PDA

View Full Version : Would you want to play this adventure?



Saph
2013-08-01, 05:37 AM
So I'm currently playtesting a friend's scenario. It's a short adventure designed to lead into other adventures, which he's been working on for months (possibly longer). We just finished the first session last night and I'd like to know what you guys in the Playground think.

System is Pathfinder, but the main features of the scenario are equally applicable to any edition of D&D (and a few other games), so I'm putting this in the General forum.

Notable features are as follows:

There are seven pre-gen characters, all level 1. Five dwarven fighters, one dwarven inquisitor, and a human ranger. Party abilities are limited – the PCs have a few useful skills, but no healing, significant magic, or notable combat abilities beyond basic attacks. Characters each have a couple of paragraphs of background linking them together.
The human ranger is the hero of the story and can't die. If he's going to die, plot will happen to keep him alive. To encourage this, the other PCs have a supply of plot points which allow them to affect the story, but only to make the human ranger survive. IC and OOC the PCs are encouraged to prioritise the human ranger's life over all the other characters, including their own.
The purpose of the scenario is to explain the human ranger's backstory and how he got his magical weapon (said magical weapon is in the adventure and can only be used by the human ranger).
The sequence of events that are supposed to happen in the adventure is pre-planned, and the adventure is fairly linear. (It's a dungeon and there's only one path through.)
The scenario is supposed to be the first of a set. As mentioned, the purpose of the adventure is to introduce the human ranger – the other pre-gen characters are much less important. The second scenario will be the backstory of Main Character B (who presumably will have the same plot powers), the third scenario will be the backstory of Main Character C, etc, then once the prequels are done the party of Main Characters A, B, C, and D will start the actual story.
There's no provision as yet for players making their own characters, though the DM is thinking of allowing them as secondary members of the party (the story will still revolve around the designated main characters).
Based on this description, does this sound interesting? Would you want to play it? Our group's discussed it amongst ourselves, but it'd be useful to get feedback from outside.

supermonkeyjoe
2013-08-01, 05:46 AM
Why five fighters? Are they appreciably different to play as?

What will actually be gained from playing this module over just reading a paragraph of text describing how the human ranger and his dwarven allies went and got a magical item for him?

Killer Angel
2013-08-01, 06:12 AM
Sorry, but no: the premise of the adventure IMO is horribly boring, and I can hear the train's noise from here.
Unless I really trust the DM... in that case the answer will be yes.

Raimun
2013-08-01, 06:14 AM
How long would one adventure take? One game session? I'm not sure if I would want to play some random dwarf grunt more than that. Of course, it would help if I knew I would be the "main character" some other time.

Perhaps the dwarves were not pregenerated? They still have to be dwarves but all players could decide to pick something else than a fighter if they felt like it? At least it would help if the pregenerated dwarves would be of different classes, like Barbarian, Ranger, etc. which would still be "fighty" and non-magical. At the very least, the dwarf fighters have to be different from each other and have different specialities.

Mastikator
2013-08-01, 06:21 AM
7 players is much too many for me. I find that there's too many with 5, 3 is the magic number.

Saph
2013-08-01, 06:23 AM
Why five fighters? Are they appreciably different to play as?

Not in combat: there's a +1 or +2 here or there, but their main differences are out-of-combat skills and traits.


How long would one adventure take? One game session?

It's looking like about 2-3 game sessions at the moment.


7 players is much too many for me. I find that there's too many with 5, 3 is the magic number.

Well, not all the dwarves have to be taken. Any that aren't played become backups/NPCs who follow the PCs around. The exception is the human ranger, who has to be played.

Sampi
2013-08-01, 06:37 AM
I'd play, provided the game would not be overly combat-focused. But I'm skeptical of the game length - if the goal is to establish ONE character background out of many, then I'd probably run one session per character.

Lorsa
2013-08-01, 06:49 AM
Who is playing the human ranger?

Saph
2013-08-01, 06:51 AM
Who is playing the human ranger?

One of the players has to. (In our case no-one picked the human ranger initially, so the DM asked for a volunteer.)

