What level should characters begin a campaign at?
Andy
Here's a question that I'd like to hear some thoughts on.
When starting up a campaign, (ie not just a short series of adventures, but
something open-ended), what level do you think the DM should start the PCs at?
I've had this debated by many different groups I've been a member of in the
past. Most people couldn't decide what level was really appropriate. Level 1
characters tended to die far too easily for the amount of development and character
history I like to see put into PCs in my game, yet I would prefer not to start
characters at a rank which makes them _too_ powerful.
Any suggestions?
Please email me replies as well, so I don't miss any:
jab...@mail.wm.edu
(Forgive me if this thread has been done before)
--
Andy Baird aka Tenchi Masaki
aka Talan Sith, (former) Lord of Magnesia and One time wielder
of the Rod of Darsylon
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ +
+ "Oh. It's just a strange glowing light. No problem." +
+ -Tenchimuyo OAV 1 +
+ +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Amorphous Mass
On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Andy wrote:
> Here's a question that I'd like to hear some thoughts on.
> When starting up a campaign, (ie not just a short series of adventures, but
> something open-ended), what level do you think the DM should start the PCs at?
1st. If you'd really rather not you can start them at 2nd or 3rd, but
IMO you'll be denying them some of the more memorable parts of the
campaign if you just scoot them past the lowest levels.
> I've had this debated by many different groups I've been a member of in the
> past. Most people couldn't decide what level was really appropriate. Level 1
> characters tended to die far too easily for the amount of development and character
> history I like to see put into PCs in my game, yet I would prefer not to start
> characters at a rank which makes them _too_ powerful.
>
> Any suggestions?
Don't have the players write 20-volume encyclopedias on their 1st
level characters. :-) Have them work up a rough sketch, maybe a page long
and then flesh out the character in-game. I can't guarantee that this
will work for everyone, but it works for a fair number of gamers, so it's
worth trying. If you still want a low mortality rate, consider saving the
dungeon crawls until they're at least 2nd level. Something like a
mystery or a whodunit or a recovery mission might be more appropriate,
especially in a city setting where the PCs can easily call for help (or
just get help) in the form of wandering NPCs or the city watch if they
find themselves in a serious bind.
> Please email me replies as well, so I don't miss any:
[posted and emailed]
----------------
The Amorphous Mass There are certain abilities, such as "getting into
james-r...@uiowa.edu character", that are considered "good." This
equates rather well with "light and flaky."
-- Cisco Lopez-Fresquet, on roleplaying.
verkuilen john v
Andy <jab...@mail.wm.edu> writes:
>Here's a question that I'd like to hear some thoughts on.
>When starting up a campaign, (ie not just a short series of adventures, but
>something open-ended), what level do you think the DM should start the PCs at?
> I've had this debated by many different groups I've been a member of in the
>past. Most people couldn't decide what level was really appropriate. Level 1
>characters tended to die far too easily for the amount of development and character
>history I like to see put into PCs in my game, yet I would prefer not to start
>characters at a rank which makes them _too_ powerful.
Well, it depends. Another big consideration is what you as GM want to do.
If you want to run an open-ended game but you definitely want to get to
adventures of a certain level, it's a good idea to artificially age the
characters somewhat. Personally, I often start things about 3rd level,
but my current campaign started at 1st. We've been focusing on problem-solving
and mysteries. I disagree with many people who say 1st level is essential, but
I do agree that characters made up higher than about 4th level tend to lack
depth, although they are often fine for a miniseries or for a character that
is being brought into an ongoing campaign.
By the way, if you artificially age characters, start them at a certain
XP value, not at a certain level. This maintains the parities of the
XP charts. It also solves the problem of what to do with multiclass
characters. I've found 5000 XP is usually a good starting place for somewhat
aged characters.
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"No general method will fail to give bad results if conjoined with universal
idiocy." --John Stuart Mill
Barbara Haddad
Andy <jab...@mail.wm.edu> writes:
> Here's a question that I'd like to hear some thoughts on.
> When starting up a campaign, (ie not just a short series of adventures, but
> something open-ended), what level do you think the DM should start the PCs at
>
> I've had this debated by many different groups I've been a member of in the
> past. Most people couldn't decide what level was really appropriate. Level
> characters tended to die far too easily for the amount of development and cha
> history I like to see put into PCs in my game, yet I would prefer not to star
> characters at a rank which makes them _too_ powerful.
Start 'em at 1st. I do. Give them max hit points for their first
level (& roll the dice for other levels) and don't force them into
situations. i.e. let them run away from an encounter. Let 'em run
around in town for a while, or act as caravan guards to 'season' them.
(Or have them hired to clean out the sewers; 'ghostbust' a haunted house
- or any one of half a hundred small scale adventures upon which the fate
of the world does not rest & in which they can get a few XP, maybe a
level or two and really get the feel of their new PCs.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Haddad - mel...@shakala.com
Shakala Communications, Inc. CA +1-408-734-2289
Jamie Nossal
Andy wrote:
>
> Here's a question that I'd like to hear some thoughts on.
> When starting up a campaign, (ie not just a short series of adventures, but
>
> I've had this debated by many different groups I've been a member of in the
> past. Most people couldn't decide what level was really appropriate.
