) there is a compelling circumstance that forces the party together, and trust developes over time. this has been mentioned by others here before.

2) my first meeting with a group, when i explain the campaign basics and that the party is formed, i request each player to bring a few character concepts along. then, since everyone knows what the other is basically playing, they are to work to make their characters "fit with each other" enough for the party to work. getting along with the others is part of making your character.

note: conflicts and disagreements are fine in the group. they add spice (one of my players always played the "socially outcast bastard"). the question is how far that should go, and if the players can find creative enough solutions to this, and find reasons to work together (that player knows to condunct his major shenanigens in secret, or knows to irritate but not push over the edge the others, and so on)

remember to play a TEAM GAME, and you'll be fine. for inspiration, look at the X-men series- bunch of freaks with wierd powers who don't always get along together, but they work as a team. that comes fro mrealising the benefits of such team, overall same long term interests, but also some effort to fit on the team members parts.

hope this helped,
Kol.

Gnaeus
2009-08-27, 09:15 AM
I agree with Kol. The best ways are having a structure imposed by DMs from above (a common organization, leader, cause or enemy) or talking with other PCs during character creation and building a common past, or at least characters who would work together.

This is even more true of PCs coming into an existing game late. If there is a party in play, and you want to play a WSIP (wierd stuff in play. Anything radically different from a standard good or neutral PC), you talk to the other players first.

We had one game with a good and neutral party, in which I was a druid. I had established in back story and in play that I hated undead, regarded them as unnatural abominations that needed to be destroyed. When a returning player brought in a new PC who was a necromancer, with big disguised undead following him around, my PC was furious as soon as he found out. When the Necromancer refused to leave, the party killed him.

It is ultimately your responsibility as a PC to make a character which can merge with the party. If the DM doesn't like party infighting, he is responsible for giving an in character reason for it not to happen, or negotiating a group of characters that will work together. The paladin and LG cleric deciding to randomly team up with a tiefling and a drow they meet in a bar just because they are the PCs is just bad storytelling. Further, if the plot isn't tight, it leads to problems down the road, when the Paladin and Cleric decide that they have accomplished their joint mission, don't like their undesirable comrades, and wander off in town to find someone more suitable to team up with.

Farlion
2009-08-27, 09:16 AM
Ok, so the biggest problem we seem to have, is that we only discuss the character roles people play (i.e. healer, blaster, ranged fighter, melee) but not any details.

My worst expirience ever, was with Farlion. We were looking for a fighter in a town, because we needed someone to keep the melees out of our faces (the player had made a sword and board fighter, because we discussed, that is what we needed). So our party looks around for a fighter and naturally finds the PC.

Well... he made a gnome fighter (he liked the feat titanfighting) with one level of bard because he wanted to make use of his high charisma score he had to take in order to use goud.

Yeah well... we were looking for a big mean fighting machine not some puny can who was outrun by all the enemy melees unless the DM had pity with him.

How would you react if you had to take along such a character? Just tell the player: "Nah, sorry, try again" or "I think you misunderstood". I mean, we can't order him to play something... after all, he has to have fun playing his character.

(we eventually did take him along, but because of his 1 level of bard. He played the flute quite well :smallbiggrin:)

Cheers,
Farlion

kamikasei
2009-08-27, 09:49 AM
Yup, that's the problem. This is stuff you need to figure out in advance. Everyone should have a chance to voice concerns before the game begins.

Kol Korran
2009-08-27, 10:04 AM
ok, first of all- talk amongst yourselves at what is expected/ acceptable in the party. if you're dealing with long running players then that is easy, but for new players, i suggest you tell the story, tell about the characters and such.
i can't stress it enough- make the roleplay and interactions between characters an importent part of the play, it will reward you a thousand fold.

but, sometime there are still problems in communication, such as with the case of the Gnome. in those cases i say-
"what an excellent roleplaying opprotunity!" and find a fun way to integrate the character into the group.
- you could challange him to a fight where he could perhaps use his feat and show his prowes..
- the DM might spring an attack on you where the gnome proves effective in unepected ways (for example, a harpy could descend and the bardic training can help the party members resist her song)
- the gnome challanges the party on some fields they didn't expect, such as knowledge, or music, or whatever, shoiwing his worth even outside of combat.
- you could play it in various fun ways, such as a formal interview in the inn, complete with CV (the player handing his Character sheet) and so on.

the importent thing is to treat these instances as challanges, not as obstacles, and find creative ays to make them work. but again- talking about things prior to the game session can ease things quite a bit.
i have to go but maybe later i'll add an example.

hope this helps,
Kol.

