And with a sense of Dread….

[Earthwalker]

Taking Tekkin’s post as an example I thought I would share the start of my latest game. Now I am going into this with a sense of dread but I am willing to give it a try, I am playing with friends and people I have known for a while. I am not asking advice here just sharing with you all. I am sure if I did ask for advice it would be “Leave the Game”

Let start with some background. We have four people involved in the game. Myself, Albert,Bob and Carl. I am currently playing in a game where Bob is GM in a Pathfinder game. Albert, Carl and myself are players. It has got to a natural break point and Bob would like a break from running things so Albert is going to run an idea he has.

Now Albert plays with us but does not have a good grasp on the rules and generally takes about 4 times longer to have his turn than the rest of us in the group. Albert has played DnD way back and comes from an AD&D background, where he used to GM, so far he has not really bothered learning the Pathfinder rules.

He wants to run a game so Albert and Bob have come up with a plan. They will co-GM. Albert will work with plot and deal with the Story. Bob would handle any Rules issues. So that they can enjoy the game both are creating PCs to play along when the other is GM.

So once this plan was sorted we got to character creation. We had a few limits from the game world.

Alignment : Lawful Evil only, if given a choice I would never play Evil, I have played evil in the past and just not liked it. I don’t really enjoy playing the bad guys, but for the game to work we need to be this alignment so I say I will give it a try.

Race: Human only, you are all playing siblings, as such you are all human.

Age: You are Quintuplets so you all have to be 19 years old.

Class: Any. YAY at last I get a choice to make, I can decide what class I want to be. After some time looking over my books and the SRD I decide on playing a necro cleric. At last a chance to play a role I would never normally would. I can get the feats to allow me more Hit Dice of undead. Use my negative channel to heal up my undead. All seems shiny

Stats: No rolling stats, Albert and Bob rolled stats but when it came to me and Carl we were given a good array of stats and told to place them where we like (17,16,14,14,13,10)

Name: Being a family we didn’t get to choose our surname only our first name.

Before the first meeting we get together for Bob’s current game and go over what ideas we have for characters. I explain my plans (I generally like to let a GM know what character I am playing and what my plans are) After explain as a cleric at lvl 5 I can get (I think) 7, 5Hd undead under my control both the GMs seem to think this might be a bit over the top. If I was going to play a necro cleric they would have to nerf it a bit, so I would get one undead like a familiar or animal companion (At lvl 5). With HD equal to my own. I scrap the idea of necro cleric as it hardly seems like the undead controller

So I ask what the others are playing and try to fit into that.

Carl is planning on playing a Witch as he is a monk in the other game.
Bob is going to play a Melee character with some magic. (At the time he didn’t say what kind of melee)
Albert is going to play a Magus. (In the other game he is playing a Barbarian)

We are ok for melee and magic. I am not going down the healer route (for one thing there are limited healing options left when Druid (alignment) and Cleric aren’t there) so I decide just to putz along as a Rogue.

After working on my rogue I send it out to the GMs and ask if it’s all ok. The only comment back is that the name I choose reminds one of the GMs of a nephew of his and asks me to change it. So I do. At the same time I find out that Carl has been asked to change the Gender of his Witch. Carl is Male but wanted to play a female Witch, the GM explains it would be better if the Witch was Male, no other explanation is given.

To sum up so far.

Not one but 2 DMPCs in a group of 4 characters.

For the players

No choice of alignment
No Choice of Race
No Choice of Age
No Choice of Gender
No Choice of Name

Limited Choice of Stats
Limited Choice of Class (Anything seen as too powerful is nerfed)

Now I have played games with Pre-Made characters and I am happy with that, but this seemed to get introduced as we went along that more and more limits came from character creation, limiting what we could make, so far it does not bode well.
I am going to post more as we have had a world background conversation now, which again I found…. Interesting.

[LokiRagnarok]

I don't really know much about the mechanics of Pathfinder, so the part with the cleric might be sensible. Have you asked for reasons for the other restrictions? He might think they are self-evident(tm).

[Totally Guy]

What is the game going to be about?