It depends at least in part on the DM and the players. Inexperienced
players should be started 1st level. If you are starting a campaign with
players that you have not gamed with before, that too argues for a
low-level start, 1st level characters preferbably. If the DM is
inexperienced, low level characters are again much easier to handle.
The potentially high mortality rate of a party composed entirely of 1st
level PCs can be a problem. You can opt to start one or two at 2nd level,
especially if those players are known to you or are experienced. A
2nd-level priest in the party has obvious benefits and might make this
choice of class more agreeable since many players seem to dislike it.
If you all know each other, it depends on how long you intend to run the
campaign and what sort of adventure ideas you have in mind. If you are
looking at a 1-yr timeframe with the latter stages of the campaign
requiring 10-12th level PCs, start out at 6th or 7th level. A solid mid
level campaign can be run by beginning the PCs at 3rd or 4th level. A
1-yr run should finish with the PCs in the 7-9th range.
If you do start with fairly high-level PCs (>6th level), remember it
takes most players a few sessions to gain familiarity with the PC, his
new spells and abilities and the other PCs. Therefore, the party may need
a little practice before they begin to "operate" like a party of 9th
level characters (or whatever).
Alan Kaiser
In article <aHZoRD...@shakala.com>, mel...@shakala.com (Barbara
Haddad) wrote:
>Andy <jab...@mail.wm.edu> writes:
>
>> Here's a question that I'd like to hear some thoughts on.
>> When starting up a campaign, (ie not just a short series of adventures, but
>> something open-ended), what level do you think the DM should start the PCs at
>>
>> I've had this debated by many different groups I've been a member
of in the
>> past. Most people couldn't decide what level was really appropriate. Level
>> characters tended to die far too easily for the amount of development and cha
>> history I like to see put into PCs in my game, yet I would prefer not to star
>> characters at a rank which makes them _too_ powerful.
>
> Start 'em at 1st. I do. Give them max hit points for their first
>level (& roll the dice for other levels) ........
I have found that starting at 1st level with max hit points works well. I
have also tried starting at 2nd level with max hit points at 1st and roll
for 2nd level hit points (this was for a campaign that started out pretty
tough). Anyway, both work well and the characters are by no means powerful
at these levels with the max hit points (at least in my world!). It really
depends on the DMs style and the motivations of the players. Often,
despite the actions of the DM, players find the most ingenious ways of
killing perfectly good characters :).
Alan Kaiser
alka...@ecentral.com
DuaneVP
From: Andy <jab...@mail.wm.edu>
>>
I've had this debated by many different groups I've been a member of in
the
past. Most people couldn't decide what level was really appropriate.
characters tended to die far too easily for the amount of development and
prefer not to start characters at a rank which makes them _too_ powerful.
<<
Yes, first level characters tend to die quite easily, but this is
something easily dealt with by the DM. You simply have to be more
reserved in what you send them up against. One side effect of that,
however, tends to be that they earn less experience thus taking longer to
start moving up levels. This has always been an annoyance to my players
but they also agree with me that those initial low levels are important
for a characters development. Characters who start a game with levels
already under their belt have no "history" for how they got to where they
are.
Yes, players can make up a detailed history for their character that
would account for their levels, but it just isn't the same as having that
history played out. Besides which, it's been my experience that no matter
how creative you get with a characters "history" once that history meets
the actual game the character quickly changes. Often as not the "history"
then no longer fits the character as well as it did _before_ the character
began to accumulate "real" experiences aquired in actual play.
First level is always preferable to me. The only exception I might
make is if the campaign is meant to be started with more experienced
characters.
Downtime
aka Duane VanderPol
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" - Thomas
Watson, IBM Chairman, 1943
Blayney Fox Myers
>> Here's a question that I'd like to hear some thoughts on.
>> When starting up a campaign, (ie not just a short series of adventures,
but
>> something open-ended), what level do you think the DM should start the
PCs at
>>
in the
>> past. Most people couldn't decide what level was really appropriate.
Level
development and cha
not to star
HP's or you could make them 1st level and give them max HP's (I believe
this has already been said)
Or, if you weren't to much against munchkining, you could make them
roll for their char's HP on 1st level and give them some very small
magical item, VERY small, something that could help them get out of
trouble if the need arose...
Q
"Just because we're losing, doesn't mean we're losers!"
"Call me Nakor, I was once Nakor the Blue Rider, but my horse died..."
Alan Kaiser
In article <31F9A7...@ruf.rice.edu>, Jamie Nossal
<jno...@ruf.rice.edu> wrote:
>Andy wrote:
>>
>> Here's a question that I'd like to hear some thoughts on.
>> When starting up a campaign, (ie not just a short series of adventures, but
>> something open-ended), what level do you think the DM should start the
PCs at?
>>
>> I've had this debated by many different groups I've been a
member of in the
>> past. Most people couldn't decide what level was really appropriate.
>
>It depends at least in part on the DM and the players. Inexperienced
>players should be started 1st level. If you are starting a campaign with
>players that you have not gamed with before, that too argues for a
>low-level start, 1st level characters preferbably. If the DM is
>inexperienced, low level characters are again much easier to handle.