Mastikator
2013-08-01, 07:08 AM
Well, not all the dwarves have to be taken. Any that aren't played become backups/NPCs who follow the PCs around. The exception is the human ranger, who has to be played.

In that case I'd like it.

Lorsa
2013-08-01, 07:16 AM
One of the players has to. (In our case no-one picked the human ranger initially, so the DM asked for a volunteer.)

I imagine the other main characters will also be played by the players then. I might play this adventure just to see how the party looks once the prologues are done, maybe I'd end up with a character I like (since hopefully he wrote the campaign for his players). This seems like a fairly high-risk campaign though, so if I've never played for this GM before I'd probably say no.

SethoMarkus
2013-08-01, 07:33 AM
As a short pre-campaign story I don't see much wrong with this scenario, and I can see it being fairly fun if run by a very competent DM, but generally speaking this seems like there is a lot more potential of it being very boring or going very wrong- especially if the players abuse the "human can't die" aspect of the module.

Frankly, I think this might make a better written story or board game; something other than a cooperative roleplaying game. If the DM friend is dead set on this being a D&D/Pathfinder style RPG, maybe make the following changes:

The Human Ranger (or other Main character) is an NPC/DMPC that the PCs are tasked with escorting.
The Main character can die, but if he/she does it is game over.
The Main character may be the protagonist plot-wise, but he/she is not the "star" of the game (that should be the players).
The Players can generate their own characters, within set parameters.


I don't know if this works or not, but from the information shared in the OP, it seems like it keeps the spirit of the story alive without ignoring the "game" aspect.

Totally Guy
2013-08-01, 07:43 AM
What's at stake in this scenario?

Saph
2013-08-01, 07:53 AM
What's at stake in this scenario?

Difficult question.

IC, the PCs have been assigned to a scouting mission.

OOC, the objective of the adventure is to provide backstory for the human ranger.

There's not actually any way for the OOC objective to fail, so I'm not sure if "stakes" is the right word to use.

Tavar
2013-08-01, 08:07 AM
Individual character introductions can be tricky, especially if there's limited game time. 3-4 sessions per player leads to 12-16 sessions total, just for backstory seems quite a lot. I mean, it does depend on the group: if it's all friends focusing on one person for a period isn't necessarily a killer, but if it's more strangers getting together for a game I don't think this would work. And even for a group of friends I think it largely depend on what you're looking for from a game.

Again, the idea of individual backstories has some merit. I just don't know if it's going to be 12 sessions worth.

Kol Korran
2013-08-01, 08:11 AM
Hmmmmm... There are tow conditions under which I would play the game:
1) It's not my main game, but a side game. I Like my main game to a a collaborative effort, in which there are interesting decisions that can affect the game and plot significantly, and where my character. (Any of the 6 non main characters in each chapter) Are continued for more than one adventure. I would be willing to try this side adventure, which is really a pre-written play that the composer just seeks people to act in, IF-
2) The DM is a really good story teller, which can grip you and thrill you by the story alone. I would be willing to entertain him then, and see where it goes.

Sorry, My play time is little enough, and precious enough, to waste on just playing someone else's idea of a good story. I like to create it with my fellow people.

Kurald Galain
2013-08-01, 08:11 AM
No, I don't like it. It has a foregone conclusion and is overly railroady; I would not be interested in playing like this.

I appreciate the idea of playing out a flashback to establish somebody's backstory, and indeed have done so on numerous occasions in the past (including a memorable session where my players played out the villain's backstory). However, "how I got my sword" is probably not the most interesting part of someone's backstory, and a dungeon crawl with near-identical sidekicks strikes me as completely the wrong method for doing so. Rather, I would go for scenes of social interaction with other notable characters. Using that context also removes much of the danger of the "focus character" dying (that said, I'm fine with positing that "this is a flashback so that guy can't die").

Totally Guy
2013-08-01, 08:28 AM
We've got to go with the OOC mindset because we're asking why someone OOC would want to play it.

So does the player playing the ranger already know the backstory?

Is this backstory is something that's already been written but is being discovered or something that the players are generating by playing.

In the second case there could be some value in that. I could see it being played using a game like Microscope.