[aberratio ictus]

Hm. Honestly, you haven't even played a session yet, so I'm not sure if everybody would actually tell you to leave the group if you asked for advice.
True, the restrictions and two DMPCs are a bit worrying, but I'd say just give it a try. Maybe those guys know what they're doing.
I've had the "rules guy" play a character before when the story-GM (who didn't have his own character, granted) didn't know the rules very well, and it did work quite well, since the rules guy didn't have any idea about the story and only offered his advice if the GM didn't know how to handle something.

[Angel Bob]

Sounds terrible to me, at least according to your explanation. I would suggest calmly and politely asking the DMs why they've placed such heavy limitations on your character choices, explaining that you are not having fun with this situation. Ask the other players if they are also feeling confined. Hopefully, you can negotiate some wiggle room into the equation. If not, then at least give it a chance for a few sessions, and if you still find it not to your liking, then politely leave the game. Keeping a cool head is integral.

[Earthwalker]

What is the game going to be about?

I am going to add in more detail. We are part of an evil family that wants power within the empire. The PCs will be a strike force used for secret missions for our family.

Hm. Honestly, you haven't even played a session yet, so I'm not sure if everybody would actually tell you to leave the group if you asked for advice.
True, the restrictions and two DMPCs are a bit worrying, but I'd say just give it a try. Maybe those guys know what they're doing.
[snip]

I have been reading Tekkin's thread about his car crash campaign and so was wanting to post something similar. Partly to give the forum another nice read and partly to show how much I sympathize with Tekkin.

This campaign could turn out to be fantastic, in which case we have something good to read. Or it could dive, again it gives us all something to enjoy.

[aberratio ictus]

Very well. Go on then, I'll be sticking around for the first session, at least.

[illyrus]

Limitations pre-game seem fine to me as they're spelled out before hand. Especially when a newbie GM is involved I have no issue cutting them some slack on what I bring to the table.

I've never had a game involving co-GMs go well, especially one with GMs alternating as PCs but I've known other groups where this worked.

Do you know if this is going to be a railroad game, sandbox, or what? I'm assuming from what is said before that you can expect the former.

Personally I'd want to find out how theft relates to your lawful code. I'd think being able to plan and execute heists would be a large part of having fun as an evil rogue but that whole lawful thing could easily get in the way.

[Tsriel]

Basically echoing what's already been said, he's new at DMing. Be patient with it. You should voice your opinions on what you'd like/expect from the game, as it's part of his role in the game to make it fun and enjoyable. Just be prepared for some rough spots as he discovers where his niche is.

[NikitaDarkstar]

Personally I'd want to find out how theft relates to your lawful code. I'd think being able to plan and execute heists would be a large part of having fun as an evil rogue but that whole lawful thing could easily get in the way.

There's more ways to play a rogue you know. The social rogue. The assassin (completely possible to play as lawful). The spy. The dirty-tactics fighter. Etc. They may be called rogues, but far from all of them are thieves.


That said I would be wary of these limitations and question some of them. For example, same family and all siblings? Sure I could buy that. But quadruplets (of the same gender) that seems contrived. Same with Evil. All Evil I could accept without an issue, but all Lawful Evil? That seems very strict.

Of course there might be reasons for it, but if it's background reasons you should have been given those reasons up-front since it's fairly obvious they already got a detailed background in mind.

Anyway, good luck with this and I hope you enjoy the game, please keep us updated. :)

[illyrus]

There's more ways to play a rogue you know. The social rogue. The assassin (completely possible to play as lawful). The spy. The dirty-tactics fighter. Etc. They may be called rogues, but far from all of them are thieves.

Edit - Actually I'm just going to reword my reply. Yes I know all of those are valid types of rogues. Really anything is because it just a bunch of tools and not how you play. A rogue with the right magic items could make a good healer etc too.

I would be curious about which of my tools can be used within my alignment constraints though. If the GM is going to say "no you can't use pickpocket to plant evidence because that is against the law" then it could limit my options whether I'm playing a burglar, assassin, crooked cop, etc.

[Scow2]

If you're lawful evil, don't worry about not breaking the law too much. The only reason Lawful people care about 'laws' is because most laws are created to make the world more orderly and defined against chaos and anarchy. Mafia/Al Capone-style Organized Crime breaks laws (Otherwise it would just be Organized Law-abiding, not Organized Crime), while still being a strongly Lawful social construct.

