PDA

View Full Version : In game/Out of Game/Metagame



ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-07, 03:04 AM
Had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine the other day.

She also GM's, although a much different style. She prohibits her players from talking to one another about what they are going to play, on the theory that it will create a more 'realistic' party makeup. Specifically, she believes the 'gold standard' party fighter/thief/wizard/cleric is old hat, and wants some variety.

I pointed out that if I was a reasonably intelligent person who knew he was going out into danger, I wouldn't be moving until I had someone who could patch me up.

She said that would be considered Metagaming, and in her game, I would be penalized for it.

I asked if she thought any armed service personnel (any branch) would willingly enter a warzone without MASH (cleric) or Air Support (Wizard), because I rather doubt it.

She retorted that the players wouldn't know that they would be going into a dangerous situation.

I suppose it is a difference in play style. She would penalize, or prohibit, making sure the party was 'covering all the bases'. I expect and anticipate this, and even encourage it. Because, at least in my games, I don't put on kid gloves just because your party doesn't have an arcanist or a cleric. You'd better have some way of healing yourself if you don't have some kind of healer in the party, because otherwise the game might be very short.

So, I throw this open to the fellow Playgrounders: Where do you sit on this sliding scale of character creation?

Milskidasith
2009-11-07, 03:09 AM
You're friend is being unreasonable, and she doesn't help make a cohesive party by forcing people to make their own characters with no input from the other people. I mean, if you can talk, not only can you have a balanced party, but their backstories can synch up. With this, you could wind up getting a player who is a LG Human Fighter searching out the Orc who killed his father, the sheriff, and a CE Orc Fighter who is on the run from the law for killing a sheriff in a small town. That party would not be cohesive at all (they'd kill each other) and couldn't stop themselves from getting killed.

Plus, if somebody is anything above first level, they are going to know that they're a bit more powerful than other people and probably have combat experience, so going without various methods of getting around common obstacles, like, say, being attacked, would be suicidally dumb IC as well as OoC.

Tempest Fennac
2009-11-07, 03:12 AM
I agree with Milskidasith. If you're adventurers, why wouldn't you know that you're going into a deadly situation anyway?

Milskidasith
2009-11-07, 03:15 AM
Another question: How much of the campaign do they no about? Would it also be metagaming at her games to know not to, say, built a sailor with levels in legendary captain only to find out it's an urban/desert game (RPing opportunities for a legendary captain transported onto an entirely dry world not withstanding)?

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-07, 03:19 AM
Another question: How much of the campaign do they no about? Would it also be metagaming at her games to know not to, say, built a sailor with levels in legendary captain only to find out it's an urban/desert game (RPing opportunities for a legendary captain transported onto an entirely dry world not withstanding)?

I believe it is these RPing opportunities of playing a character unsuited to the environment which she wishes to encourage...

After all, wasn't Paul Atreides born on an ocean world and achieved the majority of his deeds on a desert world?

Milskidasith
2009-11-07, 03:23 AM
True, but if you actually plan on writing a backstory it isn't going to make sense if you have no clue where you end up. As I said, it could open up interesting RP opportunities, but either you're all going to start with a DM Fiat "you're teleported to X location and are all together" which doesn't encourage cohesiveness, or you have to somehow scrap your backstory about being a captain on the *insert small sea you made up that can easily be plopped down as any decent sized body of water in the campaign map* because you're suddenly landlocked in a desert.

Even if that makes "realistic" characters (and it doesn't; it creates characters built for widely different things, like an evil party, good party, low power party, high power party, glass cannons with no healing, tanks with no effective damage, etc.), the casting of "DM Teleport" ruins the realism of them being wherever they start out. I mean, sure, it would be cool if the captain was landlocked in the desert... but when he gets there by DM Fiat, I stop caring about the fourth wall and start caring about when we can get on a damn ship so I can play my character.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2009-11-07, 03:28 AM
As a DM and a player I love interrelated backstories. It gives parties realistic reasons to stay together and the potential for juicy plot hooks, suspense, drama, the works. Forcing players to come from completely disjoint backgrounds just lengthens the awkward period where everyone has to metagame just to make sure the party stays together, and it makes the DM's job of character motivation and story weaving that much harder.

Forcing players to sequester themselves at character creation seems overbearing and stunts the budding (and very beneficial) party cooperation that can begin while they talk to each other about how they're going to work together. Also, obviously, I'd be able to throw a wider variety of challenges and obstacles at a more diverse party.

That said, throwing challenges at a party without healing or an arcanist as though they had healing and an arcanist is just an over the top TPK waiting to happen, and that's no fun. If a professional boxer finds himself in the ring against a toddler, well, maybe he SHOULD put some kid gloves on. Just as I wouldn't want to punish players for some well-intentioned party optimization, I wouldn't punish them just because no one wanted to play a character with Fly on their spell list.

Sir Homeslice
2009-11-07, 03:30 AM
I believe you need to tell your friend that she is a control freak, an idiot, and needs to learn that metagaming isn't inherently bad and that unless you're a neurotic twitching mess, metagaming is inevitable and *not* comprised of the devil doing his devil things.

oxinabox
2009-11-07, 03:33 AM
You want to be sure the party has some healing, then you play one.
there are worse options that cleric or High Cha paladin.

Certainly nice bases to multiclass from

GoodbyeSoberDay
2009-11-07, 03:33 AM
I believe you need to tell your friend that she is a control freak, an idiot, and needs to learn that metagaming isn't inherently bad and that unless you're a neurotic twitching mess, metagaming is inevitable and *not* comprised of the devil doing his devil things.Is this how you treat your friends? I mean, I agree that metagaming is a necessary part of the game (and her DMing style probably increases it, at least initially, to keep the party together), but the rest is pretty harsh.

Sir Homeslice
2009-11-07, 03:36 AM
Is this how you treat your friends? I mean, I agree that metagaming is a necessary part of the game (and her DMing style probably increases it, at least initially, to keep the party together), but the rest is pretty harsh.

Yes, I'm probably overreacting, but things like this infuriate me because of personal experiences.

And no, I don't treat my friends this way.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2009-11-07, 03:45 AM
Yes, I'm probably overreacting, but things like this infuriate me because of personal experiences.

And no, I don't treat my friends this way.Oh, I've had gaming friends used "metagamer" as a generic roleplayer pejorative, so I know where you're coming from. I would often be very tempted to call them out on their own metagaming behavior (however benign), but I thought better of it. The ones I still game with got over that bad habit, so all's well.

Anyway, for the OP, this article by the Giant (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) illustrates some cases of what I believe to be "not enough metagaming."


Have you ever had a party break down into fighting over the actions of one of their members? Has a character ever threatened repeatedly to leave the party? Often, intraparty fighting boils down to one player declaring, "That's how my character would react." Heck, often you'll be the one saying it; it's a common reaction when alignments or codes of ethics clash.

However, it also creates a logjam where neither side wants to back down. The key to resolving this problem is to decide to react differently. You are not your character, and your character is not a separate entity with reactions that you cannot control. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a player state that their character's actions are not under their control. Every decision your character makes is your decision first. It is possible and even preferable for you to craft a personality that is consistent but also accommodating of the characters the other players wish to play.

taltamir
2009-11-07, 06:46 AM
I disagree with the DM about it being metagaming. Or rather, bad metagaming. Some metagaming is good and absolutely essential. example, the CE orc who murders sheriff and the LG sheriff should not be playing together. Or a gith and a mind flayer...

IRL: When I chose my college degree, when my friend joined the army, when another friend decided to become a lawyer because he was failing ochem, when the army sends forces that complement each other into battle.

Whenever we make choices we consider the situation, and traveling with people of unvaried skills into near certain death is just stupid of your character to do. Especially if the location and companions have absolutely nothing to do with your skills or background. There is room to do so, but you better all be low int characters.

If you are not insane and not stupid the first thing you should do is role play the following conversation:
ok guys, we are going into surefire battle and I Am really uncomfortable about the fact we don't have anyone who can handle healing / traps / arcane magic... we better hire someone who can do it, or I am gonna have to find another group to adventure with... and if you cant find it... fine, retire character.

Well, ok, you really SHOULDN'T do that, you should give it to the DM as a hypothetical situation.

bottom line (as has been said before). It is horrible metagaming to make a random and unmatched group stick together. Coordinating characters means you do a little tiny bit of GOOD and NECESSARY metagaming up front so that you can significantly reduce meta gaming in game.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-07, 06:52 AM
Had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine the other day.

She also GM's, although a much different style. She prohibits her players from talking to one another about what they are going to play, on the theory that it will create a more 'realistic' party makeup. Specifically, she believes the 'gold standard' party fighter/thief/wizard/cleric is old hat, and wants some variety.

I pointed out that if I was a reasonably intelligent person who knew he was going out into danger, I wouldn't be moving until I had someone who could patch me up.

She said that would be considered Metagaming, and in her game, I would be penalized for it.

I asked if she thought any armed service personnel (any branch) would willingly enter a warzone without MASH (cleric) or Air Support (Wizard), because I rather doubt it.

She retorted that the players wouldn't know that they would be going into a dangerous situation.