In the first case what sort of conflicts must the characters overcome to discover the backstory?

There's a game called Witch: Road to Lindisfarne which is pretty much a structured freeform. In it the witch character is played by one player who chooses whether her backstory includes real evil witchcraft or not. Nobody else knows the truth. The characters travel to Lindisfarne to burn the witch having flashbacks and free forming their relationships with each other and the environments and prompts given by the book. Nothing stops them. They all arrive. At the end the players each have to say that they do their part in burning the witch, if a character doesn't do their bit the witch will escape. After the final scene it is revealed if the characters did the right thing or not.

Maybe a hack of that game would work well for the group?

obliged_salmon
2013-08-01, 08:29 AM
I'd be alright with it, but I'm wary of the linear plot aspect. If the gameplay that comes out of these vignettes is based around player choices and can change the world that the eventual campaign is built around, then yeah, sounds great. If the details are already set in stone ahead of time, though, it sounds kinda boring. I see you guys are going for a Dragon Quest IV/Final Fantasy VI kinda vibe, so I can appreciate that.

Thrudd
2013-08-01, 08:35 AM
Difficult question.

IC, the PCs have been assigned to a scouting mission.

OOC, the objective of the adventure is to provide backstory for the human ranger.

There's not actually any way for the OOC objective to fail, so I'm not sure if "stakes" is the right word to use.

I would not want to play this adventure, I already know what's going to happen. What's the point? There need to be some consequences or it's just a waste of everyone's time.
Here's a different idea: Each player creates five or six different level one characters (however many there are of players), and then the DM selects one of each player's characters to participate in each of several "prelude" adventures (or the players pick, doesn't really matter). Let the dice fall where they may, by the end of all the preludes each player potentially has a couple characters who have survived and are "main character" material. Each player then selects one of their surviving characters to play in the main campaign. Any other surviving characters can become NPC's who pop in occasionally, or backups for other PC deaths. Now you have played out a portion of the characters' backgrounds and established some relationships, but nothing was predetermined.

neonchameleon
2013-08-01, 08:48 AM
Why? And who's the DM?

If that was a pre-published adventure, it would go straight in the bin. I wouldn't even bother to loot it for parts.

If, on the other hand, it's the DM's first attempt at DMing I'd be a whole lot more lenient. Although I would say "Don't do that again please" on almost every bullet point. And only play the first PC's backstory.

Seriously, spending half a dozen sessions playing pregen redshirts with only one star? And then you put your pregen ranger down at the end of session 3 (assuming 3 sessions per adventure) and don't pick him up until session 13 (or more than two months if running weekly and with only four players)? Three weeks on, ten weeks off is a recipie for completely forgetting your character. Designated heroes on railroads defeats a lot of the point of playing. And you'll all be playing spear carriers for nine of the first twelve weeks. While playing a redshirt can be fun (as long as you go with the suicide plays), I'm saying no.

valadil
2013-08-01, 09:15 AM
I could have fun with that, but I'd want to know what I was getting into ahead of time. If I was expecting a standard game, I'd be disappointed to be stuck with an indistinct side character.

Part of why I could have fun with it is I've been intrigued by the main character with side kicks party and I've never seen it done well. I've always wondered what it would be like to play through The Hobbit or an episode of Doctor Who. With the right group of players it could be fun, despite the imbalances in power and spotlight time. But I think my interest is more along the lines of "that's weird and I want to see how it plays because I'm tired of normal" than actual interest in the plot.

neonchameleon
2013-08-01, 09:33 AM
Part of why I could have fun with it is I've been intrigued by the main character with side kicks party and I've never seen it done well. I've always wondered what it would be like to play through The Hobbit or an episode of Doctor Who.

[Tangent] Both the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG and Dr Who: Adventures In Time And Space are set up to do this. And both are pretty good and easy to play games. With the Dr Who initiative system (Talkers, Movers, Doers, Fighters) being genius for reproducing the show.

Kalmageddon
2013-08-01, 09:47 AM
I'd play it if the following changes were implemented:

-Each of the Main Character's introductions will last only 1 session (maybe a fairly long one).