Grumman
2009-08-27, 10:55 AM
- the DM might spring an attack on you where the gnome proves effective in unepected ways (for example, a harpy could descend and the bardic training can help the party members resist her song)
Somehow I think this misses the point. If the problem is that one character is dead weight, throwing in a This Looks Like a Job For Aquaman (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisLooksLikeAJobForAquaman) moment isn't going to convince anyone.


- the gnome challanges the party on some fields they didn't expect, such as knowledge, or music, or whatever, shoiwing his worth even outside of combat.
See above. If the other players/characters appreciated the gnome's other supposed skills, you wouldn't have this problem.

Umael
2009-08-27, 11:01 AM
When I ran my d20 Rokugan game, I had seven players at the beginning. I told my players that the campaign was going to be based around the Crab Clan, as I believed it would be the easier group for a bunch of people new to the Rokugan setting to understand (basically, the Crab Clan is almost completely focused on being the protective shield of the Empire, defending it against the Shadowlands).

Hence, I told the group that at least half of them had to be members of the Crab Clan and no other Clan could be repeated (i.e., we had one PC who was a member of the Dragon Clan - so no one else could be a member of the Dragon Clan). Furthermore, because Rokugan is a strongly bushi-centered atmosphere, at least half of the PCs had to be bushi as well, with at least one shugenja and one courtier.

For all the non-Crab members, they had to have a background that involved or somehow connected themselves with the Crab Clan. For example, one of the PCs was a Phoenix Clan member who was trying to find a potential husband for his rather hot-tempered sister - said PC ended up in the Crab territory, where (for various reasons), it seemed likely that this was the best place to find a potential husband for said sister.

As a DM, putting down limits in the beginning can actually improve the gameplay because it gives a structure around which to build a cohesive group. When someone wants to bring along an exception, the player and the DM have to work together to modifier the structure to allow this exception, which can further the game by providing more color and plot hooks.

Going back to my d20 Rokugan game, I lured one of the players into the game by offering to let her play a Nezumi because I know how much she adored rats. Making her character the lone Nezumi made her stand out, but by figuring out why she was with the group and how the group and the rest of Rokugan would react, I could come up with several designs to keep not just her, but the rest of the group entertained.

Of course, as a player, you need to be willing to assist the DM and work with the group. Even a "cool" character concept can break down because it just wasn't appropriate to the setting, the particular adventure, the sensibilities of the other players, or even the direction that the DM wants to go.

During a one-shot game (at a convention), I failed this when I played a particularly fascinating (at least to me he was) character. The idea was that I would play a LE monk with a strict morality code similar to Asimov's Laws of Robotics. The code boiled down to:

1) Always have a "master".
2) Protect the "master" at all costs.
3) Obey the "master" at all costs, save if it violates rule #2.
4) Do not allow the weak to survive, save if it violates rule #2 or #3.
5) Respect strength.

The campaign was a fairly typical "you guys are good, go out and smash this lair of evil that is likely full of undead", so the party consisted of several Good-Aligned characters, including two paladins. Now as I saw it, my character's presence was antagonistic to the paladins, but basically a "slave" to one of the other good PCs, so my being in the party wouldn't violate the paladins' code of conduct, causing them to fall.

The problem is that I failed to talk to the players of the paladins and explain the situation OOC. Yes, I should have mentioned this to the whole party, but my character concept was DEFINITELY at odds with the paladins.

A simple "look, I'm playing an evil character, this is how it works, this is how you guys can keep me under wraps, are you going to be okay with this?" works wonders. Looking back, I know I failed as a responsible player because I'm betting I annoyed at least one of the players of the paladins, and would not be surprised to find out that I had annoyed several other players as well.

As one last comment, you can build a party, either as DM or as a group of players, or you can join an existing party without regard to what everyone else will be playing, but you should still be willing to sit down with the DM BEFORE you start and talk about your character concept. A good DM can work in yet another fighter in a five-character, all-fighter group, and make the newbie feel like a unique, contributing member, but good or bad, the DM usually has to work a lot harder AFTER game begins.

Kol Korran
2009-08-27, 01:46 PM
Somehow I think this misses the point. If the problem is that one character is dead weight, throwing in a This Looks Like a Job For Aquaman (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisLooksLikeAJobForAquaman) moment isn't going to convince anyone.