I suppose it is a difference in play style. She would penalize, or prohibit, making sure the party was 'covering all the bases'. I expect and anticipate this, and even encourage it. Because, at least in my games, I don't put on kid gloves just because your party doesn't have an arcanist or a cleric. You'd better have some way of healing yourself if you don't have some kind of healer in the party, because otherwise the game might be very short.

So, I throw this open to the fellow Playgrounders: Where do you sit on this sliding scale of character creation?

Pretty much with you here, my characters mostly would end up not staying with such random "parties". I also tend to play characters who have a high level of competency in at least one area, and generally expect reasonably competent backup. If it's not forthcoming, they aren't going to be risking themselves for a bunch of deadweight or people who they have no reason to be around.

This isn't metagaming, guess what is? Forcing such parties together. If the characters have no reason to be together, they shouldn't.

Anyways, even as a player I tend to try to contact other party members beforehand and get their input/learn about their characters so that we have inbuilt reasons to work together. I also as a DM avoid the kidgloves, but that's something a bit separate.

Riffington
2009-11-07, 09:05 AM
She's trying to run a different campaign than the one you had in mind. That's not necessarily bad. Just different. The DM and players need to come to an agreement on this prior to starting the game.

You can play a game where you are all crack tombraiders: the reason you "adventure" is that you are all spectacular at your particular roles in a dungeon crawl. Or in a raid on a wizard's castle. Or whatever other high-risk activity you are going for. And if that's the story you all want to create: this crack team of undead-hunters goes out and hunts undead, then you should absolutely talk to each other about your roles.

You can also play a game where you are all the cool people who happen to be on the boat to Allyria. You and a hundred NPCs all think you are going to have an uneventful (or fun or profitable) trip there, and then pirates strike, and then it becomes clear that the PCs are destined for greatness whereas the NPCs on that boat are not particularly. As a result you meet each other. And then adventure happens. If that's the story you want to create, then your DM's vision would work just fine.

The problem is when you as a player want to play Game 1 and she as a DM wants to run Game 2. Pick one (or some compromise).

bosssmiley
2009-11-07, 09:23 AM
So, I throw this open to the fellow Playgrounders: Where do you sit on this sliding scale of character creation?

"Generate what you like. It's not my character dying if you all overlook the obvious..." :smallwink:

Sleepingbear
2009-11-07, 10:01 AM
Good day all,

As a DM I go entirely the opposite route. I insist that before the players start creating their characters, they sit down and talk and create the party. They have to create the focus of the party before they consider individual characters. It is also up to them to determine why they have formed a party and why they're together. Of course I provide them all the information on the world they have and answer any questions.

This little bit of meta-gaming up front prevents a lot later. The players and their characters are a team with built in reasons to be together and working towards a common goal. I can build my campaign around their party dynamic ensuring they get what they want and that the party is suited for what they must face.

Forcing players to create characters in isolation is going to require a lot of metagaming and railroading to keep these random characters together. It is because I've seen this happen so many times in the past that I have gone the way I have.

As a side benefit, I find that players are much more involved and interested in the campaign, the world and the party because they have already bought into it. They own a larger piece than just their own character. They have ownership and a vested interest in both their party and that parties goals.

When a new player joins mid-stream I explain to them that the established players effectively have veto on their character as I'm not going to railroad them into having the new character adventure with them. So prior to starting the session I have the new player talk with the 'old guard' to come up with a character that will integrate seemlessly into the party.

This does not eliminate intra-party conflict for those who wish such. It does restrict it to those who wish such. So players who want to develop inter-personal conflicts have to get at least one other player to agree to play off of. I've been a player in such a circumstance myself and it worked quite well. Mainly because we discussed it out of game beforehand. The rest of the party knew what was going on so didn't get upset at the occasional bout of PVP between us. And there were meta-game limits we set for ourselves that we built into the characters and their interwined backgrounds.

Seriously, working these things out before hand has far more benefits and fewer problems than walking into a game blind. So far as I can see, the DM in the first post of this thread is asking for a headache.

The Rose Dragon
2009-11-07, 10:15 AM
Often, it is either destiny who brings the characters together or some equivalent thereof, so I try to go with a well rounded party.

A well rounded party is defined as whatever White Wolf deems auspicious.

In non-White Wolf games, group roles are often less well-defined, so a well rounded party doesn't really work.

If I want to play AD&D, it doesn't matter what the party is like - they are going to be screwed.

jmbrown
2009-11-07, 10:18 AM
I pointed out that if I was a reasonably intelligent person who knew he was going out into danger, I wouldn't be moving until I had someone who could patch me up.

She said that would be considered Metagaming, and in her game, I would be penalized for it.

Have her read over the section of metagaming in the DMG or DMG2. Tell her metagaming is having a deep understanding of one's ability in-game; basic assumptions aren't counted by this. In a standard D&D world, everyone understands that clerics = healing, fighters = beating, rogues = sneaking, and wizards = everything in one. These are the basic assumptions of the world.

When people gather they ask each other their abilities. Saying "I can cast x and x spells" and the other character, whose not a caster, says "I think you should cast y and y spells instead" would be metagaming.


She retorted that the players wouldn't know that they would be going into a dangerous situation.

Is she really this dense? Unless the PCs are simple farmers they wouldn't be walking around carrying half an armory and grouping together if they weren't going into dangerous situations. This is one of the weirdest comments I've ever read from a DM. The biggest assumption of D&D as a whole is that you're doing horribly death defying stunts with the expectation you'll be rewarded for it.


So, I throw this open to the fellow Playgrounders: Where do you sit on this sliding scale of character creation?

I want everyone to know what everyone else is playing. I want people to collaborate with back stories if they wish. What I don't like is the flippant sharing of character sheets and abilities. You can say in game "Hi, I'm a conjurer. I summon things" but what I despise is "Hi, I'm a conjurer. Here's a laundry list of my spells plus my character sheet so you may best direct me." I hate playing a game and someone says out loud "Dude you have this ability! Why don't you apply it directly now because I know better than you?" I can't stand that.

Douglas
2009-11-07, 10:18 AM
She retorted that the players wouldn't know that they would be going into a dangerous situation.
Er, what?

Unless she specifically designs her campaigns to a) make sure that is the case at the beginning and b) make sure there is no opportunity to ever recruit new party members after the danger becomes obvious, then that is utter and complete bullsh*t. If she does do so, then she is the one metagaming, to a rather extreme degree and in a very bad way.

Have you asked her for some examples of typical quest hooks in her games?

taltamir
2009-11-07, 03:44 PM
Good day all,

As a DM I go entirely the opposite route. I insist that before the players start creating their characters, they sit down and talk and create the party. They have to create the focus of the party before they consider individual characters. It is also up to them to determine why they have formed a party and why they're together. Of course I provide them all the information on the world they have and answer any questions.

This little bit of meta-gaming up front prevents a lot later. The players and their characters are a team with built in reasons to be together and working towards a common goal. I can build my campaign around their party dynamic ensuring they get what they want and that the party is suited for what they must face.

Forcing players to create characters in isolation is going to require a lot of metagaming and railroading to keep these random characters together. It is because I've seen this happen so many times in the past that I have gone the way I have.

All so true. As for the bold part, maybe this DM needs to have a learning experience... she will get what she wished for and find there is constant infighting, metagaming to keep the group together, railroading, no fun, fighting, etc...
Problem is, that can easily ruin the playing experience for everyone.

Riffington
2009-11-07, 05:21 PM
Er, what?

Unless she specifically designs her campaigns to a) make sure that is the case at the beginning and b) make sure there is no opportunity to ever recruit new party members after the danger becomes obvious, then that is utter and complete bullsh*t. If she does do so, then she is the one metagaming, to a rather extreme degree and in a very bad way.

Have you asked her for some examples of typical quest hooks in her games?

I don't think this quite makes sense. First of all, DMs are required to metagame. It's a major part of their job description. Second, obviously new party members would have to plausibly fit into the party in its current location.

There's no reason you can't start with the assumption that the characters have no idea that they are about to start an adventure and be placed in mortal danger. It's a perfectly valid way to start an adventure. It's not the only way, of course, so you want to tell people in advance what it is you're doing.

Dimers
2009-11-07, 06:18 PM
I like to have players plan out their group collaboratively, rather the opposite of the OP's friend. But but BUT ... during that process, I try to remind them that having unbalanced weaknesses and strengths is okay, that no matter what they do they can't have every ability in the book anyway, and that my DMing style is set up to avoid player death unless it's demanded by the nature of a well-roleplayed character. I agree with the friend that the thief/mage/healer/warrior layout of a party is unnecessary, and I don't like to see it. (I always root for underdogs, too.) I suspect she may be trying to avoid forcing players to take on certain roles just because they assume the party needs it.

Roog
2009-11-07, 07:40 PM
She said that would be considered Metagaming, and in her game, I would be penalized for it.

Choosing to play any specific character is meta-gaming, as it is a decision made for OOC reasons. So are choosing to play at all and choosing to turn up each week, and by her logic you should be penalized for that (and it sounds like you will be).