-There are multiple paths and solutions to the problem presented, even something as simple and gamey as a Combat solution, a Stealth solution and maybe a non-violent "talk/lie your way out of it" solution.

-The only thing that is set in stone is that the Human Ranger must live, the ending of the prequel is still open. As in, how it ends and what are the consequences can be influenced. So, for exemple, the Human Ranger survives, but the way he found his magic weapon is completly different depending on your decisions, maybe even the weapon itself can be different.

- The players have some creative input on the small details of the pre-made characters, maybe even chosen from a small option pool would be enough.

-The DM has a good reputation or is at least someone I trust having enough skill and common sense to pull this off.

Without at least the majority of these features I would not play this adventure.

valadil
2013-08-01, 10:00 AM
[Tangent] Both the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG and Dr Who: Adventures In Time And Space are set up to do this. And both are pretty good and easy to play games. With the Dr Who initiative system (Talkers, Movers, Doers, Fighters) being genius for reproducing the show.

I've heard good things about the DW but haven't witnessed it first hand.

J-H
2013-08-01, 10:40 AM
I agree with earlier posters - 12-16 intro sessions before the campaign starts is too much. I don't mind the use of pre-gens, as they save a lot of time.. but are you really going to do much that can't be covered by a 2-3 paragraph intro for A, B, C, and D?

dysprosium
2013-08-01, 10:51 AM
I like the idea of a collaborative background story. There is interesting potential there. An experienced DM can help with these scenarios too. Of course knowing how your group of players would handle this idea helps this along too.

However in our OP example the human ranger "star" was not initially picked by anyone. Someone had to volunteer to play him and now presumably will be him in the "regular" story when it starts. I can see that as an issue.

If I were running a similar experiment, I would let the players each make their own characters for the main story as normal. Then I would run a prequel adventure for each of these characters with the other players playing the "filler" NPCs. This way everyone can be invested in their own character and enjoy a different experience with the prequel NPCs. I would even pregenerate these filler NPCs.

Berenger
2013-08-01, 11:06 AM
I'd try it.

Knowing from the beginning that a certain character will surive isn't that terrible to a story. It happens quite often in literature, for example when the story is told in retrospect by the older self of a participant.

The campaign would have to rely heavily on roleplay, character interaction and storytelling by the DM, tough. At best, it would be less like an ordinary RPG and more like some cooperative, interactive The Hobbit narration, which would be a cool experiment. At worst, well, a mary-sueish railroading excess. It needs a bit trust in the DM and the other players.

TheStranger
2013-08-01, 11:31 AM
Add me to the list of those who think this is too railroad-y. If the DM was amazing, it might work, but there are a lot of red flags here.

I'm wary of pregen characters for anything other than one-shot games or to get new players up and running. It sounds like the DM has a very linear story planned out - so linear that it won't even work with "four unknown heroes," but only with the four specific characters the DM wrote up. Which means that the DM probably has further plans for those specific characters. Which means I'd be very concerned about how much agency the players are going to have - not just in terms of plot, but even in the playing of their characters.

Basically, the only reason I can see for these pregenerated characters is because the DM wants total control over every aspect of the campaign. It really sounds like the DM wants to write a book, not run a game. The odds of this ending with players angry at the DM for railroading and the DM angry at the players for ruining the plot strike me as being very, very high.

Also, I'm worried that nobody even wanted to play the human ranger. All of the above is worrying enough, but the character is apparently so compelling that everybody preferred Dwarven Fighter #3 instead. Maybe that's just because nobody wanted to be "special" though - ymmv.

Finally, I agree that ~12 sessions of backstory sounds like an awful lot of playing to do before the main game starts. Having the DM unilaterally decide that I'm doing 9 sessions of playing redshirts and 3 sessions of playing a character that's not even mine doesn't sound like fun. If the players made their own characters and agreed to play out each other's backstories, it might work, but I'm not interested at all in what's been described.

Like I said, though, it could work if the DM is really, really good. Execution matters more than how a game sounds on paper. If I had played several fun and successful games with the DM before, I would see where it went. Otherwise, I'd be looking for a way to let the DM down gently.