See above. If the other players/characters appreciated the gnome's other supposed skills, you wouldn't have this problem.

i stand corrected. i thought that the problem was just that he didn't fit their expectations, not that he was useless. if he wasn't useless though, and could actively contribute to the team, than i suggest he should be given a chance to do so.
but if not, then right- my suggestions won't help.

Kol.

Yukitsu
2009-08-27, 01:51 PM
In my group, sometimes people who make completely incompatible characters have to re-roll, because the concept clashes too much with the parties.

In general, this is when they make characters that don't want to cooperate, or don't view the party as relatively equal in value. One character wanted to lead the rest of us around and was summarily fragged to death, and another was simply non-cooperative and ultimately left behind.

We rarely care or take into account things like alignment, race or whatever, though if someone is the odd person out in too overt a way, and is blatant about it, they generally get axed as well. On the other hand, non-obnoxious or self rightious good can be played in all evil parties, and subtle, intelligent evil can get along with good parties in our group.

PLUN
2009-08-27, 01:59 PM
Sometimes incompatability just happens. I have had perfectly good concepts I tossed in the 'later' pile because of the rest of the group. Example - wanted to play a strongly lawful cleric. Fun concept, all above board, but the rest of the party had decided to be chaotic, wild sorts who wouldn't be the least bit interested in my characters amibitions, and it's a stretch to say they'd hang round together. So it went onto the later pile with no regrets. We had way more fun.

I usually play by 'first come first served' - if someone thought of a character before me, i'll endeavour to make a character who could live, work and cooperate with this character on a long term basis. I expect the same to be said about people who think of something after me.

sadi
2009-08-27, 02:13 PM
If you think your character and theirs are incompatible, bring it up before play starts. There are cases where this is a genunine concern ("I'm a Ranger with favoured enemy: Gnoll because gnolls massacred my entire village." "I'm a gnoll." "...") but mostly you're just expected to be open-minded people willing to work with others who appear odd on the basis that you have shared goals and some kind of expectation of trustworthiness (someone's vouched for them, you're thrust together by necessity, you're ordered together by an authority, you have some leverage over them, whatever).



That works unless you happen to be in a group where everyone is so into roll playing that they have to make secret characters and won't give you a hint what they're playing, even once you've started playing. You meet the quintessential cloaked figure, and have no idea what he is. Nothing like deciding to play a arcane heirophant because you got great stats in a game and have no idea you are the only source of healing in your party and there is no arcane caster either.

kamikasei
2009-08-27, 02:25 PM
That works unless you happen to be in a group where everyone is so into roll playing that they have to make secret characters and won't give you a hint what they're playing, even once you've started playing. You meet the quintessential cloaked figure, and have no idea what he is.

If no degree of out of character discussion or benign metagaming is allowed, then the problem is simply unavoidable. Incompatibilities are basically guaranteed and all you can do is have everyone agree at the start to have characters who can work past or around them.

Choco
2009-08-27, 02:29 PM
I know how you feel. In my current game I flat out created a new character because my previous one would have absolutely no reason to stay with the party. Not saying that it is anyone's fault, just that after the first couple sessions I realized that my Lawful Good sorcerer not only did not fit in with a party of almost entirely chaotic characters, but even though he was the supposed party leader (having by far the highest cha AND int...) the chaotic characters always worked together to undermine him. It was either kill the rest of the party (I would have if it were an Evil campaign, I could easily have done it) or have him leave and create a character that IS compatible.

I guess the moral of the story is that if an individual character would not be compatible with the rest of the group, that character's player needs to accommodate for that, either by modifying the character or creating a new one that would be a better fit.

Zaq
2009-08-27, 02:32 PM
In my mind, forming the party is the number one contrivance D&D throws out on a regular basis... but it's an underlying principle of the whole game. The group of friends who sits down to the table together will be working and fighting together, period. I'd much rather stretch suspension of disbelief to the breaking point than turn a friend away, or tell them to "make a new character because my character doesn't like you."

So, in my groups, we just skip it. If we can find a way to integrate ourselves together, great, but if we can't, we just say that we cast Detect PC, the new guy pinged, and we invited him to join us.

I find it's much easier to just ignore it than to try to stretch and contort into making sense of it. It actually breaks verisimilitude less, in my mind, to simply say "you're working together just because" than it is to say "well, your ancestor ACTUALLY was BFFs with his mentor, and you haven't heard about this until now because of this, but even though you've never heard about it before you're willing to trust it and put aside your differences because of this, and..."