On the other hand, she might not actually believe that all meta-gaming is bad. She may just have not thought through what her position actually means. So, you could try talking to her about what meta-gaming is bad and what meta-gaming is good, and whether she wants you to avoid making the meta-game decision to play in her campaign.

JellyPooga
2009-11-07, 08:00 PM
I'm going to chime in on the side of this No-Metagaming GM. I can't help but feel we haven't been given all the facts. If (and I stress 'if') she is running a fairly standard "Adventuring Ho!" campaign, then those that have spoken out against her are in the right; she's spelling a recipe for a rocky start. However, I myself have just started running a game where the PCs are not an 'adventuring group' in the typical sense. They haven't chosen to work together as a cohesive team and there is no reason for the party to cover all the bases except by fortuitous chance. In this game I'm hoping that the differences between the PCs will create a certain friction between them. If this is the sort of game she intends to run then she has my full support in her rule of not allowing the players to collaberate on their characters during CharGen.

ashmanonar
2009-11-07, 08:01 PM
I believe it is these RPing opportunities of playing a character unsuited to the environment which she wishes to encourage...

After all, wasn't Paul Atreides born on an ocean world and achieved the majority of his deeds on a desert world?

Paul Atreides was also the Messiah godlike tragic "hero". He doesn't necessarily fit a character mold, because he had author fiat.

Zen Master
2009-11-07, 08:08 PM
As a rule of thumb, I never compensate players for the choices they make. If one choses to dumb charisma, he will not be well liked, and I will not arbitrarily help him buff his wisdom. If a caster choses a low con score - then discovers damage hurts him - he will have to live with that choice, or invest in solving it himself.

As another rule of thumb, everyone should play something they enjoy. If that happens not to include a healer and an arcane caster, then so be it. In my current group, the rogue was the party healer until the psion got a couple of powers to assist with it.

A further rule of thumb is that I limit powerplayers and boost non-powerplayers to achieve a certain level of coherence. That may include loot, or simply advice as to what is an effective strategy, build or way to achieve synergy with another players (a very simple advice I've actually given is to try to get flanking - so rogues get SA).

Katana_Geldar
2009-11-07, 08:09 PM
My definition of metagaming is simple: anything that is considered a stretch on reality that is usually completely outside their knowledge.

Here (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0199.html) is an example.

A DM needs to metagame all the time. What if the PCs go west instead of east where the Dungeon of Doomy Dooms is? They miserably fail several vital rolls and you don't want to kill them and throw the whole campaign out the window.

There is a vast gulf between metagaming and what your character knows before the game as established by their background. I have found this to be the case in games when the game follows the content, like in Star Wars where characters will refer to Han Solo when he's only ten years old and a nobody.

AshDesert
2009-11-07, 08:59 PM
On the opposite end of the scale from this GM, I usually run campaigns where I devote the entire first session to telling the players about the world and then helping them to create an interlinked backstory. It makes my job as the GM that much easier because I don't have to force the players together and I can make more compelling plot hooks easier since they're all connected to each other. Plus, it often makes the players more invested in the campaign.

Katana_Geldar
2009-11-07, 09:00 PM
And that means they're more than likely to show rather than give up halfway through and stop coming.

Sucrose
2009-11-07, 09:29 PM
I'm going to chime in on the side of this No-Metagaming GM. I can't help but feel we haven't been given all the facts. If (and I stress 'if') she is running a fairly standard "Adventuring Ho!" campaign, then those that have spoken out against her are in the right; she's spelling a recipe for a rocky start. However, I myself have just started running a game where the PCs are not an 'adventuring group' in the typical sense. They haven't chosen to work together as a cohesive team and there is no reason for the party to cover all the bases except by fortuitous chance. In this game I'm hoping that the differences between the PCs will create a certain friction between them. If this is the sort of game she intends to run then she has my full support in her rule of not allowing the players to collaberate on their characters during CharGen.

The issue with this is that you then are required to force them to stay within the same group, when logical in-character decision-making would dictate that they would do the best they could to get their bases covered at the first available opportunity, and ditch anyone they deemed dead weight (probably those that have 'a certain friction between them').

If they do not do so, it is because they are metagaming, but now in-game rather than the out-of-game 'metagaming' that would have been done if collaboration had been permitted. There are several, myself included, who feel this is decidedly more damaging to the campaign than to just permit people to share backstories, and, by remarkably contrived coincidence, happen to have all their bases covered in the first place.

Of course, one could just never present them with the opportunity, whether from some ridiculous prophecy/fiat (in which case, many players would wonder why the prophecy or leader that dictates this doesn't dictate that the group actually be able to handle most types of challenges, which would require additional metagaming for them to be willing to accept this) or from just never giving them a chance for the downtime necessary to do so (which could wear the players out).

In short, as soon as one restricts the ability of the players to coordinate, one introduces more metagaming than one eliminates.

Roderick_BR
2009-11-07, 09:34 PM
I think it's harsh to penalize a player for playing something they want.
This is not a MMO where random people just meet and make a group.
Myself, I tend to fill in any lacking role, but I often like to try some pre-set concept (clerics and paladins in the majority), so if there's others paladins, clerics, druids, favored-soulds... well, too bad. But if I go "hey, no one is playing a full arcane caster? I think I'll try this wizard idea I had the other day...", I'll expect to be allowed. Really, if the DM will penalize players for even making their characters, I wouldn't play with that DM.

Katana_Geldar
2009-11-07, 09:40 PM
The 4E DMG2 talks about these connections between players as well as other NPCs.

erikun
2009-11-07, 10:10 PM
Well, I can sort of see where the OP GM is coming from. The characters don't know each other and the characters don't know about each other, so why should they coordinate with each other beforehand? However, beyond some "throw them together and see how they fair" one-shot adventures, I don't see how such a setup would work. As others have said, the lack of party cohesion would prevent the group from... cohering.

After all, think about it. You're a cleric on a quest to find an ancient relic of your church. The guy you're sitting next to is a wizard, visiting large cities to search for arcane lore. The gal across the room is a sword-for-hire, orphaned by the war and jaded to authority. What would happen if orcs suddenly burst into the room? Well, the cleric would probably get the authorities, the wizard would probably get out as quickly as possible, the fighter might go a few rounds before ultimately retreating... there's no party unity because there's no party. Even if they're suddenly teleported to someplace that's trying to eat them, or chasing after the same abstract MacGuffin, it only holds them together as long as their in mortal danger or the MacGuffin ties in all their interests. After that, they'll probably part ways.


Well, that was unnecessarily long. Back to the OP: what kind of character is your GM asking you to make? Adventurer? Soldier? Literally "no requirements"? If she insists on her no-metagaming policy and refuses to budge, then I say give her just what she wants. Make a character, make a backstory, make some motivations, and when it comes to meeting the other characters, treat them just like the character would any other NPC. :smallwink: Perhaps she'll realize the problem when she tries to GM four different unrelated people going four different ways.

valadil
2009-11-07, 10:18 PM
I can understand where she's coming from but she goes too far with it.

I think this kind of control could be justified in a few circumstances. Maybe she's not running a game about adventurers. If these players are going on an epic quest to slay the dragon, of course they'll hire a healer. If the PCs are put in a situation out of their control, they may not have the option, in which case it makes sense that they're ill prepared.

Katana_Geldar
2009-11-07, 11:00 PM
Erikun's got a good idea, go along with her idea and see how far it gets.

JonestheSpy
2009-11-08, 12:09 AM
Well, it really depends on the campaign. Some may involve folks who've known each other a long time and are used to working together, others not. As I've often run games with friends of mine but not necesarrily each other, who haven't spent much (if any) time together in real life, I generally like to start off the campaign with some particular event or crisis that brings a bunch of strangers together for some goal, and then events work to keep them together afterward.

That being the case, my preferred method is to give each player detailed background about the world they're in, and then they create character that makes sense within that world individually, without any checking with other players. So like the DM described by the OP, no metagaming party balance mechanics. Of course, that does mean that I have to take that into account when running them through adventures - the campaign I'm running currently has no cleric or any other kind of healer, and so I use a lot of non-lethal damage and such in combat so that encounters don't mean character death after character death.

I suppose that can be summed up in a sort of axiom: Any game is going to involve a certain amount of metagaming - if the players don't do it, the DM will have to pick up the slack.

Dimers
2009-11-08, 01:42 AM
Any game is going to involve a certain amount of metagaming - if the players don't do it, the DM will have to pick up the slack.

The law of conservation of metagaming? :smallamused:

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-11-08, 03:52 PM
So no one has a problems with the mentality of:

"Well, Bob is playing a pretty good beatstick, Timmy is playing a Wizard, and Jill is playing a skillmonkey rogue. Hmmm... I think I'm going to play a class with some healing ability, since none of those classes will be able to do so efficiently"

To clarify: Both me and my friend are GM's. We don't play in each other's games, although we do, on occasion, brainstorm with each other to come up with new and inventive things to do to our poor players. I just have a hard time seeing her philosophy, and I'm wanting to ask the gaming community if anyone can see the other point of view, perhaps shed some light on it, and see who sides with which preference.