Alabenson
2013-08-01, 12:15 PM
Overall, this entire adventure set up sound absolutely terrible. Between the pre-generated characters, Mary Sue spotlight ranger, and explicitly linear plotline, it sounds like this would be a case of the DM wanting the players to act out a novel that he has written in his head.
Not only would I not have any desire whatsoever to play this adventure, I'd likely consider it's existence to be an indication that I should avoid this DM altogether.

Kalmageddon
2013-08-01, 12:28 PM
Mary Sue spotlight ranger,

Don't use that definition at random. There is absolutely no element to call the Ranger character that, the adventure hasn't even started.
For all we know the ranger might be written with all the flaws in this world and his only redeeming factor is having a magic weapon.

valadil
2013-08-01, 12:28 PM
Add me to the list of those who think this is too railroad-y. If the DM was amazing, it might work, but there are a lot of red flags here.


Here's why I think I'm not bothered by the railroad. I see this as setup. You have the main party, one of whom is the ranger. This prelude is a flashback to set up how he got to the story. Of course a flashback is going to be railroady - it can't diverge from something that's already established (unless you can, but that's another game entirely.)

I agree that it's a little long for that sort of thing though and unless each of these stories was really compelling I'd lose interest. For a 4 person party each with a 2.5 session prelude, you're talking about 10 sessions. Most of my campaigns only last 10 sessions.

TheStranger
2013-08-01, 12:50 PM
Here's why I think I'm not bothered by the railroad. I see this as setup. You have the main party, one of whom is the ranger. This prelude is a flashback to set up how he got to the story. Of course a flashback is going to be railroady - it can't diverge from something that's already established (unless you can, but that's another game entirely.)

Sure, but the ranger is a pregenerated character. And using pregens in a long-running, plot-heavy game is, IMO, a promise of further railroading to come. If you promised me total player agency after the flashback was over, or if the ranger and the backstory were created by a player, it might be different.

Everything about this scenario just screams, "The DM has written a novel."

That's not to say that the story isn't good, or that the characters are poorly written - it may be a very good novel. But I don't want to play a game where the players are expected to be complicit in playing out the DM's plot with the DM's characters, and that's what I'm seeing here.

Vitruviansquid
2013-08-01, 12:56 PM
This would depend entirely on the DM. Some DM's are very good at railroad type adventures, and I'd be happy to play along, even as a side character.

Raine_Sage
2013-08-01, 12:57 PM
Here's why I think I'm not bothered by the railroad. I see this as setup. You have the main party, one of whom is the ranger. This prelude is a flashback to set up how he got to the story. Of course a flashback is going to be railroady - it can't diverge from something that's already established (unless you can, but that's another game entirely.)

I agree that it's a little long for that sort of thing though and unless each of these stories was really compelling I'd lose interest. For a 4 person party each with a 2.5 session prelude, you're talking about 10 sessions. Most of my campaigns only last 10 sessions.

True but there are red flags that the campaign after the setup might be a little railroady too. Namely the use of pregen only characters. It would be one thing if the characters were designed to suit player tastes but since the DM actually had to ask someone to volunteer to be the ranger this doesn't seem to be the case.

So far we have a bunch of backstories on a set path for characters who must have a set design, who will then meet and form a party probably also in a manner predetermined by the DM.

If a DM wants to play a low magic/otherwise restricted setting that doesn't necessarily mean they have to make up the characters for the players. Just that they make the restrictions clear during character creation. Pregen characters can be a red flag all on their own but the mandatory back story sessions imply the DM has Plans for these characters, capitol P Plans.

And while I get wanting to show your story off, it's just not much fun for other players.

Alabenson
2013-08-01, 01:01 PM
Don't use that definition at random. There is absolutely no element to call the Ranger character that, the adventure hasn't even started.
For all we know the ranger might be written with all the flaws in this world and his only redeeming factor is having a magic weapon.

While that's a fair point, I was actually referring to the fact that, according to the OP, the adventure is intended to focus on the ranger, who is singled out as the "hero" of the narrative with the other players as essentially secondary characters.
It doesn't matter how flawed or well written the ranger's character is if it comes at the expense of the rest of the party in a D&D game.