[illyrus]

If you're lawful evil, don't worry about not breaking the law too much. The only reason Lawful people care about 'laws' is because most laws are created to make the world more orderly and defined against chaos and anarchy. Mafia/Al Capone-style Organized Crime breaks laws (Otherwise it would just be Organized Law-abiding, not Organized Crime), while still being a strongly Lawful social construct.

Which for a normal game makes sense. With this being a fairly restricted game right off the bat I'd want to talk with the GMs pretty extensively on what THEY think LE means and what they plan to allow or not.

Getting into an argument 3 sessions in when you find out your GMs don't support your character concept is no fun at all.

[Rhynn]

Limitations pre-game seem fine to me as they're spelled out before hand. Especially when a newbie GM is involved I have no issue cutting them some slack on what I bring to the table.

Setting limitations are fine, but telling the players who their characters will be in a campaign is bad. It can be great for a one-off, but this is an obvious railway station.

Choo choo! All aboard the train to Exactly Where the GM Wants It To Go!

[illyrus]

Setting limitations are fine, but telling the players who their characters will be in a campaign is bad. It can be great for a one-off, but this is an obvious railway station.

Choo choo! All aboard the train to Exactly Where the GM Wants It To Go!

To me there are two kinds of limitations. Those imposed before the game that everyone agrees to and those done after. Some GMs might limit "no evil alignment" or "no splat books" or no elves. It is not like the lack of elves or having a specific shared character history automatically means the game has to be a railroad.

Personally I'd rather discuss with the GMs their reasoning over actions and how they actually want the gameplay to flow (railroad, sandbox, etc) than draw a line in the sand and judge everything off which side of the line it is on. You can have a railroad game with every option available at chargen after all.

Now probably these is going to be a game of both types of limitations and will be a railroad game (as I said in my previous post).

[NikitaDarkstar]

If you're lawful evil, don't worry about not breaking the law too much. The only reason Lawful people care about 'laws' is because most laws are created to make the world more orderly and defined against chaos and anarchy. Mafia/Al Capone-style Organized Crime breaks laws (Otherwise it would just be Organized Law-abiding, not Organized Crime), while still being a strongly Lawful social construct.

This pretty much. Lawful isn't so much about following the laws, as it is about following a specific set of rules, or moral codes etc. (and often trying to advance a specific cause, but that's not really lawful exclusive). If those just happens to line up with that societies laws then that's great, if not? Well to bad.

Another take is that Lawful Evil follows the laws as written, not as intended. Pretty much a really good defense lawyer. :p

But yes, I'd make sure you're on the same page with the DM, just so everyone knows exactly what "Lawful Evil" means in this specific game.

[Earthwalker]

Setting limitations are fine, but telling the players who their characters will be in a campaign is bad. It can be great for a one-off, but this is an obvious railway station.

Choo choo! All aboard the train to Exactly Where the GM Wants It To Go!

I think this campaign is going to have a lot of railroading, I don't mind that too much but it would be nice to make some choices for my character.

This pretty much. Lawful isn't so much about following the laws, as it is about following a specific set of rules, or moral codes etc. (and often trying to advance a specific cause, but that's not really lawful exclusive). If those just happens to line up with that societies laws then that's great, if not? Well to bad.

Another take is that Lawful Evil follows the laws as written, not as intended. Pretty much a really good defense lawyer. :p

But yes, I'd make sure you're on the same page with the DM, just so everyone knows exactly what "Lawful Evil" means in this specific game.

I am planning on playing it LE as being loyal to the family and following their rules but not caring about the laws of the land.

Good plan to confirm with the GM I am playing what he expects of LE.

I am going to post more details on the campaign world as I have had another conversation with the GM, I will also post more concerns with the game.

[Scow2]

I think this campaign is going to have a lot of railroading, I don't mind that too much but it would be nice to make some choices for my character.

Meh... I sort of see it as a campaign with similar design ethos as a Bioware or old-school Eastern role-playing game(Final Fantasy/Breath of Fire, etc), where you have a predetermined character/party, but you get to choose how they progress and interact with the world.

[Rhynn]

Meh... I sort of see it as a campaign with similar design ethos as a Bioware or old-school Eastern role-playing game(Final Fantasy/Breath of Fire, etc), where you have a predetermined character/party, but you get to choose how they progress and interact with the world.

