Weird first session

[weenie]

Ok, today I wanted to share something that happened to me. I met some people who wanted to start a new Pathfinder campaign in my town, we created characters the DM approved them and tonight we met for the first time to play. So far so good. The DM went over our sheets once more, corrected a few things, helped a less experienced player finish hers and then the game begun. Well, sorta.

He first read a short intro to set the mood, with some music in the background and after that started telling us how our characters met, have been adventuring for a few years, found a mcGuffin in some ruins, were attacked by bandits, were rescued by some good underground organization, tried to find out what the mcGuffin is and why it's so important.... This went on for about half an hour. He was basically telling us what our characters have been doing for the past month or so and it was all stuf that could have been roleplayed instead. After this prologue the session finally begun, but was over after the first fight, because it got late.

He warned us before we started playing that there would be long speeches from time to time, but I always assumed it would be some NPC stuff that we read about or something, not him basically telling us a short story about what our characters. So, has this ever happened to you?

[Eldonauran]

Sure. Its not atypical for the start of a campaign. A half hour isn't too bad, but that might depend on your session length. I usually don't run a session that is less than four hours. A certain amount of exposition should be allowed for.

The last campaign I particiapted in, rather than DM-ed, we didn't even have a battle until the third session. We had some challenges (like rounding up some loose goats/horses) and putting out fires.

[CondorDive]

for things like this, I fall back to the "discuss it with the DM" rule. If you don't like that he determined the backstory for your character, tell him! If you wanted to role play your character as something specific, or wanted to make up your own backstory, tell him. I only really play with my friends though, so it's much easier for me to say something like that. I would just take him aside before or after one of your sessions, and talk to him about railroading your character's backstory. After all, it is your character, not his.

[nedz]

First sessions are always tricky which is why I try to do as much as possible before the game, and then hit the ground running.

The problem with the wall of text style of exposition is that players get bored, turn off and stop listening. Also its not fun.

Still, I would expect that the next session will be more typical of the game to come.

[Craft (Cheese)]

EVERYBODY at my table loves to ham it up with long descriptions and exposition. Yes, players included. We deal with this with the 5-minute rule: If you've been speaking uninterrupted for more than 5 minutes, anyone else at the table has the right to butt in and interrupt you if they so desire. Works pretty well for us.

As for backstories and setting details and stuff, I prefer to introduce that stuff steadily throughout the game as nobody ever reads background documents and I'm too lazy to write them. I just give the players information as they need it. Sometimes there's an edge case where it doesn't work out, but 99% of the time it works out.

[Sith_Happens]

I don't suppose you're playing Metal Gear Solid: The RPG, are you?

[Amnestic]

Beats meeting in a tavern.

I don't suppose you're playing Metal Gear Solid: The RPG, are you?

METAL GEAR!?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

First, I was reminded of this, but then I realized that this was more accurate.

Anyhow. Whilst it's not an unforgivable sin, I personally think that a prelude like that can be often wasted breath, and misses the point of play. It's far more effective to either A: give players a quick, easy-to-grasp analogue or B: work with the players to build the world and backstory.

[prufock]

We handle pre-session story time online. DM does a little writeup to set the stage for the game and sends it out to everyone.

[valadil]

I'd expect myself to find this sort of thing offensive. But I don't because I played the alternative.

I had a GM several years ago who really wanted to stamp out conflict by having us play an established adventuring party. He did it by handwaving away all the stuff your GM described and threw us straight into a fight.

After the fight it became apparent to the party that my character was a cannibal who consumed his foes. When the paladin raised an objection, the GM pointed out that we'd already come to terms with our differences. The paladin shrugged and said okay. I ate my foe (complete with beef jerky prop for demonstration!)

6 hours after that, our established adventuring party learned each others' names. I suppose our characters knew them all along, but as players we had no idea.

The next session we found out the caster was female.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that the GM is trying to tell a story about a merry band of adventurers, not about a bunch of strangers thrown together. My GM's method of telling us to be an established adventuring party flat out didn't work. I think your GM's method of telling some stories to, well, establish the adventuring party, will work a whole lot better. I'm a little wary of more speeches, but I could see them working if done right.