Sure, but the ranger is a pregenerated character. And using pregens in a long-running, plot-heavy game is, IMO, a promise of further railroading to come. If you promised me total player agency after the flashback was over, or if the ranger and the backstory were created by a player, it might be different.

Everything about this scenario just screams, "The DM has written a novel."

That's not to say that the story isn't good, or that the characters are poorly written - it may be a very good novel. But I don't want to play a game where the players are expected to be complicit in playing out the DM's plot with the DM's characters, and that's what I'm seeing here.

I have to second this conclusion. This has all the earmarks of a DM who wants the players to act out his "brilliant" idea for a novel rather than play a part of a collaborative narrative. While this theoretically could be done well, in practice it more often results in a DM who liberally uses the phrase "that's not what your character would do", blatantly railroads the game, and throws a tantrum whenever the players go off script.

Icewraith
2013-08-01, 05:55 PM
If you guys were doing this for each person's planned character in the actual game, and you had at least some control of the characters you would be stuck with, it could be awesome as long as it was fairly short. The dice and players tend to combine and do things that you just can't make up. You'd have good backstories and a list of allies and contacts to turn to- or at least some fallen comrades to occasionally mourn for roleplaying xp or lols.

But it sounds like nobody wants to use the ranger, and the supporting characters are all pregenerated and dwarves. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

Alternatively, if things go south and the campaign is bad, see if you can technically fulfil the victory conditions by having the ranger "survive" as some sort of undead, afflicted lycanthrope or silmilar. Only do this if the DM can take a joke- if he's a clueless newbie DM overinvested in his Mary Sue character, and you otherwise value his companionship, you should probably find a gentler way of letting him know than trashing his campaign.

Otherwise, you should employ every ounce of cunning, metagame knowledge, rule loopholes, wish-twisting logic and bastardry the combined players possess to annihilate that ranger and utterly destroy the campaign as a warning to the other mary sue plots out there. Blood! Darkness! Fire! Death to it! For I was a player in that campaign, and it was indeed hell.

...not that I'm bitter or anything.

Seharvepernfan
2013-08-01, 06:32 PM
If the game was basically "fftactics; D&D version", Id be okay with it. If it was supposed to be played like a real campaign, then no, probably not.

nedz
2013-08-01, 06:37 PM
Surely there should be seven Dwarves ?

Plots centred around one PC are almost certain to fail: I speak from experience. What usually happens is that the special PC goes off the rails because the player gets bored, misunderstands what they are meant to do to satisfy the plot or simply doesn't want to be special and thus excluded from the group. They may even perceive that the other players are jealous, whether that is true or not.

The acid test though is: has the DM sold the premise of this game to the players well enough for them to buy into the game ? He has 2-3 sessions to do this for a typical group.

Cerlis
2013-08-01, 07:14 PM
Sorry, but no: the premise of the adventure IMO is horribly boring, and I can hear the train's noise from here.
Unless I really trust the DM... in that case the answer will be yes.

if the point was to have your own characters and do what you wanted i'd agree with this sentiment.

But the purpose of this is basically like a play you are acting out with a significant amount of impromptu (the only main fact really is that the main character doesnt die)

Gavran
2013-08-01, 09:44 PM
I would have an earnest discussion with the DM explaining that while I'd love to experience his story, I'd prefer to do so from the vantage point of a character of my own design.

I can have fun playing a throwaway character in a prologue (though, as mentioned, SOME customization would be nice.)

I can handle a few extra sessions before we get started, though we should probably limit them to one per character.

Where I draw the line is doing all of this setup for characters that nobody in the party created. If the DM's story requires me to be a Human Ranger who once knew a bunch of dwarves, then he has way too many, too specific plans for me to be comfortable with.

The structure isn't bad at all, and I have no problem with him wanting to play out his story, but he needs to let us pick our characters and then make the story fit them, not the other way around.

Suggest that he asks his players for certain motivations, origin locations, or even histories with certain characters - all fine - but let them decide how these things came to be.