As stated in another post, I agree that it really depends on the DM and
players and the style of play that they have adpoted. However, I would
argue that it is best for inexperienced players start at 2nd level or at
least max hit points at 1st level. You want to make the experience for
these players a positive one so that they do not become frustrated. By
starting at 2nd level or with max hit points at 1st level, you give these
players a little room to be beginners. You can then allow them to make
some mistakes and to learn from them without having to say "Time to roll
up a new character." A higher level start or more hit points gives a new
player time to get used to the game without having to start over all the
time. This is especially true if you are starting with a group of
beginners. On the other hand, experienced players can handle 1st level
characters since they are used to the mechanics of D&D.
>The potentially high mortality rate of a party composed entirely of 1st
>level PCs can be a problem. You can opt to start one or two at 2nd level,
>especially if those players are known to you or are experienced. A
>2nd-level priest in the party has obvious benefits and might make this
>choice of class more agreeable since many players seem to dislike it.
Starting characters in the same party at different levels is inviting
disaster. New players soon learn that getting experience and gaining
levels is the way to improve a character. Therefore, starting an
experienced player with a character that is of higher level than that of
the unexperienced player doesn't make sense to a beginner. To a beginner
it should be the other way around since an experienced player can usually
accumulate more experience than a beginner (if you award experience for
inovative play, role-playing etc.).
Alan Kaiser
alka...@ecentral.com
Cyan Brisbane
On Fri, 26 Jul 1996 03:47:09 -0400, Andy <jab...@mail.wm.edu> happened
to mention:
>Here's a question that I'd like to hear some thoughts on.
>When starting up a campaign, (ie not just a short series of adventures, but
>something open-ended), what level do you think the DM should start the PCs at?
>
In one of the AD&D "Gold Box" games it had characters start with
3,000 experience points. I've been using it for some time now and it
works well for our group.
--
"Some friends need to be beaten until
they're not stupid anymore.
(Corpses have more intellect than some people.)"
*Overheard in rec.games.frp.dnd*
gt3...@prism.gatech.edu
Well, what I tend to end up with is a party that starts at 1st level, with
survival guaranteed by the DM up until 3rd level, to be reached after no
more than 4 sessions. Works out rather well, gives everyone a chance to
iron out any bugs with their character before they are really life or
death, bonds the party together, etc.
--
Richard Campbell "The ants will get him, sure. But not THIS one...
gt3...@prism.gatech.edu And not the one behind him either, goddammit! Don't
(John Steakley, ARMOR) you see?....The ants scare him. But he can fight
the individuals because...Because they piss him off!
Jamie Nossal
Alan Kaiser wrote:
>
> Starting characters in the same party at different levels is inviting
> disaster. New players soon learn that getting experience and gaining
> levels is the way to improve a character. Therefore, starting an
> experienced player with a character that is of higher level than that of
> the unexperienced player doesn't make sense to a beginner. To a beginner
> it should be the other way around since an experienced player can usually
> accumulate more experience than a beginner (if you award experience for
> inovative play, role-playing etc.).
I disagree. First off, a new player should not be given a 2nd level
character, he should be told right off that you have to earn that status.
Second, I believe the new guy should be given as simple a character to
play as possible, thereby making it that much easier for them to learn
the game. 2nd level is not too much different than 1st, true, but I would
never give a new guy a 3rd level character.
You have to hope that the DM has some experience (or even the
knowledgable players are in trouble) and that he will help out the
rookies. You don't have to cheat, but you can adopt more of a helpful
role rather than one of an impersonal moderator who dashes the hopes of
new players in their first 10 minutes of play. Carefuly explaining
various rules and options that come up during play and their possible
consequences to the PC is a better method than starting the new guy with
a 2nd level PC and hoping that the extra hps are enough to get him by.
I would also figure that the higher level PCs in the party would adopt
more of a leadership role and that might be hard to do if the experienced
player is playing the novice fighter and the rookie has a 2nd level
wizard. I know you don't have to do it that way, but I find it helpful if
the new guys have a role model to look up to. Not only is the player more
experienced than they are, but so is the PC. Now your new player is low
man on the totem pole both ways, this gives him something to work for and
can even allow you to setup a mentor-student type situation that makes
teaching the game and rules even easier.
Lastly, if you start the new guy with a 2nd level PC which he plays for
awhile, say to 4th level, and then he wants to play a different
character, what do you do? It seems a little unfair to me (and probably
to the player) that his new PC has to start at 1st level, less
experienced than even his first PC.
I think it is best to establish that new PCs are 1st level PCs and that
doing otherwise is an exception to the rules, it should'nt be the other
way around.
DawnMage
alka...@ecentral.com (Alan Kaiser) wrote:
>beginners. On the other hand, experienced players can handle 1st level
>characters since they are used to the mechanics of D&D.
Even with experienced players I would still like 3rd or 4th to be the
minimum. Even the greatest expert can fall to bad dice on 1st level,
and it's supposed to be ROLE playing, not ROLL playing. Death to bad
luck is OK at high levels where the characters have the funds to get
their buddy resurrected or can go on a reasonable-difficulty adventure
for this. But at low levels there is not enough money, no spells, and
the magic items for the job are too high-powered to be held by the
monsters 1st level characters encounter, although *maybe* kobolds or
orcs might have found a rod of resurrection (which they couldn't use)
and said, "oh it's just a stick" and thrown it into the garbage, but
grabage picking is not an adventure.