Umael
2009-08-27, 02:58 PM
I find it's much easier to just ignore it than to try to stretch and contort into making sense of it. It actually breaks verisimilitude less, in my mind, to simply say "you're working together just because" than it is to say "well, your ancestor ACTUALLY was BFFs with his mentor, and you haven't heard about this until now because of this, but even though you've never heard about it before you're willing to trust it and put aside your differences because of this, and..."

...za?

You find it easier to "cast Detect PC" than to make an interlocking backstory for your characters???

...

You are alien. I must cleanse the world of you.

Zaq
2009-08-27, 03:06 PM
...za?

You find it easier to "cast Detect PC" than to make an interlocking backstory for your characters???

Yes. It's much more believable to simply gloss over it (which is just a single contrivance) than to try to shoehorn in a bunch of ad-hoc backstory connections that have nothing to do with the character I thought I made. In my mind, I already have a backstory for the character, and trying to shove random connections to all of the other PCs in violently and unlubed just kind of plays hell with it, don't you think?

I'm not suggesting ignoring backstory altogether. I'm suggesting that we don't try to retroactively alter backstory to try to fit in the rest of the party, because that causes even a well-written backstory to fall apart very quickly.

Umael
2009-08-27, 03:15 PM
Yes. It's much more believable to simply gloss over it (which is just a single contrivance) than to try to shoehorn in a bunch of ad-hoc backstory connections that have nothing to do with the character I thought I made. In my mind, I already have a backstory for the character, and trying to shove random connections to all of the other PCs in violently and unlubed just kind of plays hell with it, don't you think?

I'm not suggesting ignoring backstory altogether. I'm suggesting that we don't try to retroactively alter backstory to try to fit in the rest of the party, because that causes even a well-written backstory to fall apart very quickly.

...

You don't write much, do you?

I'm asking because I honestly do NOT see where you are coming from. What you are proposing is easier, not more believable, and in my opinion, certainly not better.

"Just a simple contrivance?" :smallconfused:

Thajocoth
2009-08-27, 03:15 PM
The first campaign I was in started with "You were all hired to guard this caravan a few weeks ago and are just arriving at it's destination now.", so this part was skipped.

The second started with "You've all been adventuring together for years and...", so again, skipped.

The 3rd, I joined a campaign in the middle. The DM just decided to make me the cousin of another party member.

The 4th, after the 3rd char died, the party's wizard happened to take a broken Warforged with the intention of fixing it. I decided to play as it.

Finally, my newest character has actually had to go through this though. Half Minotaur Gnome Fighter. The DM just basically pushed us into the same place repeatedly until we talked to one another enough that we saw reasons to join up, even if some members don't fully trust everyone else.

Glass Mouse
2009-08-27, 03:26 PM
That works unless you happen to be in a group where everyone is so into roll playing that they have to make secret characters and won't give you a hint what they're playing, even once you've started playing. You meet the quintessential cloaked figure, and have no idea what he is. Nothing like deciding to play a arcane heirophant because you got great stats in a game and have no idea you are the only source of healing in your party and there is no arcane caster either.


That's my group. We discuss brifly with the GM but otherwise... keep all kinds of secrets from each other. We play what we like, and things'll happen as they do.
My first character flat-out left the group when it became clear that she was too chaotic for the party (one LG monk and one LE sorcerer), and - of course :smallsmile: - I replaced her with an even more incompatible character: my drow bard.
This time, I solved the incompatibility problem by recognizing that sheesh, adventurerers aren't the only ones who have trouble with drow. Regular citizens HATE them, and she has to plan life according to that. In this case, it means hide her identity.

I think you could use that everywhere (depending on the party, of course). If you're playing something wildly crazy or strange, either accept that no civilized place will welcome you, and plan your way out of it. Wear a hood, have permanent disguise self, maxx your bluff ("Me, what? No, no, it's just a skin condition!"), etc.

Another incompability (from the same group), personality-wise: Our LE sorcerer (an alignment we've named "Lawful Whacked") is... scary. I'm pretty sure he hears voices or something, he occasionally talks to himself, and at one point he threw a fireball at the rest of the party (just before my first character left, heh). However, he planned his character with whacko-ness in mind, and his bluff is maxxed. This helped him survive the fireball incident, though the monk still has trust issues.
It's great, though, that the player is mature (and generally cool) enough to accept that actions have consequences. If he fireballs the rest of the party, they will distrust him, and we all take it as a roleplaying opportunity.