Mr Beer
2013-08-01, 10:15 PM
I wouldn't run it like this. I don't want to give any player an explicitly unkillable character. I don't want to give any player a "always the star" of the show character. It sounds like a recipe for player abuse of the immortal ranger and player boredom for everyone not playing the immortal ranger.

I think I'd rather make the guy an NPC instead and not tell the players that he won't die.

Telok
2013-08-01, 10:19 PM
Yes I totally would.
Unfortunately I would also fail to take anything seriously. I would blow through disposable dwarf mooks by pulling insane stunts and trying for fantastic (or hilarious) death scenes.

This scenario, and the other intro scenarios, need to be a session or a session and a half long. One combat scene, one teamwork scene showcasing some skill or rule, and one other scene (talky talky, stealth, or something else) should be the limit so that you can keep things moving. Speed is essential to this sort of scenario, you don't want to give the players time to get bored or start poking holes in your plot or derailling the plot.

Short and sweet intro runs to get new players used to the game is what you want here. The teamwork scene is important, it introduces the concept of working together and helping your allies, something that people coming from a CRPG background will not normally be used to.

erikun
2013-08-02, 12:12 AM
This sounds like an interesting idea but a terrible presentation.

If I were to present it, I would first give the players the option of choosing between the established "heroes" of the game: the human ranger, the character from Adventure B, the character from Adventure C, and the character from Adventure D. Once everyone has picked their characters, I'll let them know that we'll be running through each character's backstory to become familiar with them.

The scenario will be shortened to a single game session (or preferably less), because it is just an introduction and quick familiarity. Player A, who picked the human ranger, will play the human ranger. The other three players will be given the character sheets for the dwarves, and will be free to RP and control all the dwarves between themselves. The players will be given the situation that they are out in the wilderness (or however the scenario starts) and that they are to acquire the magic sword for the ranger character. The scenario ends once they have the sword.

From there, the players are free to play however they'd like. The non-ranger players would probably choose an individual dwarf to run, but still control what the other dwarves do. The dwarves are there to keep the human ranger alive, and they know it. At the end of the scenario, any surviving dwarves will stick around as background NPCs, to make the player choices throughout the scenario somewhat matter.

Next session, or after that if it only takes one session, we would move on to Character B's scenario, with players A, C, and D running the friendly NPCs.

As a side note, I'd probably make the ranger low-level in the scenario, and allow the player to level-up the ranger in the main campaign as they wish. If the player doesn't want to do so, then they can just be given a pre-generated higher level human ranger instead.

Jay R
2013-08-02, 11:01 AM
One huntsman ranger, six dwarves, we don't know the huntsman's ranger's backstory, and it's all a railroad?? I'm expecting a seventh dwarf, a princess, and an evil queen.

nedz
2013-08-02, 11:39 AM
One huntsman ranger, six dwarves, we don't know the huntsman's ranger's backstory, and it's all a railroad?? I'm expecting a seventh dwarf, a princess, and an evil queen.

Not a Princess ! Instead: a certain corporeal undead with a suitable cold template applied. This is quite an old idea from the '80's

Jerthanis
2013-08-02, 12:08 PM
No... I kind of wouldn't want to play this game unless almost all of it was dialogue, character development and dramatic narration. Playing out a backstory isn't really that interesting, and is usually done individually, without involving other players as incidental characters. Prequels are best in my experience as a short series of conversations and narrative choices that set the tone for the game and introduce hints of the plot and other characters.

But this appears to be a full on session or two of dungeoncrawling and rolled out combats where one person isn't ever going to be threatened and cannot fail his overall task and every other character doesn't care if they lose the character or not, because it's disposable anyway. It just seems like a setup with zero investment and no payoff. It's just a prelude, but made to be boring and aggravating.

Lord Torath
2013-08-02, 12:10 PM
Saph,

I'm seeing a lot of Red Flags here. I'd talk to your DM about shortening the intro sessions, and allowing more player input into the creation of the Main Characters.

When's your nest session? How do the other players feel about it? Have you had a chance to relay any of the information from this thread to your DM? Has he given any idea as to what the "Real" campaign will be? What are the other Main Characters? How far out does he have the "plot" planned?

It could be a lot of fun, but it seems much more likely to be a boring drag through a set-in-stone plot with characters you don't care about.