[Deathkeeper]

At one point my party had to buy dress clothes since we were about to meet the leader of an important Republic. The royal tailor (who I swear was LeeRon from TTGL) took some measurements and kicked us out. Next session, we go pick up the suits. Unfortunately, the DM decided to make them all customized for the character. He must have been pretty bored, because every last one was very, very detailed, and in reading the description of the 6 of us he ended up using over 20 minutes. We laughed about it a lot afterwards.

Oddly enough, I can't even REMEMBER what the first session of that campaign entailed. I think it was just implied that we met up after all taking the same job to investigate a dungeon.

[SowZ]

See, I think the opening session is one of the most fun sessions out there, and often the most explosive. They are the hardest to GM, though, (and the hardest to play without metagaming,) but done right are really fun, memorable, tone setting, AND helpful fot players develop their relationships with one another.

[weenie]

Then it would seem that this sort of thing is more common that I would have thought. What ticked me of isn't that the DM took control of my character, but that sitting there and listening to him telling his story was way less interesting than playing it out would have been.

[scurv]

This is why I Love player generated back story!!! It makes the first session so much more realistic! Not to mention far less railroaded. We normally went by the rule of tell the DM who you were or the DM tells you who you are.

If you look at most adventurer groups, their roll-call sounds kinda like the beginning of a <insert three examples of a stereotype here> Joke. I mean seriously how do you get a half-Drow warlock, a Paligeek, two rogue/whatever's and a priest of who-ever to sit down together to accomplish a mission? So if the DM had to railroad the players with a hand wave....Meh I do not give it points for style But I will just have to chalk it up to that DMing is a learned art and perhaps it is the best he could do at the moment.

Personally I find (un)natural disasters work quite well for getting things started. But that is just me. Put some It to the fan and let the players sort it out

[BootStrapTommy]

I do this to my players on occasion. Usually when I'm being lazy, didn't prepare anything before hand, or they annoyed me by taking forever to build their characters.

We normally went by the rule of tell the DM who you were or the DM tells you who you are.

If you're character was anything other than what I just said it was, you should have told me.

[Jansviper]

I try to do this when I want my characters to be aware of setting or to establish a sense of camaraderie in a group. Give them a bit of shared togetherness before we jump into the game. Its happened to me before while playing too.

If he's giving you this much information on your McGuffin its probably because he doesn't want the game to be about the hunt or even the delivery of said item. You're probably looking at some kind of effort to keep hold of the damn thing. That and/or some measure of once you deliver it you're going to want/need it back. I'd invest in proactive measures asap.

Then it would seem that this sort of thing is more common that I would have thought. What ticked me of isn't that the DM took control of my character, but that sitting there and listening to him telling his story was way less interesting than playing it out would have been.

All I can really say here is that you try to make the backstory your own. Those bandits? One of them stole something from you and you want it back, or revenge! You were promised more gold, or want more gold than you were originally offered and are willing to hold the McGuffin hostage for it. Maybe the good organization has people in it that don't seem trustworthy, or just rub you the wrong way, etc. etc. etc.

Any time he talks about stuff you did, try to put how it happened into your mind and go from there.

[NichG]

Honestly, this is a pretty legit thing to do. The pacing is the real issue, since it obviously was slow enough that you got bored. The DM probably didn't run it as interactive because it was part of the necessary surrounding context of the campaign.

I don't really consider it railroading for the DM to establish constraints on the start of the campaign. After all, if the game is supposed to be about pirates who roam the seas and steal stuff, its pretty disruptive for someone to bring in a cavalier who depends on riding his horse into battle. Similarly, the DM probably didn't want to take the chance that you guys might say 'we ignore the MacGuffin/we sell it to Bob/we destroy it!' since it'd disrupt the game right off the bat, so instead of running it as a railroaded RP scene where he'd say 'no, you don't do that' if you proposed something disruptive he just said 'okay, this is what happened up till now' (implied: and if your character is somehow deeply inconsistent with this we're going to have a problem).

Its a different technique than the usual blurb of 'make a character who is good, can exist in a team, and wants to be part of the military etc etc' stuff, but I don't think its necessarily a worse one. A DM can never be sure that players ever read or bother with those blurbs, but by making it an at-table thing they can guarantee that at least everyone is on the same page.