DrGonzo
2009-11-08, 04:40 PM
So no one has a problems with the mentality of:

"Well, Bob is playing a pretty good beatstick, Timmy is playing a Wizard, and Jill is playing a skillmonkey rogue. Hmmm... I think I'm going to play a class with some healing ability, since none of those classes will be able to do so efficiently"

In our group we usually create characters together. Aside from the fact that we can help eachother, itīs usefull to make a group with different skills and abilities. Moreso because we only have three players.

We started a Star Wars campaign recently, and if we had to make characters without talking to eachother everybody would have been a Jedi, which is kinda unpractical if you need to do anything but moving stuff without touching it, or slicing things in half whilst making "whoow, whoow" noises.

I think the biggest problem for me would be that there is no connection between characters. Not that every group should know eachother since childhood, but some similarity or common goal could come in handy when traveling, and risking life and limb together.

-DrGonzo

Akal Saris
2009-11-08, 05:19 PM
So no one has a problems with the mentality of:

"Well, Bob is playing a pretty good beatstick, Timmy is playing a Wizard, and Jill is playing a skillmonkey rogue. Hmmm... I think I'm going to play a class with some healing ability, since none of those classes will be able to do so efficiently"

To clarify: Both me and my friend are GM's. We don't play in each other's games, although we do, on occasion, brainstorm with each other to come up with new and inventive things to do to our poor players. I just have a hard time seeing her philosophy, and I'm wanting to ask the gaming community if anyone can see the other point of view, perhaps shed some light on it, and see who sides with which preference.

I have absolutely no problem with my PCs doing that - in fact, I wish they would, instead of working on their own and then coming up with redundant characters. One game ended up with a rogue 2, a rogue 1/soulborn 1, and a rogue 1/sorcerer 1 as the party. And the main opponents of the module were undead =P

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-08, 05:55 PM
I GM play-by-post, which means I get concepts handed to me. I select concepts to fit the mood of the campaign. In a thief campaign, this would be mostly thieves; in a typical campaign this would include a well-balanced party. I encourage people to have justifications for traveling together, and provide these if possible. If I select characters so that a certain role is missing, I will attempt to explain to the characters why, in-character, they ought not to seek out that role for their party.

rooster
2009-11-08, 06:48 PM
I don't understand why this DM's getting so much flak. I'll admit that I've never seen a rule like this before, but I can't understand the near-unanimous outrageI'm seeing in this thread: I've played dozens of campaigns where characters were created this way, and I can't think of a single instance where it's detracted from the fun.

Most character building in the groups I play with is highly individualistic. Players get a general idea of what the game is going to look like from the DM, scribble out a loose backstory and lay out some stats. The last step of character generation is usually asking other players "So what are you playing?" If we see a place where we can mesh backstories, we do, but that's usually the extent of our group party-building.

I see nothing wrong with this. The example someone gave on the first page of a party involving a sheriff-killing Orc on the lam and an orphaned sheriff's son out for revenge sounds like the makings for an excellent game.

This thread's main argument against this sort of party building -- that characters would refuse to stick together if the group didn't have a trapmonkey, beatstick, spellcaster and healbot -- makes two assumptions which don't jibe with any D&D game I've played:

1. It assumes there is no in-game reason for the players to stick together. Creating that reason is what the DM does. It's the job that's attached to the title. Once the motivation to adventure (or otherwise engage in colflicts) disappears, the campaign ends. If motivation is never provided, the campaign will never take off.

2. It assumes there are other characters waiting in line to join the party (and that the party realizes it). If it's up to a cavalier, a fighter, a thief and a breach gnome to stop the Ancient Unspeakable Evil, the group would be crazy to abandon one of its party members. Banishing the gnome doesn't help the party deal with its lack of cleric, it just makes the situation worse. D&D is about characters who are more powerful than the norm -- it's why NPC classes exist.

3. It assumes the party begins the campaign as a single unit built for a single goal. I've played very few campaigns where the party began as a group and where all the characters were trained and dedicated to "adventuring." I've played a great number of campaigns where the characters had to step up and avert the mind flayer invasion because they were the only ones who could.

...

The game can work just as well with a group built to function together as a party, but I don't see any reason why it would work better. A party with no spellcasters might find itself in rough shape crossing a mountain range or tracking down the lich king's phylactory. A group without a healbot might have to go to greater lengths to avoid taking damage and other negative effects. A party of orcs and elves might have to cope with internal struggles.

So what?

Holes in the party are memorable. Intraparty conflict is fun (as long as some factor exists to avert pvp) -- the sessions where players scheme and conspire against one another have been the sessions I most enjoy. Irregular parties create new problems. They make groups adapt.

The standard party is washed out and non-conflicting groups are dry.

Making a rule against player cooperation in character building seems odd (interrelated backstories make DMing so much easier for the first few sessions), but I think I can see where this DM is coming from.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-08, 06:52 PM
I don't understand why this DM's getting so much flak. I'll admit that I've never seen a rule like this before, but I can't understand the near-unanimous outrage I'm seeing in this thread


I pointed out that if I was a reasonably intelligent person who knew he was going out into danger, I wouldn't be moving until I had someone who could patch me up.

She said that would be considered Metagaming, and in her game, I would be penalized for it.

IMO this is the offensive part. Going into a life-threatening situation without a medic is metagaming? lolwut

rooster
2009-11-08, 08:02 PM
IMO this is the offensive part. Going into a life-threatening situation without a medic is metagaming? lolwut

"Metagaming" is a silly word. It changes meaning pretty quickly when different people use it in different situations.

I interpret the quote - in context - to mean that the DM believes building characters cooperatively to conform to the cookie-cutter party of healer, trapmonkey, beatstick and support. That is what the DM calls metagaming, not the preference to have a medic along.

This makes sense: if the party is pulled together by chance or coincidence (rather than being consciously built as a military unit), the backstory and profession of one character shouldn't affect the backstory and profession of another. Using knowledge of what the party needs in building a character is metagaming in the sense of "using out-of-character knowledge to manipulate a character's choices."

Taking part in a life-threatening conflict, even with no medic along, isn't necessarily metagaming. So long as the DM provides compelling plot-hooks, the characters should have reason to take part in some way. A cautious character might take a less life-threatening approach to addressing the situation (rather than hunting down and killing the baby-stealing minions of the evil kobold high priest, the character might swing the campaign into a less direct game of elaborate traps or political intrigue). (Or is that what you meant? Your post confuses me.)

GoodbyeSoberDay
2009-11-08, 08:04 PM
So no one has a problems with the mentality of:

"Well, Bob is playing a pretty good beatstick, Timmy is playing a Wizard, and Jill is playing a skillmonkey rogue. Hmmm... I think I'm going to play a class with some healing ability, since none of those classes will be able to do so efficiently"This can be taken to a bad extreme. The classic situation of the noob being forced into the healbot role because no one else wanted it was one of the reasons Cleric was buffed way too much in 3e. No one should be pressured to play to a mechanical archetype that they don't want to simply because it fills what the party sees as a hole.

Seatbelt
2009-11-08, 08:28 PM
This can be taken to a bad extreme. The classic situation of the noob being forced into the healbot role because no one else wanted it was one of the reasons Cleric was buffed way too much in 3e. No one should be pressured to play to a mechanical archetype that they don't want to simply because it fills what the party sees as a hole.

Nobody should be forced to, no. But there are a lot of ways to approach each architype. In a campaign I played in for two years I had three characters (on a progressive scale from less broken to more broken as I learned how to optimize). At pregame creation I wanted to play the noble night. Everyone else just picked what they wanted to do and we were lucky enough to have the roles mostly filled (no rogue though).

My beatstick knight got killed. So I rolled up a cleric/ordained champion and played him like a melee fighter. I specifically told the party that my class was *cleric* and my character was *fighter* so don't ask me for healing because I only have a few prepared. For emergencies. I was also evil so it worked out.

When he died (and I really liked him so I was very immature and quit the campaign because) he died from party backstabbing and what I saw as a poor roleplay excuse and some DM plot that I thought was neat, but made our chaotic good sorcerer hate me.

I realized the ultimate cosmic power of the arcane, and the party still needed a front line melee fighter. So I made a gish. I got to play with cool spells and had lots of options. I had mad AC so I could tank, and who needs an attack bonus when you can persist things like brilliant blade, or extend and repeat and quicken True Strike or Wraith Strike. The first monster I attacked made my GM cry and by the end of the final encounter of the campaign he was getting pissed at me. (which just means I prepare less wraith srtrikes, and don't use them against his favorite NPCs).

So yeah, nobody wants to be forced into one role. But just because you are *the tank* doesn't mean you have to be a sword and board fighter. And being the healer doesn't require you to be a Cleric of Pelor.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2009-11-08, 08:44 PM
I agree that there are many ways to play the archetypes, especially in the case of the healer, where all you really need is Use Magic Device.

You could, however, still have a desire to play a character who wasn't a [particular broad archetype] at all. Suppose you want to play a strong, noble warrior who uses his devotion and his physical gifts to protect the innocent and slay evil. This archetype can be built in a multitude of ways, but a gish is not one of them. Now suppose the party lacks an arcanist, and you haven't gotten to character mechanics yet. This could lead to your character concept getting hijacked in favor of party diversification.