SiuiS
2013-08-02, 12:19 PM
So I'm currently playtesting a friend's scenario. It's a short adventure designed to lead into other adventures, which he's been working on for months (possibly longer). We just finished the first session last night and I'd like to know what you guys in the Playground think.

System is Pathfinder, but the main features of the scenario are equally applicable to any edition of D&D (and a few other games), so I'm putting this in the General forum.

Notable features are as follows:

There are seven pre-gen characters, all level 1. Five dwarven fighters, one dwarven inquisitor, and a human ranger. Party abilities are limited – the PCs have a few useful skills, but no healing, significant magic, or notable combat abilities beyond basic attacks. Characters each have a couple of paragraphs of background linking them together.
The human ranger is the hero of the story and can't die. If he's going to die, plot will happen to keep him alive. To encourage this, the other PCs have a supply of plot points which allow them to affect the story, but only to make the human ranger survive. IC and OOC the PCs are encouraged to prioritise the human ranger's life over all the other characters, including their own.
The purpose of the scenario is to explain the human ranger's backstory and how he got his magical weapon (said magical weapon is in the adventure and can only be used by the human ranger).
The sequence of events that are supposed to happen in the adventure is pre-planned, and the adventure is fairly linear. (It's a dungeon and there's only one path through.)
The scenario is supposed to be the first of a set. As mentioned, the purpose of the adventure is to introduce the human ranger – the other pre-gen characters are much less important. The second scenario will be the backstory of Main Character B (who presumably will have the same plot powers), the third scenario will be the backstory of Main Character C, etc, then once the prequels are done the party of Main Characters A, B, C, and D will start the actual story.
There's no provision as yet for players making their own characters, though the DM is thinking of allowing them as secondary members of the party (the story will still revolve around the designated main characters).
Based on this description, does this sound interesting? Would you want to play it? Our group's discussed it amongst ourselves, but it'd be useful to get feedback from outside.

My initial reaction is a knee-jerk "no", and I think this is a terrible module. However, less as a pre-built thing which can be Re-used and more as an idea for a single game, I like it and would be willing to give it a go.

I wouldn't buy it off the shelf but I'd play it with my current group.


Difficult question.

IC, the PCs have been assigned to a scouting mission.

OOC, the objective of the adventure is to provide backstory for the human ranger.

There's not actually any way for the OOC objective to fail, so I'm not sure if "stakes" is the right word to use.

There should be some bonus for the Human Ranger if things go well, methinks.
If all dwarves survive, gain something. If all dwarves agree to like, follow and take up your banner, gain something. The ranger can't die, so put in game stakes elsewhere. Make it slightly more dangerous, and make it so after a dwarf runs out of plot points, they get one more... By sacrificing their life.

Much more interesting that way, as the Dwarves want to protect the ranger but the ranger needs the dwarves to survive.


No, I don't like it. It has a foregone conclusion and is overly railroady; I would not be interested in playing like this.

I appreciate the idea of playing out a flashback to establish somebody's backstory, and indeed have done so on numerous occasions in the past (including a memorable session where my players played out the villain's backstory). However, "how I got my sword" is probably not the most interesting part of someone's backstory, and a dungeon crawl with near-identical sidekicks strikes me as completely the wrong method for doing so. Rather, I would go for scenes of social interaction with other notable characters. Using that context also removes much of the danger of the "focus character" dying (that said, I'm fine with positing that "this is a flashback so that guy can't die").

Yeah. It's too linear for me, but, I think it could work.

Dimers
2013-08-02, 12:47 PM
The way I read the OP, it sounded like the players had already bought into the basic idea (RPing some backstory one character at a time). If I were with a group that had already agreed to that, I would have plenty of fun, even playing 'straight'. Like many others, I'd suggest low emphasis on playing out combats and fewer sessions involved, and I think it'd run better with players I already knew. For a change, I actually agree with SiuiS about something substantive :smallsmile: -- it'd be good to provide some reward or change to the later-timeline ranger for the party's involvement.

The fact that it's very scripted doesn't bother me at all. I have no problem finding my fun along a railroad track.