Besides, starting too low, especially with TSR's recommendation of not
letting characters advance except like I think it was every 10
adventures or so, makes it such that if you're an average DM playing a
3-hour session each week you'll probably never get to run those "6 to
8 characters of level 14-16" modules because by the time your die-hard
players reach this level (140-160 weeks or about 2.5-3 years), enough
of the original group has left that you have too few characters of the
level, and the newer characters are too low level for the adventure.
Being a DM who loves high-level adventures (Delayed Blast Fireball is
my favorite attack spell, takes a 14th level caster) I don't like
starting too low.
>>The potentially high mortality rate of a party composed entirely of 1st
>>level PCs can be a problem. You can opt to start one or two at 2nd level,
>>especially if those players are known to you or are experienced. A
>>2nd-level priest in the party has obvious benefits and might make this
>>choice of class more agreeable since many players seem to dislike it.
I have never cared much for priests of 1st or 2nd level. This may be
due to the fact that most of my AD&D experience is from the SSI
Goldbox games, where those levels were pretty much useless except for
healing wounds (which takes forever on this level) or detecting for
magic items. At 3rd level they gained Hold Person, though, and then I
LOVED those, because I was able to for example in Champions of Krynn
wipe patrols of 7th level fighters and priests for quick XPs and plate
armor relying on several multiclassed elven 3rd level priests modded
to Wis 18 - a huge supply of Hold Person, which was the only useful
2nd level priest spell in the game except for occasionally Resist Fire
against red dragons. All the characters I have played in AD&D with
other people (on IRC - I now DM a game each Saturday at 8:30 PM on
Dalnet #lynndi - find me on the IRCnets as "Sharonov" and DCC me a
character or mail me if you want to play - "Sharonov" and #lynndi are
officially registered to me on Dalnet by the way) I used a mage.
>Starting characters in the same party at different levels is inviting
>disaster. New players soon learn that getting experience and gaining
>levels is the way to improve a character. Therefore, starting an
>experienced player with a character that is of higher level than that of
>the unexperienced player doesn't make sense to a beginner. To a beginner
>it should be the other way around since an experienced player can usually
>accumulate more experience than a beginner (if you award experience for
>inovative play, role-playing etc.).
Actually, if you have mixed say 3rd and 5th level characters you may
want to give the EXPERIENCED player the 5th level mage. He's less
likely to turn the entire party into charcoal with a bad fireball.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aurorius Dawnwind, Archmage of Darlundin
Aurelian Dragon (UDIC) Mail: allu...@nai.net
Web: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6197
"Freedom, love, and magic above all."
-------------------------------------------------------------
s92...@iplabs.ins.gu.edu.au
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960726...@black.weeg.uiowa.edu> The Amorphous Mass <robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:
>From: The Amorphous Mass <robi...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
>Subject: Re: What level should characters begin a campaign at?
>Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 10:06:10 -0500
>On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Andy wrote:
>> Here's a question that I'd like to hear some thoughts on.
>> When starting up a campaign, (ie not just a short series of adventures, but
>> something open-ended), what level do you think the DM should start the PCs at?
> 1st. If you'd really rather not you can start them at 2nd or 3rd, but
>IMO you'll be denying them some of the more memorable parts of the
>campaign if you just scoot them past the lowest levels.
>> I've had this debated by many different groups I've been a member of in the
>> past. Most people couldn't decide what level was really appropriate. Level 1
>> characters tended to die far too easily for the amount of development and character
>> history I like to see put into PCs in my game, yet I would prefer not to start
>> characters at a rank which makes them _too_ powerful.
>>
s92...@iplabs.ins.gu.edu.au
> 1st. If you'd really rather not you can start them at 2nd or 3rd, but >IMO
you'll be denying them some of the more memorable parts of the >campaign if
you just scoot them past the lowest levels.
Ordinarily, I'd agree with you. However, when starting a game with players
who haven't played before, I recommend starting them at third level, but with
first level equipment. I makes them that little bit tougher, and can allow
the new players to be that little bit more heroic...
I just did this recently, and rather than the cautious approach that I've seen
most new players adopt, these guys are soemwhat braver and adventurous.
Pandy Bear
- who thinks he may have actually posted an unchanged message from the
Amorphous blob by accident. Appologies to all, I haven't had much sleep...
Thomas Forlenza
Andy wrote:
>
> Here's a question that I'd like to hear some thoughts on.
> When starting up a campaign, (ie not just a short series of adventures, but
> something open-ended), what level do you think the DM should start the PCs at?
>
> past. Most people couldn't decide what level was really appropriate. Level 1
> characters tended to die far too easily for the amount of development and character
> history I like to see put into PCs in my game, yet I would prefer not to start
> characters at a rank which makes them _too_ powerful.
>
> Any suggestions?
I usually start them at first level. Then I run them through and introductory
adventure. This adventure is designed not to kill character unless they do
incredibly stupind things and deserve to be killed. e.i. 1st level thief pick
pocketing a merchant while he is surrounded by guards that can squash him. Or a
character drinking the black vile looking potion.
After they finish the intro, I give them about 3000 xp with bonus points to those who
make good calls and minuses for the stupid ones. This prepares them enough for the
actual adventure.