Random832
2009-11-08, 09:11 PM
Is she really this dense? Unless the PCs are simple farmers they wouldn't be walking around carrying half an armory and grouping together if they weren't going into dangerous situations. This is one of the weirdest comments I've ever read from a DM. The biggest assumption of D&D as a whole is that you're doing horribly death defying stunts with the expectation you'll be rewarded for it.

This. Roll up a level 1 commoner with the standard array, and reject all of her plot hooks. When you die, repeat until she agrees that "you don't know you're going into a dangerous situation" is crap.

Ravens_cry
2009-11-08, 09:29 PM
This. Roll up a level 1 commoner with the standard array, and reject all of her plot hooks. When you die, repeat until she agrees that "you don't know you're going into a dangerous situation" is crap.
No. No. Double tap. No. Oh and, No. Quite possibly use this as a hypothetical example of why it's important for the players to plan together, but actually use it in-game? It's that kind of passive aggressive bull **** that can seriously ruin games for everyone at the table. Besides, there's other reasons for player party planning to work within the universe. If it's an external benevolent force that's bringing the party together, like a local authority figure, it makes sense for them to call together a group with a good chance of success.
And if all else fails, walk, explaining why with politeness and consideration. No one is forcing you to play. If the style isn't your thing, then back away.

Riffington
2009-11-08, 09:33 PM
This. Roll up a level 1 commoner with the standard array, and reject all of her plot hooks. When you die, repeat until she agrees that "you don't know you're going into a dangerous situation" is crap.

There's kind of a middle ground between "I am a boring sod whose destiny is to invent the extra-soggy milk sandwich" and "I am a member of an elite team whose every waking moment is spent fighting or training". You know, the middle ground where you're a Bard 1 setting out to make your fortune, encountering many interesting people along the way.

Random832
2009-11-08, 09:42 PM
I would still say refuse plot hooks. Since, after all, plot hooks are metagaming (if someone who supposedly isn't prepared for a dangerous situation hears about the evil dragon who is terrorizing the village, their instinct is going to be to go in the opposite direction.)

Riffington
2009-11-08, 09:44 PM
I would still say refuse plot hooks. Since, after all, plot hooks are metagaming (if someone who supposedly isn't prepared for a dangerous situation hears about the evil dragon who is terrorizing the village, their instinct is going to be to go in the opposite direction.)

Unless they're a hero.

Xenogears
2009-11-08, 09:55 PM
Unless they're a hero.

Or want Shiny Shiny Loot!

xPANCAKEx
2009-11-08, 10:15 PM
re: the OP

i can kinda see where his friend is coming from. everyone should play what they WANT to play, not what they feel they NEED to play

as for a cleric in the party - yep its a neccessity, but just get an NPC cleric if you're really boned after party creation

Grumman
2009-11-08, 10:39 PM
Suppose you want to play a strong, noble warrior who uses his devotion and his physical gifts to protect the innocent and slay evil. This archetype can be built in a multitude of ways, but a gish is not one of them.
Why not? You don't have to be a Cleric or Paladin to be religious. He can see his natural aptitude for arcane magic as a gift from his creator, just as much as a cleric might for the magic he receives directly.

Dimers
2009-11-08, 10:46 PM
You could, however, still have a desire to play a character who wasn't a [particular broad archetype] at all.

I have a build waiting for the right campaign ... the character is useful in some social and sneaky situations but awful in others, has scattered knowledges, does artillery, and is good (very slow but nigh-unstoppable) at physically moving into places. He can soak lots of damage but has no other value in melee combat. The character would be fun to play, but wouldn't fit into a campaign that demanded archetypes.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2009-11-09, 03:44 AM
Why not? You don't have to be a Cleric or Paladin to be religious. He can see his natural aptitude for arcane magic as a gift from his creator, just as much as a cleric might for the magic he receives directly.Wait, what? Let's start over, first with the relevant part of my post:

uses his devotion and his physical gifts

To my narrow view, at least, the whole cleric/paladin/religion thing seems like a non-sequitur. Devotion may have been a poor choice of words on my part, but I don't really think it matters when it comes to the character's lack or abundance of magical aptitude. I could rewrite the description like so:

Suppose you want to play a strong, noble warrior who uses his physical gifts to protect the innocent and slay evil.

... and nothing would change regarding magical aptitude.

As for the rest, what natural aptitude for arcane magic are you talking about, exactly? The whole point of the character description was that he uses his devotion and his physical gifts, which at least to me strongly implies that he doesn't have any other major source of power. We're talking about this character concept from a third person perspective. That a particular character could have a bizarre interpretation of his own magical aptitude doesn't negate the fact that it's magic, not physical. Adding in 'arcane aptitude' under any IC guise breaks the character concept, pure and simple.

To be clear, I'm not saying that devoted characters (or religious characters...) can't be gishes. I'm just saying that there exist viable character concepts that cannot include arcane powers. More generally it applies to any mechanical archetype.

Dimers: Exactly.

misterk
2009-11-09, 07:44 AM
I can think of dozens of plot hooks that would mean that players wouldn't know each other before hand, and wouldn't necessarily be balanced. I don't play D&D, but this happens all the time in WFRP (after all, character generation is mostly random!), and can certainly happen in WOD Mortals. Its certainly not nonsense for an adventuring party to be formed of a nice balanced group, although it is a bit nonsensical for them to specifically choose powers to compliment themselves. The op gm has defined metagaming in a specific way, and when you get down to it, shes the gm and can do whatever she likes- its her preferences that rule her game.

pasko77
2009-11-09, 08:11 AM
Had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine the other day.

She also GM's, although a much different style. She prohibits her players from talking to one another about what they are going to play, on the theory that it will create a more 'realistic' party makeup. Specifically, she believes the 'gold standard' party fighter/thief/wizard/cleric is old hat, and wants some variety.

I pointed out that if I was a reasonably intelligent person who knew he was going out into danger, I wouldn't be moving until I had someone who could patch me up.

She said that would be considered Metagaming, and in her game, I would be penalized for it.

I asked if she thought any armed service personnel (any branch) would willingly enter a warzone without MASH (cleric) or Air Support (Wizard), because I rather doubt it.

She retorted that the players wouldn't know that they would be going into a dangerous situation.

I suppose it is a difference in play style. She would penalize, or prohibit, making sure the party was 'covering all the bases'. I expect and anticipate this, and even encourage it. Because, at least in my games, I don't put on kid gloves just because your party doesn't have an arcanist or a cleric. You'd better have some way of healing yourself if you don't have some kind of healer in the party, because otherwise the game might be very short.

So, I throw this open to the fellow Playgrounders: Where do you sit on this sliding scale of character creation?

I do agree with your friend: the PCs are often randomly united by plot reasons, it is at least odd that there is every role covered.
Currently the group has no healer, and everybody is fine with it.
Just scale your encounters accordingly to the unoptimization of the party build.

Jayabalard
2009-11-09, 09:18 AM
In a standard D&D world, everyone understands that clerics = healing, fighters = beating, rogues = sneaking, and wizards = everything in one. This isn't a valid argument against a specific DM... there's nothing that says that she's running a standard D&D world.

jmbrown
2009-11-09, 09:35 AM
This isn't a valid argument against a specific DM... there's nothing that says that she's running a standard D&D world.

Even if so, basic assumptions should be made prior to joining a game. We all live in the real world. We know that doctors heal and police protect. Why can't the same be applied to a fantasy world? If wizards historically sell their services for coin then I'm going to seek a wizard when I've got a magical problem to solve. If clerics historically heal people for donations I'm going to seek them out when my guts are falling out.

The first thing I ask my DM upfront is "What's different about your world compared to standard D&D assumptions?" A dwarf in one DM's world might be closer to the Norse idea of a dark elf and an elf might be a diminutive fae trickster. This is against the norm and I should have the right to know before playing.

Ravens_cry
2009-11-09, 09:46 AM
This is against the norm and I should have the right to know before playing.
I agree with that. There are many things that can and should be kept hidden until revealed, but this is a special case of player LACK of knowledge about the world their character would have grown up in. Of course, if said elves and dwarves are rare and/or secretive and recluse, the information may be more legend and rumour then fact, but there will still be things a character will know the player doesn't. A player should not be penalized for saying 'I shake his hand' and the DM mentions for the first time that people don't shake hands in this world.

Jayabalard
2009-11-09, 09:56 AM
Choosing to play any specific character is meta-gaming, as it is a decision made for OOC reasons. So are choosing to play at all and choosing to turn up each week, and by her logic you should be penalized for that (and it sounds like you will be).Those aren't metagaming; neither of your examples are in game decisions, they're both out of game decisions. So they can't be examples of someone making an in-game decision based on out of game knowledge


IMO this is the offensive part. Going into a life-threatening situation without a medic is metagaming? lolwutHistorically, People have often gone into life threatening situations without a medic. In fiction, this is even more common.

ghashxx
2009-11-09, 09:57 AM
When I read the first question I just kind of sat here in practical shock at the very idea. With players not allowed to form a party of varying characters, horrific images of a mage only or cleric only party flew threw my brain. Or how about party of druids, ending up with later levels where everyone has wildshaped into a dire bear and are now laying waste to everything they come across. And of course there's the flip side where the party just doesn't work out at all because of RP/mechanical reasons. This happened when I made a character that was didn't trust city folk and the party had two very secretive city rogues. It...wasn't a good time as we both didn't want to just ignore the character backgrounds we had built but didn't want to break up the team. I ended up making a new character for mechanical reasons anyway, but the stress on the team was intense.