All in all, our incompatibility problems are mostly solved through role-playing. We'll happily spend huge amounts of time roleplaying our way to compability - through discussion, fighting, keeping secrets from newcomers (in-game), punishing characters we don't like, manipulating and bluffing, etc.

Zaq
2009-08-27, 04:50 PM
...

You don't write much, do you?

I'm asking because I honestly do NOT see where you are coming from. What you are proposing is easier, not more believable, and in my opinion, certainly not better.

"Just a simple contrivance?" :smallconfused:

Oh sure, if I have plenty of time to get together with everyone and we all want to have your characters match up perfectly, that's fine and dandy. However, one of the things my group loves about 3.5 is how darn huge it is. You have dozens and dozens of races (just LA 0 player races alone), fifty base classes, and a world big enough to incorporate damn near anything you want. D&D's big enough for that. The problem comes when you try to have multiple people from these crazy diverse backgrounds (often four or five people, at that) trying to work together in a party. Like the OP said, this ends up being ridiculous as often as not, but we're willing to sacrifice some of the believability for the sake of playing the game together.

When you have all of these rich and varied characters, it's hard to come up with justification for why they're all working together. I would rather stretch present suspension of disbelief by simply handwaving everyone into the party than I would intrude upon or forcibly retcon someone's backstory to make them more amenable to the party. It'll be a contrivance either way, because we're not writing a story. We're first and foremost playing a game, one that involves a group of friends (players, if not characters) working together. Sure, from a storytelling perspective it's ridiculous to just kludge all of these characters together without justification, but that's much better than telling someone to change their character. You're right, I'm absolutely taking the easy way out, but that's because my game time is limited enough as it is without stressing about how I need to alter the backstory I already wrote to better accommodate the other party members (possibly on the fly).

Sure, if you can tell a story while you're playing, that's fantastic, but if you're willing to let backstory cohesion interfere with your enjoyment of the game... maybe D&D isn't the best system for you.

As I see it, bringing The Party together is always a contrivance. I find it easier to swallow the contrivance of handwaving the group together than the contrivance of hastily rewriting personalities and histories to put this random and diverse group of adventurers together.

To use a somewhat irreverent analogy, when a certain storyteller went with the "here, just accept this fantasy element so we can move on" contrivance, we got The Force. When he tried to use the "okay, let's try to explain this fantasy element" contrivance, we got midichlorians.

Yora
2009-08-27, 05:05 PM
I avoid the problem of weired party combinations by sitting together with the players before I start "writing" the prologue and have them make a concept what type of group they want to play. And I strongly encourage them to create a concept other than "adventurerer meeting each other at random".

In my last game, I thought about a group of human and halfling frontiermen with possibly a halforc or halfelf thrown into it.
We ended up with two elves and a half-elf, so the player who wanted to make a half-orc changed it to an earth genasi human.

Umael
2009-08-27, 05:44 PM
Oh sure, if I have plenty of time to get together with everyone and we all want to have your characters match up perfectly, that's fine and dandy.

Given how little time I have, I find your complaint about a lack of time humorous and erroneous. But go on...



However, one of the things my group loves about 3.5 is how darn huge it is.

Point of fact - it is only as large as you allow it.

Interesting sidenote to point of fact - working with limits may actually improve the quality of your game.

I'll just put down "different of style" and move on.



You have dozens and dozens of races (just LA 0 player races alone), fifty base classes, and a world big enough to incorporate damn near anything you want.

You know, I ran into a similar mindset when I was talking to someone about how I didn't want psionics in my game.

His reply was basically that because there are rules to it, if the players wanted it, they should have psionics, my game or no.

Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.



D&D's big enough for that. The problem comes when you try to have multiple people from these crazy diverse backgrounds (often four or five people, at that) trying to work together in a party. Like the OP said, this ends up being ridiculous as often as not, but we're willing to sacrifice some of the believability for the sake of playing the game together.

Okay. Fine. That's your style.

It's not for me, or for a number of other people, I wager.

I find that most roleplaying games are more enjoyable when they are more believable, when the suspension of disbelief does not need extra assistance.

I wish to also point out that you could play a D&D game with cartoon physics. Might be entertaining as a one-shot comedy, but it certainly won't interest me beyond that.



When you have all of these rich and varied characters, it's hard to come up with justification for why they're all working together.

1) The work might be worth it.
2) There might be a reason it is so hard; i.e., even in a world as fantastic as Greyhawk/Forbidden Realms/your campaign, you don't find half-lich cyberninja hanging around shadow-templated megasolar velociraptors. I mean, sure, there might be RULES to let it happen, but..