I also start all characters at max hp at first level and they roll the others.
This goes for NPC's as well.
- Tpf
"Work ... is the vacation from your relaxation"
Wayne J. Rasmussen
gt3...@prism.gatech.edu wrote:
: Well, what I tend to end up with is a party that starts at 1st level, with
: survival guaranteed by the DM up until 3rd level, to be reached after no
: more than 4 sessions. Works out rather well, gives everyone a chance to
: iron out any bugs with their character before they are really life or
: death, bonds the party together, etc.
What kind of fun is gauranteed survival? :(
wayne
Teresa Bell
Level one. No ecceptions.
TB
Schaffer Bernhard
It all depends on the charcter types and what items they have.
I DM a party of two 6th level fighters, one 5th level cleric and one
5th level mage. (It took me 2 years to built them up from level 1)
They are still frightened by many monsters/adventures, but they are
also capable of solving any (well balanced) situation.
Last time I started a long-time-campaign with those characters.
In gereral a mage should have a higher level than a fighter (Mages
below the 4th level hardly survive alone IMHO) or they should at least
have MANY spells and/or items. (Also if allowing them to write as many
spells as they want violates the original rules.)
Fighters are fine at about level 5. (I don´t use weapon skills.) They
start to become really strong at level 7 (3 attacks in 2 rounds).
Thieves are fine at any level. It all depends on the campaign and how
hazzarderous (spelling?) they are.
Clerics are difficult. How many spells-classes are they allowed to
use? Do they have healing-powers ? I think a clerik with about 20
spells should be able to defend himself...
Your whole question depends on how your party look likes. Are there
enough fighters to survive any (manageable) combat? Are there enough
characters with healing-powers ? Are there enough spell casters ?
I think you should think of some special events in your campaign
(fights, traps, other problems...) and try them out with characters at
different levels.
Another way would be to start playing anyway. Let the party start
quite powerless and give them magical items to improve them if it is
necesarry.
Hope this will help,
bejoscha
gt3...@prism.gatech.edu
In article <063326Z...@anon.penet.fi>,
Time <an63...@anon.penet.fi> wrote:
>I must say, What's the point? gauntreed survival till 3rd? there's a point
>to playing seriously?
to add:
1. Stupidity nullified the guarantee.
2. Look at it as a trial period. Until 3rd you could change your character
if you didn't like it/the party didn't like it/the party didn't
work out for some reason.
Time
/Well, what I tend to end up with is a party that starts at 1st level,
/with
/survival guaranteed by the DM up until 3rd level, to be reached after
/no
/more than 4 sessions. Works out rather well, gives everyone a chance
/to
/iron out any bugs with their character before they are really life or
/death, bonds the party together, etc.
I must say, What's the point? gauntreed survival till 3rd? there's a point
to playing seriously?
--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to ab...@anon.penet.fi
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to he...@anon.penet.fi
If you have any problems, address them to ad...@anon.penet.fi
Lawrence R. Mead
Barbara Haddad (mel...@shakala.com) wrote:
: Andy <jab...@mail.wm.edu> writes:
:
: > Here's a question that I'd like to hear some thoughts on.
: > When starting up a campaign, (ie not just a short series of adventures, but
: > something open-ended), what level do you think the DM should start the PCs at
: > I've had this debated by many different groups I've been a member of in the
: > history I like to see put into PCs in my game, yet I would prefer not to star
: > characters at a rank which makes them _too_ powerful.
:
: Start 'em at 1st. I do. Give them max hit points for their first
: level (& roll the dice for other levels) and don't force them into
: around in town for a while, or act as caravan guards to 'season' them.
: (Or have them hired to clean out the sewers; 'ghostbust' a haunted house
: - or any one of half a hundred small scale adventures upon which the fate
: of the world does not rest & in which they can get a few XP, maybe a
: level or two and really get the feel of their new PCs.
:
: ------------------------------------------------------------------
: Barbara Haddad - mel...@shakala.com
: Shakala Communications, Inc. CA +1-408-734-2289
Great words of wisdom from an experienced DM. I especially like the bit
about letting the PC's run away from an encounter. I never push the PC's
into an encounter, nor do I through direct action, push them away either.
I represent the world - but the PC's must be allowed to interact with it
by *their* choices not the DMs. Thus, if there is a very dangerous place
(dragon, whatever) the PC's should need to role-play to gain enough info
to avoid that area. On the reverse side, some role-play will bring, at
any given time, a set of "weak" or appropriate set of adventures: the
DM must do his/her work and have these available (or be able to wing
them at a moments notice) at all times.
DMGorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead (lrm...@whale.st.usm.edu)
ESCHEW OBFUSCATION ! ESPOUSE ELUCIDATION !
http://www-dept.usm.edu/~scitech/phy/mead.html
Thomas Forlenza
Wayne J. Rasmussen wrote:
>
> What kind of fun is gauranteed survival? :(
>
> wayne
Gauranteed survival is OK just as long as the players don't know it.
Remember, players don't like having their characters killed off. It takes
their fun away. A good DM makes the game fun for everyone, not just for the
DM. In fact as a DM I get annoyed when characters die too easily. It's a lot
more work for me.