But then on the flip side I can see that when you don't allow your players to talk, they are forced to create characters that are a little rounded. It means that maybe as a fighter you might also want to have a bow on hand, because if you're just all alone and you come across even a low level flying enemy and you don't have a simple bow then you're screwed. It pushes a spellslinger to widen their spell selections including buffs, armor, and weapons. And it pushes everyone to find some way to interact with other people instead of just letting the high charisma character that "Jake" is playing handle all the talking. In this respect I'm a big fan of what this DM is doing, because I always cringe when someone joins our ongoing campaign and designs a character that perfectly fits into our group, but could only survive within our group.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-09, 10:27 AM
Erikun's got a good idea, go along with her idea and see how far it gets.

I'd suggest a lawful evil character with one of the various anti-magic builds. Sworn enemy to magic users should create fun roleplaying opportunities, and will likely ensure that the party fails to get together.

Alternatively, play a paladin. Or a kender. There are so many perfectly legitimate characters that will result in a party imploding unless care is taken to keep them together that it should be quite easy to do.

She'll be DMing four solo adventures that happen to cross paths. This is rather difficult to do, but should be amusing.

lsfreak
2009-11-09, 10:31 AM
-snip-

You missed the part where everything can be refluffed. Psionics is powerful qi attained through spiritual unity with the universe. Sneak attack is divine insight into the nature of evil and the rogue who uses it views it as smite evil. Arcane magic is not arcane magic but physical manipulations of ones body through breath control, consciously resisting or succumbing to bursts of adrenaline, or focusing more intently on how to parry an incoming blow.

JeenLeen
2009-11-09, 11:04 AM
I would recommend stating your view to the DM, but trying it out. It could work well.

Ask the DM if her plan is for the party to not know they are going into a difficult situation. If yes, then a random group is reasonable. It could be a boat trip that get attacked, or you all happen to be in a town that is almost destroyed. The players should know the basic world of the story and the setting so they make players that fit in -- no pirates in a desert, for example -- but other than that, no info on others could work out.

However, if it is that they are professional adventurers (which seems the general view people are taking), then this doesn't work. I imagine that, in a world with D&D's mechanics (monsters, loot-ful dungeons, etc) there are places where people who go on adventures know to meet up with one another. Whether a tavern, a mercenary's guild, or just the front gate, you know where to find a fighter, cleric, mage, or rogue. It would be absurd to just pick three random people to travel with. If I'm a fighter, I want magic users and someone who can find traps with me. That's not metagaming; that's the character realistically refusing a job with a too-high chance of death.
Another similiar option would be: if it is a random party that joins up in a dangerous quest, some members might leave if they realize the party as is is a deathtrap. Let's say four rogues, with no magic or strong combat powers; they almost certainty cannot win; and they'd know this if they're reasonably intelligent. Maybe some become depressed and feel hopeless and leave; maybe the others each join a group to try to solve it. Most realistic would be for them to recruit fighters and magic-users, but the need to ban Leadership and the fact that a group does not have unlimited players makes that a non-option.
In one D&D game, I have a relatively under-optimized character working in our group, which was part of a resistance movement. The leadership of the movement had my guy move to join another unit, and the wizard I wanted to start playing join the current unit. A stupid reason, to be sure, but it made sense mechanically. The party had important goals; they needed a team that works effectively together.

I do think, if she sticks to her original plan, retraining should be possible. If it turns out to be four beatsticks who want to stick together and solve this problem, it's realistic that one or two might decide to refocus their attention. Multiclassing reflects this, but would leave them ineffectual due to D&D's leveling mechanics.
For example, in a different system (M:tA), my character is a proficient healer for himself and the party with Life 3. I have no reason, per my character, to get Life 4 ever since I don't plan to, nor does my character desire to, do paradoxical things like shapeshift or create new bodies. However, if nobody else in the party wants to learn Life 3, while discussing things with his friends, my character might decide to learn Life 4 to help buff (Better Body) his teammates. It is the same result as metagaming how we spend experience, but the means are in-character cooperation of a team.

It is reasonable, depending on the setting, that such cooperation would not occur before the campaign starts.

Dimers
2009-11-09, 11:16 AM
on the flip side I can see that when you don't allow your players to talk, they are forced to create characters that are a little rounded. ... I always cringe when someone joins our ongoing campaign and designs a character that perfectly fits into our group, but could only survive within our group.

I hadn't even considered that possibility for the GM's motivation! I always make my characters able to survive on their own, and I've never even noticed that fact before; it's simply an absolute rule in my paradigm.

If that is a major component of the GM's plan, it would (of course) help her more to state it as such. Have players make it clear how their characters deal with being out of spells, how they deal with striking back at ranged attackers, how they each protect themselves and others while they rest, how they respond to allies being charmed/dominated, et cetera.

ghashxx
2009-11-09, 12:02 PM
It would be absurd to just pick three random people to travel with. If I'm a fighter, I want magic users and someone who can find traps with me. That's not metagaming; that's the character realistically refusing a job with a too-high chance of death.
Another similiar option would be: if it is a random party that joins up in a dangerous quest, some members might leave if they realize the party as is is a deathtrap. Let's say four rogues, with no magic or strong combat powers; they almost certainty cannot win; and they'd know this if they're reasonably intelligent. Maybe some become depressed and feel hopeless and leave; maybe the others each join a group to try to solve it. Most realistic would be for them to recruit fighters and magic-users, but the need to ban Leadership and the fact that a group does not have unlimited players makes that a non-option.

This, to me, seems like one of the primary concerns this DM faces. If the party, for whatever reason, doesn't work very well then options are very limited. You can let them hire people which means you have to make up complete NPC's and run them meaning lots of extra work. You can let them remake a new character and the party boots out the old character, but then you might as well have let them talk together from the beginning. The game can be completely altered by the DM to make it playable by the party that's randomly formed which could be...interesting. I'm not a fan of this option because it would just feel silly with the aforementioned "all fighter group" to never ever run across something that needs skill to get past (Rogue skills) or anything like that. The last options I see is to make the players keep their characters, don't change the campaign, and wait for them to eventually die, or all the players say "screw this".

Ruinix
2009-11-09, 12:14 PM
Or a kender. There are so many perfectly legitimate characters that will result in a party imploding unless care is taken to keep them together that it should be quite easy to do.

She'll be DMing four solo adventures that happen to cross paths. This is rather difficult to do, but should be amusing.

damn u r right! i play a kender. my most beloved char above all! it allow me to take the most crazy of my ideas and rol it XD hahaha

on our party, was a time we where to face some death knights, at the start of the combat when we was still on safe range the wizard "red tunic" atempt to cast a fire ball. he said "i cast a fire ball" when he go to roll the damage, the DM said. u can't.

wiz: how i can't? i have memorized, and i just cast!
dm: u can't.
wiz: what is afecting my cast?
dm: u don't have ur spell book with u
wiz: how in the nine hells i don't have it ?
me (the kender): here, i take care of it, u leave on ur desk and look a little unprotected

XD

Yukitsu
2009-11-09, 12:16 PM
This is why I have a kill all kender on sight policy.

Kylarra
2009-11-09, 12:18 PM
This is why I have a kill all kender on sight policy.Seems like a worthwhile policy.


In my experience, it's best to have a little talking between people when they're creating characters so you end up with characters that would at least tolerate each others' presence and work passably well together.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-09, 12:19 PM
This is why I have a kill all kender on sight policy.

While this is just and proper, I'm confused about why you need to have your spellbook to cast a fireball spell you already have memorized.

Yukitsu
2009-11-09, 12:20 PM
Usually due to a poor DM from what I've seen.

Kylarra
2009-11-09, 12:20 PM
While this is just and proper, I'm confused about why you need to have your spellbook to cast a fireball spell you already have memorized.Houserules!



clearly that's the only answer. houserules to make kender more annoying than they are already.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-09, 12:24 PM
clearly that's the only answer. houserules to make kender more annoying than they are already.What would be the response to a VoP Kender? She's so ashamed of her penchant for robbery, she gives away everything she owns(and quite a bit she doesn't) to the poor and needy.

Kylarra
2009-11-09, 12:30 PM
What would be the response to a VoP Kender? She's so ashamed of her penchant for robbery, she gives away everything she owns(and quite a bit she doesn't) to the poor and needy.With my current group, I would still be quite afraid/want to kill on sight. With a sufficiently skilled roleplayer, it could be interesting, but I think it's something I'd rather not chance regardless.

Random832
2009-11-09, 01:21 PM
wiz: how i can't? i have memorized, and i just cast!
dm: u can't.
wiz: what is afecting my cast?
dm: u don't have ur spell book with u
wiz: how in the nine hells i don't have it ?
me (the kender): here, i take care of it, u leave on ur desk and look a little unprotected

You need your spellbook in the mornings when you prepare spells, not in the middle of battle when you go to cast one.