That's fine for a video game with a strong story, but TTRPGs are not video games. (Indeed, one reason some GMs flail horribly is that they do not understand the distinction.)

To me there are two kinds of limitations. Those imposed before the game that everyone agrees to and those done after. Some GMs might limit "no evil alignment" or "no splat books" or no elves. It is not like the lack of elves or having a specific shared character history automatically means the game has to be a railroad.

Those are setting (and game system) limitations, and completely fine. "Here's your character, now play a long campaign with it" is a character limitation and asking for trouble.

[Scow2]

That's fine for a video game with a strong story, but TTRPGs are not video games. (Indeed, one reason some GMs flail horribly is that they do not understand the distinction.)

Actually, even in the first editions of D&D, character creation was on the DM, not the players.

[TuggyNE]

Actually, even in the first editions of D&D, character creation was on the DM, not the players.

Wait, what?

[Rhynn]

Actually, even in the first editions of D&D, character creation was on the DM, not the players.

Er, care to back this up and/or clarify what you mean?

Because I've got the rulebooks for the "first editions" (whatever you define that as; OD&D, BD&D, BECMI, AD&D 1E, AD&D 2E), and I don't see anything to support that.

OD&D:
"Before they begin, players must decide what role they will play in the campaign, human or otherwise, fighter, cleric, or magic-user." (Men & Magic, page 6)
"Each player notes his appropriate [ability] scores" (Men & Magic, page 10)

Moldvay Basic D&D:
"The players will create characters by following the instruction given in Part 2" (Basic rulebook, page B3)

[Trekkin]

It's Trekkin, if anyone was confused.

I'm actually optimistic, reading your description of the campaign premise. It sounds like he's limiting you two ways. The family thing is probably his way of starting the campaign outside a tavern, if you will, and giving the party a reason to stick together.

It also sounds like he's trying to keep the party to the PF equivalent of tier 3, which might be easier for him to DM.

The DMPCs...depends on their lifespan. In general, the longer it takes them to drop to push the plot along, the more worried I get--unless they're there to fill out roles no one else wants to play. I've run clerics in the past on that template, because no one wanted to be a healer. Now, I ran them by handing the party a literal menu of healing spells, but still.

[Earthwalker]

It's Trekkin, if anyone was confused.

Apologies my haabbit of reading words that aren't there.


The Game World

We had a session to discuss the world. Before I start with that some background on other games.

Bob likes the idea of mentors for the players, he always has. We always get an NPC that is usually the same class as the PC that “guides” them. In the game that is just finishing Bob had NPC Mentors for us all, basically high level NPCs (I am talking about lvl 15 NPCs for lvl 5 players) that were there to train us, it did always come across as them being there just to point out how much more uber they were than the PCs. I also always had the question “Why isn’t Uber NPC dealing with this missions I am on, he could do it with zero effort”

This always having higher level NPCs around has in the past lead to fights where myself and the other PCs have basically watched as combat happened, one high level NPC fighting the bad guy as we ineffcectually try to fight.


Back to the discussing the world.

So with Albert taking over I had hopes of having a world where we might see someone with NPC class levels. A world where even a level one PC was considered dangerous. My hopes were soon dashed.

We are part of an evil empire, the empire is split into 30 separate states, our mother (A high level wizard) is the ruler of one of these states. Our father is dead and our mother paid very little attention as we were growing up. Our care was left to one of the servants, a seemingly kindly butler. Our mother’s household had several important members of staff, a spy master, a general in charge of armies, a trained magic user. All these NPCs are high level and can help us train. (Oddly Carl gets off sort of ok, as witchs come with their own mentor / patron)

After telling us of all the NPCs we know from our mothers household we then get into more detail of the world, I will carry on with this later.

[Earthwalker]

After the list of NPCs we then started talking and asking questions. I ask if our mothers position is a hereditary post. It is, it passes to the eldest child. I jokingly point out that although we are quads (The GM corrects me, we have a younger sister I get told about) DMPC 2 (Bobs PC) is the eldest. Albert’s DMPC is the second eldest, the two GMs worked this out before me and Carl arrived.

Our sister, is a cleric of darkness. She will also be joining the group. She is the youngest child. Me and Carl can decide between ourselves who is 3rd and 4th.