[Jack of Spades]

So, I appear to be the only one who's got this feeling. Cool.

It really strikes me as though your DM is trying to run a sequel.

Now, I don't begrudge him that. The DM in our group tends to get attached to his cool ideas in much the same. It just seems like that's a lot of weirdly specific and adventure-y backstory, and that he probably got it from the group that started this storyline and photoshopped your party in because he wants to get to the end of the damn storyline and the other group disbanded too soon (once again, a thing my group's main DM does).

Either way though, it doesn't seem too bad. In Medias Res is a valid way to start a game. At least you know the DM is invested.

[ReaderAt2046]

I don't too much mind long expository walls of text, but I would be deeply offended if the DM tried to tell me anything about my character, including why he's part of the party. Each character I create is a fragment of my soul, and I guard my freedom vigilantly. I'm willing to accept basic restrictions on species, class, magic, etc, since those are part of the setting, but the character's soul is mine to write.

Also, I think the best thing to do about forming the party is simply to RP the party grouping together. If a group of players agree on a specific backstory, great.

[navar100]

It's possible the DM was just trying to reinforce with a sledgehammer that everyone in the party knows each other, trusts each other, and likes each other to avoid intra-party bickering, mistrust, and subterfuge.

Give it a pass. The next session and two should make it clear whether you're on a DM writing a novel choo-choo or not.

[NichG]

I don't too much mind long expository walls of text, but I would be deeply offended if the DM tried to tell me anything about my character, including why he's part of the party. Each character I create is a fragment of my soul, and I guard my freedom vigilantly. I'm willing to accept basic restrictions on species, class, magic, etc, since those are part of the setting, but the character's soul is mine to write.

Also, I think the best thing to do about forming the party is simply to RP the party grouping together. If a group of players agree on a specific backstory, great.

The danger is that you can make a character totally incompatible with the game this way if you're not careful.

For instance, I once ran a game where I specified 'the only requirement on your characters is that they must have some reason to accept this invitation into a secret spy service for this government - you can come up with the reason, it can be positive or negative, but you have to have a character who has accepted this invitation'. One person made a character who tried to set really stringent terms on joining the service, and the service elected not to hire her. Queue 'congratulations, your character has left the campaign, make a new one' (or in this case, the player accepted that being part of the campaign would require a little compromise on the character concept, and rejoined the service after a renegotiation).

There is an out-of-character consideration that requires some compromise amongst the players of their ideal characters. Specifically, all the players have come together to play a game together. That means that they are going to compromise their characters' integrity if necessary so that everyone will be in the same party. Its good manners to not try to strain this too much. The same can be true of the DM: they've prepared some sort of adventure not knowing what people are going to play yet, so its only courteous to make characters who would actually pursue what the DM has planned, especially right at the beginning.

[sdream]

A first time DM did that to me just recently.

He gave us the layout of the plot online as an evil religious group stages a coup in the town square and executes our baron, and we arrange in the forums to create a group of local partisans to fight back.

Then when we start, he goes:

"Ok so you are all meeting up in the tavern to discuss what to do.."

..and I think alraight, game on with a little cliche... but he continues:

"And the bad man from the square shows up with some thugs sends them at you!"

... and I think alright, game on with a fight!... but he continnues:

"And a stranger says, come with me out the backdoor if you want to live!"

... and I think alright, game on with a decision to fight or flee!... but he continues:

"And you all run out the back door following the stranger"

... and I think bwha, I wanna fight! ... but he continues...

"And the stranger brings you to his house and explains that a prophecy has told him the only way for you to save your town is to retrieve a magical book from the city of X"

... and I think OK, road trip to get mguffin... but he continues...

"And then the stranger opens a portal and tells you that town is on another plane, and you all leap through the portal."

... and I think, but my points in Knowledge (local) ... but he continues...

"And you arrive in the middle of a small group of kobolds who shout "get them!" and you roll initiative."

Turned out the kobolds were just walking along and strangers dropped out of the sky on them. Furthermore, no plans were made for how to get home once we found the magic book, but none of that mattered because the DM quit next week.