As a DM, I'll only kill characters who play too stupidly and out of character.
e.g. A thief trying to fight a huge sea creature in hopes to get the treasure
when the mere sight of the beast would make a Cavalier cringe in fear.
Someone always does something stupid and makes a good example for the rest of
the group. Occasional character 'deaths by example' usually keep my players on
their toes.
If a character falls in battle, I will usually let them find something to bring
them back. i.e. potion of reserection (sounds lame I know). I takes a point
of constitution away. I find it hard to kill off a player's charcater who was
having fun playing it and playing it well. Remember, the game is for fun.
Is this unrealistic. Sure it is, but if I wanted real I would not be a Role
Player.
--
Jim Sisolak
"TF" == Thomas Forlenza <tfor...@turbo.kean.edu> writes:
TF> Gauranteed survival is OK just as long as the players don't know it.
You are kidding yourself. It takes players about 2 sessions to figure out
whether the DM is fudging or not.
--
JS
Etrigan
s92...@iplabs.ins.gu.edu.au wrote:
>> 1st. If you'd really rather not you can start them at 2nd or 3rd, but IMO
>>you'll be denying them some of the more memorable parts of the campaign if
>>you just scoot them past the lowest levels.
>Ordinarily, I'd agree with you. However, when starting a game with players
>who haven't played before, I recommend starting them at third level, but with
>first level equipment. I makes them that little bit tougher, and can allow
>the new players to be that little bit more heroic...
>I just did this recently, and rather than the cautious approach that I've seen
>most new players adopt, these guys are soemwhat braver and adventurous.
What I do with new campaigns is this (new players or experienced).
I start the players out at 1st level, give them some 'easier'
adventures (escort caravan, carry message from noble, search for item,
etc.) but let them advance in level quicker than 'normal'. Note that
I don't use experience points, I just grant new levels when I feel
it's appropriate as GM.
This way, they can make the 'rookie mistakes' and still get to a point
where they're not just facing the same 1-1 hd monsters every session.
Prince Etrigan
http://www3.ios.com/~etrigan/rpg.html
Marc Quattromani
In article <aHZoRD...@shakala.com>,
Barbara Haddad <mel...@shakala.com> wrote:
> Andy <jab...@mail.wm.edu> writes:
[re-formatted for line length]
> > I've had this debated by many different groups I've been a
> > member of in the past. Most people couldn't decide what level was
> > really appropriate. Level characters tended to die far too easily for
> > the amount of development and cha history I like to see put into PCs
> > in my game, yet I would prefer not to star characters at a rank which
> > makes them _too_ powerful.
> Start 'em at 1st. I do. Give them max hit points for their first
>level (& roll the dice for other levels) and don't force them into
>situations. i.e. let them run away from an encounter. Let 'em run
>around in town for a while, or act as caravan guards to 'season' them.
>(Or have them hired to clean out the sewers; 'ghostbust' a haunted house
>- or any one of half a hundred small scale adventures upon which the fate
>of the world does not rest & in which they can get a few XP, maybe a
>level or two and really get the feel of their new PCs.
This works great; there are plenty of ways to ease the players into
the campaign world that are still fun. Most games I've been in or run
have managed to get past first level without any deaths (except for
one unfortunate incident involving dopplegangers but they really
should have known better :-)
However, there's nothing magic about 1st level. Start them at any
level you want. You seem to prefer that your players put in extra
effort on background. With proper background, they'll be just as
fleshed out as someone who worked their way through first.
Character development is mostly a matter of play time and prep time,
not starting level. Excessively high starting levels can be
counter-productive but I can't see what difference starting at 1st,
2nd or 3rd makes. And I've seen starting at 6th level work great;
giving me one of my best defined characters.
In fact, there's a pitfall with starting at first. If you really don't
like first level PCs, there's the danger of hurrying them through the
lower levels; something that doesn't add much to character development
either.
So, go with what you are most comfortable with. From your mail, that
sounds like 2nd or 3rd level with detailed backgrounds. With creative
players, they'll all have at least one "defining moment" in their
history; something you might not actually get in game play by the same
level. In fact, require them to have a defining event in their history
regardless of starting level and you'll be well on your way to well
developed PCs.
Marc Quattromani
William Dalton
Do you all really find it necessary to fudge the hit points at lower levels?
For years my group had been playing by the normal 'roll-dice for hit points'
method. When a new player joined the group, and begrudgingly started a first
level character and fudged the points ...we all thought he was a powergamer.
We were surprised to hear that his DM condoned the behavior.
Is this a prevelant 'house-rule'.?
If so doesn't it promote a weak learning curve for the players?
-William
Franko Franicevich
> Here's a question that I'd like to hear some thoughts on.
> When starting up a campaign, (ie not just a short series of adventures, but
> something open-ended), what level do you think the DM should start the PCs at?
>
> I've had this debated by many different groups I've been a
member of in the
> past. Most people couldn't decide what level was really appropriate. Level 1
> characters tended to die far too easily for the amount of development
and character
> history I like to see put into PCs in my game, yet I would prefer not to
start
> characters at a rank which makes them _too_ powerful.
For me, it depends on the campaign.... If I weant to get straight into the
'storyline', I give 'em characters about 3rd level (or higher)
However, if I want to build up the background first, I start them at first...