I would rather stretch present suspension of disbelief by simply handwaving everyone into the party than I would intrude upon or forcibly retcon someone's backstory to make them more amenable to the party.

Party > Individual characters
Party > sum of individual characters

Do not see the problem.

Also - I believe if you have to retcon someone's backstory so much that their fundamental concept changes that drasticly, maybe their concept just isn't meant to work in this campaign.



It'll be a contrivance either way, because we're not writing a story.

No, but it can be argued quite successfully that you are building one. It is also an interesting point that many of the same elements that go into a story go into crafting an engaging RPG session.



We're first and foremost playing a game, one that involves a group of friends (players, if not characters) working together.

Fair enough.



Sure, from a storytelling perspective it's ridiculous to just kludge all of these characters together without justification, but that's much better than telling someone to change their character.

Okay, now here is where we're going to have to agree to disagree.

In any RPG I have been a part or want to be a part, I have found that changing my character concept, when necessary, to fit in with the world and the group (both IC and OOC), has been a more rewarding experience than not.

For example, if I am running an Rokugan game, I'm not going to let you come in with your elven paladin, no matter how cool the concept is. Nor will I let you play a Rokugan Naga, although that concept is getting closer to acceptable. A Spider Clan shugenja is also out, but if you want to start out with Shadowlands Taint, that's okay. No ronin, the real of the players AND the characters had a bad experience with one recently.

You might view this as being unfair to you, since I am denying you your concept, but in reality, all I am doing is saying, "not in my game" - and the reason why is because it isn't fair to the other players (who all agreed to these rules) and it isn't fair to me (because my campaign doesn't take into account something that just shouldn't be there).

Or are you saying that it is perfectly fair for someone to start out in your D&D world with a Sherman tank? Or a laser pistol when everyone else has only pre-gunpowder technology? It might be fair (as in, not game breaking), but it is definitely not a game I would want to play.



You're right, I'm absolutely taking the easy way out, but that's because my game time is limited enough as it is without stressing about how I need to alter the backstory I already wrote to better accommodate the other party members (possibly on the fly).

*shrug*

As long as you admit that you are taking the easy route...



Sure, if you can tell a story while you're playing, that's fantastic, but if you're willing to let backstory cohesion interfere with your enjoyment of the game... maybe D&D isn't the best system for you.

...

I'm going to ignore the insult on the premise that you didn't intend it and just point out your error in how you perceive my style of playing:

Backstory cohesion doesn't "interfere" with my enjoyment of the game. It enhances it.



As I see it, bringing The Party together is always a contrivance. I find it easier to swallow the contrivance of handwaving the group together than the contrivance of hastily rewriting personalities and histories to put this random and diverse group of adventurers together.

I don't make it a habit of "hastily rewriting personalities and histories".

See, this is Hank. Hank is a barbarian, with a wife, three kids, a bunny rabbit, and an ancestral battle-axe with magic powers that he got when his great-great-great grandmother fought the demon...

DM: That's great, I love the character. But in my world, hedgehogs are allergic to peanut butter. Could you make it a chipmunk instead? Besides, that would give you a connection to Jill's were-goat.

Now, as I see it, you, Zaq, could scream about how the DM has violated a critical character concept, or you could simply agree, or you could suggest an alternative, perhaps a moose instead of a chipmunk, or maybe even if the DM can make hedgehogs no longer allergic to peanut butter.

The point being, you can work things out and still keep the same character concept, as long as both the DM and you are willing to be reasonable - as long as the character concept will actually work in the DM's world.



To use a somewhat irreverent analogy, when a certain storyteller went with the "here, just accept this fantasy element so we can move on" contrivance, we got The Force. When he tried to use the "okay, let's try to explain this fantasy element" contrivance, we got midichlorians.

Bad analogy.

Very bad.

No cookie.

That was an example of trying to explain something that didn't need to be explained because it was just an accepted part of the world.

What you are doing is more akin to trying to convince me that your group includes a Wookiee, a tech-savvy Ewok, a younger-Yoda when he was a Sith, an Imperial commander who is secretly a bounty hunter, and a droid that can use the Force. And then you go on playing instead of explain how in the world such a divisive and... unlikely... group could have ever existed in the first place (let alone gotten together).

Might I also point out that explaining how the characters came to be is a source for plot hooks? And that bringing them together creates more plot hooks?