I am not sure how the DMPC to PC ratio stands after this information, is the Cleric another DMPC ? Are we at 3 DMPCs to 2 PCs ? Time will tell.

The next bit of information is that we all wear a ring with our family crest upon it, it is clearly magical, if we try to remove it, it grips tighter causing pain. The first chance Carl got, he declared he was going to cast identify on the ring.

Ahhh that key moment when you roll your first die of a new game. A spell craft check, this was it. After this roll the game had really started. No roll was made, Albert informed Carl that it was impossible to tell what the ring did.

[illyrus]

That mentor thing seems very lame in prior execution. Before this new campaign gets under way would be a good time to bring that up.

A GM tried a similar ring thing on our group one time, conversation went like this:
GM: You can't remove the ring.
Player: I cast remove curse.
GM: It doesn't work.
Player: I chop off my finger.
GM: .... wait what?

[Earthwalker]

Oddly I had a very similar thought. How many HPs are in a finger, I am sure I can lose one and magically heal it back.

I am not acting on this as I am going into this trying to be a constructive player and will just hope things turn out right.

My problem is everytime I hear a little more about the game the more worried I become over what is going to happen.

[Krazzman]

Oddly I had a very similar thought. How many HPs are in a finger, I am sure I can lose one and magically heal it back.

I am not acting on this as I am going into this trying to be a constructive player and will just hope things turn out right.

My problem is everytime I hear a little more about the game the more worried I become over what is going to happen.

I know that feeling. I would advice you to sit it out and if it really turns out bad... say something. You are supposed to be friends, right? Take a few notes and tell them what you didn't like and why but don't try to accuse or insult them. Such things are genereally "volatile" since they put effort into it and you not liking it makes it harder for them or they think you don't value it enough or yadda yadda. Don't know your situation as there is a great possible interpretation spectrum of the word friend...

[NikitaDarkstar]

So you got a ring that clearly identifies you as a member of a ruling house, that can't be removed, and actually causes pain when you try, despite the fact that such an item can seriously trip you up in some situations?
Who gave you this item? Your mother? Someone else?
From where I'm sitting the only reason that's the least nefarious for such an item is for someone to be able to keep track of your characters.

Also, if the position is hereditary and you're evil... Well there is a time-honored tradition about that. It's called killing your older siblings until you're the oldest. And possibly in this case remove the youngest sister, just in case it's some weird hereditary system (oldest female child inherits the power because the current ruler is female.), and in case she sympathizes with the two "oldest" quads.They have some terrible accidents, mother falls mysteriously ill and the 3rd and 4th in line shares the power and rule...

And I agree the "mentor" thing sounds stupid. It's acceptable within reason at lower levels (fighter training under a more skilled arms master, wizard studying under an arch mage), but after the first couple of levels they need to be out of the picture in one way or another.

[Earthwalker]

So you got a ring that clearly identifies you as a member of a ruling house, that can't be removed, and actually causes pain when you try, despite the fact that such an item can seriously trip you up in some situations?
Who gave you this item? Your mother? Someone else?
From where I'm sitting the only reason that's the least nefarious for such an item is for someone to be able to keep track of your characters.

The ring appeared on my finger one night when I was very young and has grown with me. None of the staff really talk about it when we have asked, tho some believe it originally belong to our father.
At the moment none of the players are really concerned about this.

Also, if the position is hereditary and you're evil... Well there is a time-honored tradition about that. It's called killing your older siblings until you're the oldest. And possibly in this case remove the youngest sister, just in case it's some weird hereditary system (oldest female child inherits the power because the current ruler is female.), and in case she sympathizes with the two "oldest" quads.They have some terrible accidents, mother falls mysteriously ill and the 3rd and 4th in line shares the power and rule...

We generally operate as non PvP for the group. Of course we generally aren't evil. I am going to check but I think its fair to say that working together is expected. I think that was the point of the Lawful alignment assignment to make sure we played nice together. For me the GM could have just said play any non good alignment and play nice together.

And I agree the "mentor" thing sounds stupid. It's acceptable within reason at lower levels (fighter training under a more skilled arms master, wizard studying under an arch mage), but after the first couple of levels they need to be out of the picture in one way or another.

Yeah it fires off "a bad feeling about this" when I have sat in a session with the GM rolling dice against himself as the PCs stand there out matched.