A good intro is apparently a learned skill. It's very helpful to hook the players into interest, but if you leave too much up to the players they can get confused and be paralyzed by choice also.

[Dsurion]

From Rich's Making the Tough Decisions article:

Another useful application of this concept involves accepting story hooks your DM gives to you. Try to never just say, "My character isn't interested in that adventure." A lot of people mistake this for good roleplaying, because you are asserting your character's personality. Wrong. Good roleplaying should never bring the game to a screeching halt. One of your jobs as a player is to come up with a reason why your character would be interested in a plot. After all, your personality is entirely in your hands, not the DM's. Come up with a reason why the adventure (or the reward) might appeal to you, no matter how esoteric or roundabout the reasoning.

See, here's the thing with me, personally - I don't get to game that often, and tend to get to play even less (I tend to get thrown into running a game about half of the time) so I don't have time for "My character wouldn't do that," or people complaining about an intro (Granted, I tend to explain all that beforehand to make sure everyone is on board).

If anyone has a problem with that, they are free to leave and stop wasting everyone else's time.

[Raimun]

I don't suppose you're playing Metal Gear Solid: The RPG, are you?

I could bear exposition that heavy if it meant a story of that quality. And action and fights above the par.

[ReaderAt2046]

The danger is that you can make a character totally incompatible with the game this way if you're not careful.

For instance, I once ran a game where I specified 'the only requirement on your characters is that they must have some reason to accept this invitation into a secret spy service for this government - you can come up with the reason, it can be positive or negative, but you have to have a character who has accepted this invitation'. One person made a character who tried to set really stringent terms on joining the service, and the service elected not to hire her.

I understand that problem and agree that there might be a reson why a certain character concept flat-out won't work in a story. But it does not follow that you need to change the nature of your creation. If your first character idea is impossible, make a different one. Or at least, that's how I would do it.

[NichG]

I understand that problem and agree that there might be a reson why a certain character concept flat-out won't work in a story. But it does not follow that you need to change the nature of your creation. If your first character idea is impossible, make a different one. Or at least, that's how I would do it.

As long as you're willing to deal with that, its fine, if somewhat more work. Whether or not a character idea is 'impossible' should be determined before play actually begins though.

[ReaderAt2046]

Of course!

[Raum]

He warned us before we started playing that there would be long speeches from time to time, but I always assumed it would be some NPC stuff that we read about or something, not him basically telling us a short story about what our characters.

The initial set up wouldn't bother me much, though it sounds like the DM could have done a better job of setting expectations.

That said, if you start running into powerful NPCs which give the DM a chance to insert new stories, speeches, and actions you have no choice in...walk away.

So, has this ever happened to you?

Yes, sadly I speak from experience. Luckily, DMs like that have been the exception rather than the norm. Most of the people I've gamed with have played as well as GMed / DMed. Gain both perspectives that way.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Because it's always good to look at a problem from all sides, I'm going to take a moment to play the Devil's Advocate here. This 30 minute speaking thing your DM pulled is a warning sign that you're not really here to play a game, but that you're instead here to act out his story. If future sessions involve a lot of your DM talking, strong railroading, and further establishing your character without your input then perhaps you'll need to talk to him, or just drop the game entirely, unless you'd rather sit there as he tells your story without you.

[weenie]

Because it's always good to look at a problem from all sides, I'm going to take a moment to play the Devil's Advocate here. This 30 minute speaking thing your DM pulled is a warning sign that you're not really here to play a game, but that you're instead here to act out his story. If future sessions involve a lot of your DM talking, strong railroading, and further establishing your character without your input then perhaps you'll need to talk to him, or just drop the game entirely, unless you'd rather sit there as he tells your story without you.

Yeah, that's the same conclusion I reached.

There actually was a second session this week. Our team got to a new town and was trying to put together the pieces of an ancient prophecy, but we had trouble getting any useful info. At the end of the session a few people came to the inn we were staying at and after a few gather information checks we were given a list of potential plot hooks. But the whole session that led to that was pretty uneventful and well, boring. I must say it all felt kind of scripted. I mean, we spoke with a LOT of people during the day, I don't know why the DM didn't feel like giving us some information a bit sooner.