Run them through a few simple adventures, let them pick up the background,
and drop a few hints.... Then when the actual campaign really starts, it
can be a lot of fun...
(Aahh... So that's what the prince's castellan was doing in that trade
caravan a couple of months ago...)
--
Franko Franicevich, http://www.tripod.com/~SilverMage
Email: ffr...@cs.auckland.ac.nz
Tim Manley
In article <alkaiser-270...@ppp27.ecentral.com>,
alka...@ecentral.com (Alan Kaiser) wrote:
>In article <aHZoRD...@shakala.com>, mel...@shakala.com (Barbara
>Haddad) wrote:
>
>>Andy <jab...@mail.wm.edu> writes:
>>
>>> When starting up a campaign, (ie not just a short series of adventures,
but
>>> something open-ended), what level do you think the DM should start the PCs
at
>>>
>of in the
>>> past. Most people couldn't decide what level was really appropriate.
Level
cha
star
>>
>
>I have found that starting at 1st level with max hit points works well. I
>have also tried starting at 2nd level with max hit points at 1st and roll
>for 2nd level hit points (this was for a campaign that started out pretty
>tough). Anyway, both work well and the characters are by no means powerful
>at these levels with the max hit points (at least in my world!). It really
>depends on the DMs style and the motivations of the players. Often,
>despite the actions of the DM, players find the most ingenious ways of
>killing perfectly good characters :).
>
>Alan Kaiser
>alka...@ecentral.com
I agree. I always start players off at 1st level with max hit points. If
players live they don't stay at first level for too long. But, if you go into
combat you have a risk of dying; what's up with wanting to make character's
too tough to die??? In my games no matter how high a level your charcter is
all it takes to kill your character is a well placed crossbow bolt fired by
soem 14 year old militiaman. You want to get the reward you have to take the
risk.
Joe Feyas
Thomas Forlenza wrote:
>
> Andy wrote:
>>
>>Here's a question that I'd like to hear some thoughts on.
>>When starting up a campaign, (ie not just a short series of adventures, but
>>
>> I've had this debated by many different groups I've been a member of in the
>>characters tended to die far too easily for the amount of development and character
>>history I like to see put into PCs in my game, yet I would prefer not to start
>>characters at a rank which makes them _too_ powerful.
>>
>
>I usually start them at first level. Then I run them through and introductory
>adventure. This adventure is designed not to kill character unless they do
>incredibly stupind things and deserve to be killed. e.i. 1st level thief pick
>pocketing a merchant while he is surrounded by guards that can squash him. Or a
>character drinking the black vile looking potion.
Finally, someone who realizes that its the DMs job NOT to kill the characters. If your
characters keep dying at low levels then you are putting them through adventures that
are just too difficult. Try toning it down to a level that is suitable to
introductory characters.
I had a DM once who had the habit of running the PCs through whatever adventure he
felt like doing at the time. Our entire party of 3 and 4th level characters perished
in S2: White Plume Mountain a module designed for a 7th - 9th level party :>(
>
>After they finish the intro, I give them about 3000 xp with bonus points to those who
>make good calls and minuses for the stupid ones. This prepares them enough for the
>actual adventure.
I usually give about 1500 to 2000XPs, most single classes will move up a level...
For mages I usually put them through a solo-adventure before hand that is worth 500xps
usually dose not involve leathal combat, and allows them the oppurtunity to get some
minor magial item (potion or scroll) This way I don't have to mess with some special
magic system that allows Mages to have extra spells or something.
>
>I also start all characters at max hp at first level and they roll the others.
>This goes for NPC's as well.
I do this too - I found it is the most reasonable way to have a party be able to
sustain an adventure at low levels.
Thomas Forlenza
I never said I Fudge. I write adventures designed not to kill characters but
to make it fun for the players. And good balanced adventure writing requires
little or no fudging.
Stupid actions will certainly cause death. In some cases a character may go
into a situation knowing well it will die. And thus it does. The action may
be in character, but still charcaters will die. Now if that character was a
basis for making the game fun for everyone else, then I can conceiveably
justify some way of bringing it back to life.
A great DM I am not, but I can tell you my players stay alert, are causious
and have fun.
--
- Tpf http://turbo.kean.edu/~tforlenz
Schaffer Bernhard
>"TF" == Thomas Forlenza <tfor...@turbo.kean.edu> writes:
> TF> Gauranteed survival is OK just as long as the players don't know it.
>You are kidding yourself. It takes players about 2 sessions to figure out
>whether the DM is fudging or not.
>--
>JS
Only if the DM can´t fudge !
bejoscha
Schaffer Bernhard
>Do you all really find it necessary to fudge the hit points at lower levels?
>-William
Yep! Playing a character with only 1 HP isn´t funny at all!
(What fighter - after some time of training - get killed by being
boxed ?!)
bejoscha
R. John Morrow
William Dalton (wd...@wam.umd.edu) writes:
> Do you all really find it necessary to fudge the hit points at lower levels?
>
> For years my group had been playing by the normal 'roll-dice for hit points'
> method. When a new player joined the group, and begrudgingly started a first
> level character and fudged the points ...we all thought he was a powergamer.
> We were surprised to hear that his DM condoned the behavior.
>
> Is this a prevelant 'house-rule'.?