Riffington
2009-11-09, 04:56 PM
Even if so, basic assumptions should be made prior to joining a game. We all live in the real world. We know that doctors heal and police protect. Why can't the same be applied to a fantasy world? If wizards historically sell their services for coin then I'm going to seek a wizard when I've got a magical problem to solve. If clerics historically heal people for donations I'm going to seek them out when my guts are falling out.

The first thing I ask my DM upfront is "What's different about your world compared to standard D&D assumptions?" A dwarf in one DM's world might be closer to the Norse idea of a dark elf and an elf might be a diminutive fae trickster. This is against the norm and I should have the right to know before playing.

I don't share your first two "basic fantasy assumptions". I assume that wizards rarely sell their services for coin (and that many would be insulted by offers of that type), and that clerics' heal people who are in need without asking for donations first.

If there is a set of standard D&D assumptions, it is "Lord of the Rings with the races modified a bit". I'm sure you can come up with a different set... I guess Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms would be two plausible sets that are fleshed out well enough to work as a standard. Is one of them your preference?

shadow_archmagi
2009-11-09, 06:10 PM
The "Standard D&D assumptions" is Grayhawk, I believe? That is to say, all rules are published to the assumption that you're playing in that setting unless you've homebrewed their own.



I'm not really sure whether one can metagame BEFORE the game starts. If I recall correctly, meta-gaming involves using player knowledge to determine character actions. But character creation isn't an action; your character doesn't exist yet. If character creation is metagaming....

"Haaay, your wizard took Acid spells! ARE YOU ACTING UNDER THE KNOWLEDGE THAT ACID IS THE LEAST COMMON RESISTANCE?"

"I see you took Swordsage instead of warblade. Way to take your low INT into account, METAGAMER"

Grumman
2009-11-09, 06:46 PM
What would be the response to a VoP Kender? She's so ashamed of her penchant for robbery, she gives away everything she owns(and quite a bit she doesn't) to the poor and needy.
Murder, followed by immolation of your character sheet.

taltamir
2009-11-09, 06:54 PM
"Haaay, your wizard took Acid spells! ARE YOU ACTING UNDER THE KNOWLEDGE THAT ACID IS THE LEAST COMMON RESISTANCE?"

I see you have changed your college degree from art to law. YOU ARE ACTING UNDER THE KNOWLEDGE THAT LAW PAYS BETTER!

jmbrown
2009-11-09, 07:08 PM
I don't share your first two "basic fantasy assumptions". I assume that wizards rarely sell their services for coin (and that many would be insulted by offers of that type), and that clerics' heal people who are in need without asking for donations first.

If there is a set of standard D&D assumptions, it is "Lord of the Rings with the races modified a bit". I'm sure you can come up with a different set... I guess Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms would be two plausible sets that are fleshed out well enough to work as a standard. Is one of them your preference?

To me, the D&D assumptions are based on Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson's original interpretations. Gygax's #1 the-most-important-thing-about-dungeons-and-dragons-above-all-else-nothing-even-comes-close is teamwork. Teamwork from a well put together team and teamwork by helping the DM shape his world. Gygax's thoughts are in the forward of every D&D 1st Edition book he's written.

And the spirit carries on. This is a game about teamwork and I don't think anyone whose played a session can deny that. It's difficult to work together as a team when you have a poor team. Sometimes oblong teams can be challenging and fun, but nothing ruins a good time more than a team that truly hates working together because none of the players were involved in the creation.

For the purposes of FUN you should allow players to share in the basic aspects of creation. It doesn't have to be "Should I take an 18 in strength? I think you should lower your charisma and buy this item blah blah blah" but there should be an agreement amongst all players at the start of the game what class and race they're taking.

We've all seen those mock videos where the nerds are grouped around the table and share their characters. You know "My name is Rune Coldwinter, elven ranger of the Glittering Tundra. My hair is white as snow and Mary Sue, my composite longbow strung with a mighty chord, is made from the ebony of a five tusked mammoth and wrapped in the skin of an arumvorax" type of stuff. As stereotypical as that sounds, to me that's the quintessential setup for a good party of adventurers. The PCs are eventually going to group up and adventure together. To not do so is basically taking the "What is Dungeons and Dragons" chapter at the beginning of every PHB and setting it on fire.

taltamir
2009-11-09, 07:11 PM
I assume that wizards rarely sell their services for coin (and that many would be insulted by offers of that type)

Wizards MUST sell their services for coin. Their research costs money, writing spells into their books cost 100gp per page (spell level), buying spells or scrolls from others costs money, buying material components to cast spells costs money, binding a familiar costs money, caring for a familiar costs money, and they are still living beings who have their own living expenses.

Since there is no "poof gold out of thin air" spell, wizards MUST all sell their services. Unless born into wealth, became adventurers, or rose into wealth.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-09, 07:15 PM
Since there is no "poof gold out of thin air" spell, wizards MUST all sell their services. Unless born into wealth, became adventurers, or rose into wealth.Actually, there is. Major Creation, Fabricate, Wall of Iron/Stone/Ice, spells make money a lot easier used for the Wizard than sold. And that's ignoring adventuring.

Fhaolan
2009-11-09, 07:21 PM
Personally, I prefer for players to create their characters as part of the first session of that game. I've been running games for 30+ years, and when players make characters independantly you tend to get utter messes that mean *I* have to work harder to keep the party together. And I'm all about reducing the amount of work I have to do as DM. :smallbiggrin:

One game I got an Elf without the ability to speak common, two Dwarves who wanted to kill all elves, an openly evil Campion, a Halfling Cleric who was devoted to destroying evil, a human wizard who was generally xenophobic about all other races, and two humans (a rogue and a ranger) who both wanted to be 'lone wolf' characters.

I tried. The game lasted a whole five minutes before a self-inflicted TPK.

jmbrown
2009-11-09, 07:27 PM
Actually, there is. Major Creation, Fabricate, Wall of Iron/Stone/Ice, spells make money a lot easier used for the Wizard than sold. And that's ignoring adventuring.

Major creation has a duration and you can't use it as material component for something else. Fabricate still requires a craft check to make anything that doesn't look like what you'd find at a pawn shop. Fabricating realistic gold coins would probably require some mad forgery skills which the wizard in question likely doesn't have.

This is, of course, not implying the disasterous effects of screwing with the economy like that.

Also, it's generally assumed that only PCs actively adventure.

So, yeah, the whole point to an NPC wizard's existence is selling his magic to continue working. If this weren't the case the PCs wouldn't have access to most their upper level gear.


One game I got an Elf without the ability to speak common, two Dwarves who wanted to kill all elves, an openly evil Campion, a Halfling Cleric who was devoted to destroying evil, a human wizard who was generally xenophobic about all other races, and two humans (a rogue and a ranger) who both wanted to be 'lone wolf' characters.

I'm with you, brother. I seriously hate the "lone wolf" archetype and the "destroy all evil" archetype. Can't even count the number of parties that've died because a single character, who was a loner, decided to go on by himself, get killed and thus alert the enemies to the party's whereabouts. I believe Burlew wrote a good article on how to still play a character devoted to his alignment while still compromising for the fun of the game.

taltamir
2009-11-09, 07:30 PM
Actually, there is. Major Creation, Fabricate, Wall of Iron/Stone/Ice, spells make money a lot easier used for the Wizard than sold. And that's ignoring adventuring.

Fabricate is SL5 and requires a craft check. And most importantly, it is the wizard selling his services. (he becomes a factory).
Creation spells have a duration.

Most importantly, those are high level spells.
At those high levels They can also travel to the quasi elemental plane of diamonds, or just the elemental plane of earth...

how are they going to get to the level at which they can cast those spells though?
The original assumption was

I assume that wizards rarely sell their services for coin (and that many would be insulted by offers of that type)

Not very high level wizards... I can see a level 15+ wizard not selling his services. If he needs coin he raises taxes on his kingdom; or planer binds a creature and orders it to bring a pile of diamonds from the plane of earth...
So yes, there are some wizards who will not sell their services. But the majority of wizards start and spend most of their career selling their services.

arguskos
2009-11-09, 07:39 PM
Wall of Salt is a level 2 spell that has Duration: Instantaneous and lets you break the economy with cubes of salt. :smalltongue:

taltamir
2009-11-09, 07:55 PM
Wall of Salt is a level 2 spell that has Duration: Instantaneous and lets you break the economy with cubes of salt. :smalltongue:

now that one is good, low level and instantaneous. Although, its not actual gp, you have to sell it; if you don't mind casting walls of salt and selling them, why would you be insulted if someone says "I will pay you to cast X"?

It will also only break the salt industry, not the entire economy.
that is. in DnD world salt is as cheap as it is for us today, rather then as expensive as it was for the romans, because wizards cast wall of salt and sell it.

Riffington
2009-11-09, 08:12 PM
To me, the D&D assumptions are based on Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson's original interpretations. Gygax's #1 the-most-important-thing-about-dungeons-and-dragons-above-all-else-nothing-even-comes-close is teamwork. Teamwork from a well put together team and teamwork by helping the DM shape his world. Gygax's thoughts are in the forward of every D&D 1st Edition book he's written.

