Would you want to play this adventure?

[Saph]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Saph]

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]

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]

Who is playing the human ranger?

[Saph]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What's at stake in this scenario?

[Saph]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.