I agree with all this. But the well put together team you describe is a mesh of personalities, not abilities. As early as 1st edition, Gygax points out that a party of fighters can be a fun experience - though it forces you to roleplay instead of rollplay, since all your abilities are the same. After all, this was before fighters had feats.


Wizards MUST sell their services for coin. Their research costs money, writing spells into their books cost 100gp per page (spell level), buying spells or scrolls from others costs money, buying material components to cast spells costs money, binding a familiar costs money, caring for a familiar costs money, and they are still living beings who have their own living expenses.

Since there is no "poof gold out of thin air" spell, wizards MUST all sell their services. Unless born into wealth, became adventurers, or rose into wealth.

This is very modern of you. A wizard is something of a cross between a soldier and an artist. And everything you say equally applies/doesn't to soldiers, artists, and wizards. Today, the assumption is that most artists sell their art (for all the reasons listed above). Tomorrow, the assumption may be that most soldiers sell their services (again for those reasons). But historically, this is not true. Yes, there have been mercenary soldiers and mercenary artists, and presumably in D&D mercenary wizards. But those mercenaries were always looked down upon. Real* soldiers had lieges or Constitutions and real* artists had patrons. You dedicate your art to your patron, and he takes care of you. You don't sell out.

*yes, of course the mercenaries who'll kill for coppers or artists who sell their paintings for more paint can be just as adept as the "real" ones. But there's a reason why people look up to soldiers and down on mercenaries, and why people look up to the Duke's musician and down on the jingle writer. It's not talent: it's the recognition that war and art are sacred and should be dedicated to a noble or ideal; adding crass commercialism to them cheapen them. The same is true of Magic.

taltamir
2009-11-09, 08:21 PM
we seem to have a disagreement about the word "sell".
If you have a patron that is paying you for your services, you are selling your services to said patron.

If you work for a government, you are still working.

Riffington
2009-11-09, 09:00 PM
we seem to have a disagreement about the word "sell".
If you have a patron that is paying you for your services, you are selling your services to said patron.

If you work for a government, you are still working.

Working, yes. Not selling. The soldier has a liege for whom he fights, and who retains him and pays him. But he's not a killer for hire or even a warrior-for-hire. There's a difference.
The artist has a patron whom he honors with his art. And that patron supports him. But he does not pay by the piece, and the artist does not create art for lucre. He creates art for the sake of Art first and patron second. And the patron handles his needs.
The wife has a husband for whom she cooks, and he gives her money to buy flour. But she's not selling to him. That's something different.

There are magicians who debase their art by casting for gold or crafting for rubies. The difference between those and the Wizards who serve as viziers or teach in the great Towers of Learning is not measured in mere XP.

At least in my default world. Perhaps in your default world, everyone has a price measured in gp, and you can get magic boots manufactured to specification by a wizards' assemblyline. And getting into the mummy's crypt costs an entrance fee.

taltamir
2009-11-09, 09:04 PM
Working, yes. Not selling. The soldier has a liege for whom he fights, and who retains him and pays him. But he's not a killer for hire or even a warrior-for-hire. There's a difference.
I am well aware of the difference, I was always aware of the difference. Hence the "different definitions of the word sell"


There are magicians who debase their art by casting for gold or crafting for rubies. The difference between those and the Wizards who serve as viziers or teach in the great Towers of Learning is not measured in mere XP.
So, unless a wizard is a teacher or an advisor, he is debasing his craft?
Crafting magic items is debasing your craft? well, damn... that means magic items are hard to find...
Is casting wall of salt debasing their craft?

Seems like most wizards hate money in your world. And also, would rather NOT have the funds for their crucial research then "debase their craft".
I would think the average wizard would think to himself "ooh, that person is willing to pay me enough money to fund my research for 3 months if I cast this spell for him... excellent!"

Riffington
2009-11-09, 09:15 PM
I am well aware of the difference, I was always aware of the difference. Hence the "different definitions of the word sell"


So, unless a wizard is a teacher or an advisor, he is debasing his craft?
Crafting magic items is debasing your craft? well, damn... that means magic items are hard to find...

Seems like most wizards hate money in your world.

There are some other options for a wizard. Ruling, for example.
And crafting for your liege is quite different than crafting for some rich guy who robbed a bunch of corpses. But certainly it is true that magic items would be hard to purchase. You might be offered them as a reward or incentive; you might defeat their previous owner. But my default game doesn't involve trips to Interdimensional Walmart. Not that there's anything wrong with such a game, it's just not my default.

ghashxx
2009-11-09, 11:29 PM
A world with limited magical items because wizards would consider it beneath them to do such a thing...ouch. This sounds, brutal. I mean if you're a spellcaster then oh well, either make your own or just, you know, kill everything because you're so awesome like that. But the poor fighter and rogue and...all other weapon/armor using classes. Either they have to go on adventures to just find decent magical equipment or the DM gives precisely what they need "when they need it". While the idea of wizards and the such always having a patron is interesting, it seems like a very restrictive set up. I have a real question, what if a player wanted to make a wizard that crafts stuff and sells it, would you limit his ability to do so in/out of game or just let him run with debasing his craft?

taltamir
2009-11-09, 11:42 PM
yea... the funny thing is that it makes the wizards and clerics even more powerful by nerfing every OTHER class.

And last I checked, most artists were happy to do commissions. Heck, it is an ego boost to have your craft in high demand and to have people pay for it. I can see them being finicky primadonnas, not outright refusing to practice their craft for money. Of course, scruples come into play.... if you have a steady job as an enchanter for a lord, you might not make items for general public, items that might end up in your lord's enemies hands. That just means that if you want something crafted, you need to go through a local lord / merchant / other middleman instead of directly to a wizard.

But there are bound to be "self employed" wizards who like to keep 100% of the proceeds from their work, to not have a boss other then themselves, and to do commission work for customers when they feel like it...

Riffington
2009-11-10, 05:41 AM
A world with limited magical items because wizards would consider it beneath them to do such a thing...ouch. [This sounds, brutal. I mean if you're a spellcaster then oh well, either make your own or just, you know, kill everything because you're so awesome like that. But the poor fighter and rogue and...all other weapon/armor using classes. Either they have to go on adventures to just find decent magical equipment or the DM gives precisely what they need "when they need it". While the idea of wizards and the such always having a patron is interesting, it seems like a very restrictive set up. I have a real question, what if a player wanted to make a wizard that crafts stuff and sells it, would you limit his ability to do so in/out of game or just let him run with debasing his craft?

I'm not convinced we're understanding each other. I didn't say that fighters get their wealth in piles of gold and never get to spend any of it on items. I said that most magic items aren't bought or sold. So yeah - you defeat the goblin king and you can take his dark scythe. You'll have a much harder time selling that dark scythe for a flaming frosting shocking one, but hey. And maybe you can make that trade or buy a magic item - but you may need to find some noble short on cash who's secretly willing to let a family heirloom go.

So yes: you would have to go on adventures to find decent magical equipment, and the DM would have to pick items partly based on what he thinks the players have/need. If the wizard is way overpowering the fighter, the next magic item will be comparatively more likely to be a mighty helm than a fabulous robe. This paragraph is only partly true - don't take it to an extreme.

And certainly, many characters debase their craft. If you're playing a campaign where you travel city to city looking for glory or treasure... obviously you won't get the same kind of respect as someone who's done those same great deeds as a knight in service to his liege. But you still would get the respect that comes from being a really skilled mercenary who turns down vile jobs (assuming you do). It gets you fewer banquet invitations, but probably you're ok with that.

There's absolutely no reason you couldn't start crafting for money, most adventurers are mercenaries, and if your bard wants to start writing jingles she can. She just won't be as likely to be appointed the Royal Poet as a bard of equal skill who didn't.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2009-11-10, 05:50 AM
You missed the part where everything can be refluffed. Psionics is powerful qi attained through spiritual unity with the universe. Sneak attack is divine insight into the nature of evil and the rogue who uses it views it as smite evil. Arcane magic is not arcane magic but physical manipulations of ones body through breath control, consciously resisting or succumbing to bursts of adrenaline, or focusing more intently on how to parry an incoming blow.Wait a second. You're telling me that through breath control, adrenaline, and focusing on parrying, my completely non-magical character can fly, teleport, turn into a magical beast, create objects out of nothing, summon beings from different planes of existence, and all the other crazy things a wizard (~2 caster levels below the party level) can do?

Sure, this "gish" could focus on subtle self-buffs like false life and bull's strength that don't change your image, but then you're not taking spells that fulfill the job of the primary arcanist, and we're back to the original problem. When you use the hypothetical non-magical magical man you're basically spending the whole time trying to hide the fact that you're using arcane mechanics, sub-optimally, just to prove a point! If you're going that far, why not just play a warblade or a psychic warrior?

Refluffing only goes as far as the mechanics will let it. Many mechanics, such as being able to fly without wings without any physical conveyance, have visible, unavoidable RP effects. Flying like that can be explained in a variety of ways, but every explanation requires a supernatural element. This is a good thing, as it avoids the incredible level of abstraction you're getting at.