>
> If so doesn't it promote a weak learning curve for the players?
I don't know about others, but I will explain why I always give
PCs max hitpoints at 1st level.
First, my campaign is low powered, so characters can expect to be
low level for a long time. Thus, in order to give them more of a chance
at survival, I let them start with more hit points. I don't know what
effect this has on the "learning curve" (whatever that is) but I do know
that I as a player never learned anything useful from playing a mage with
1 hit point. (For the few moments I was ever conscious).
Lets face it, it doesn't matter how carefully you roleplay your
character - if you have 1 hit point you are almost guaranteed to die at
some point. No matter how hard you try to avoid combat, you know that if
anything ever happens to you (hit by a dart, trip over a log, get bitten
by a mosquito) you will die (or become unconscious, depending on the rules
you use).
Its a matter of personal preference, of course, but I just like to
give my PCs a little break at the start (especially since they enjoy games
with considerable amounts of conflict and mayhem).
--
"I know I'm going to Heaven, because I've served my tour in Hell."
Canadian Embassy - Algiers, Algeria 1992-1994
All views expressed are mine personally and not those of any organization.
james f robinson
In article <4tmlnb$7...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>,
William Dalton <wd...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>Do you all really find it necessary to fudge the hit points at lower levels?
Not necessary, but it goes a little way toward survivability. I had to play
a 1st level Illusionist (1st Ed) with AC 10 and 1 hit point once, with no
death's door rule and there's something about knowing that the first thing
that hits your character kills him, and your character is distressingly easy
to hit. The obvious question is how this guy decided to go adventuring
anyway, when a paper cut could do him in.
>For years my group had been playing by the normal 'roll-dice for hit points'
>method. When a new player joined the group, and begrudgingly started a first
>level character and fudged the points ...we all thought he was a powergamer.
>We were surprised to hear that his DM condoned the behavior.
>
>Is this a prevelant 'house-rule'.?
I'd say that it's common.
>If so doesn't it promote a weak learning curve for the players?
I don't think so. If it's just done for 1st level then it gives the
characters a little bit of an edge without pampering them, and allows them to
make the occasional mistake without *necessarily* dying from it. Unless of
course you bring in a UA barbarian or a 1st Ed ranger, in which case they would
start play with an absurd number of hit points.
Jim Sisolak
"TF" == Thomas Forlenza <tfor...@turbo.kean.edu> writes:
JS> You are kidding yourself. It takes players about 2 sessions to
JS> figure out whether the DM is fudging or not.
TF> I never said I Fudge. I write adventures designed not to kill
TF> characters but to make it fun for the players. And good balanced
TF> adventure writing requires little or no fudging.
A good, balanced adventure can still kill the PCs even if they do
everything right. A lucky shot, a blown saving throw, a bad surprise roll,
and it might all be over. If you're only going to kill them if they're
stupid, you will have to fudge.
You wrote (MessageId: <31FE1A...@turbo.kean.edu>):
TF> As a DM, I'll only kill characters who play too stupidly and out of
TF> character. e.g. A thief trying to fight a huge sea creature in
TF> hopes to get the treasure when the mere sight of the beast would
TF> make a Cavalier cringe in fear.
This sounds like fudging to me. They only die if you judge they deserve
it; in other cases, you have to find a way to prevent death: fudge.
You continue:
TF> Someone always does something stupid and makes a good example for
TF> the rest of the group. Occasional character 'deaths by example'
TF> usually keep my players on their toes.
That's fine, and it's as good a way to play as any other, but realize that
keeping them "on their toes" is *not* the goal of DMs who never prevent
death. The goal is to provide a game environment in which players *know*
that working a PC up to high levels really is difficult and requires great
skill/luck. Working a PC to high levels is nothing for a player to feel
proud of unless it's a challenge.
TF> Stupid actions will certainly cause death. In some cases a character
Why? If the action causes death, then it does, but a "stupid" action
should be no more a guarantee of death than a "smart" action should be a
guarantee of survival.
TF> A great DM I am not, but I can tell you my players stay alert, are
TF> causious and have fun.
I don't dispute this, nor do I say you're playing "wrong". I'm just saying
that (a) most people I've played with can tell when a DM fudges or
otherwise refuses to kill PCs unless they're "stupid" and (b) most people
I've played with have less fun if they sense this.
--
JS
Jim Sisolak
"WD" == William Dalton <wd...@wam.umd.edu> writes:
WD> Do you all really find it necessary to fudge the hit points at lower
WD> levels?
Necessary? No. I just want the PCs to be well above average in HP because
I don't like the alternatives: (1) tentative parties afraid of their own
shadows who won't take any risks or (2) 75%+ mortality rates at low levels.
WD> Is this a prevelant 'house-rule'.?
It's common.
WD> If so doesn't it promote a weak learning curve for the players?
No. There's still a high chance of death, so I see no lack of incentive to
play well.
--
JS
Robert Enters
William Dalton (wd...@wam.umd.edu) awoke to murmur to the masses:
> Do you all really find it necessary to fudge the hit points at lower levels?
> For years my group had been playing by the normal 'roll-dice for hit points'
> method. When a new player joined the group, and begrudgingly started a first
> level character and fudged the points ...we all thought he was a powergamer.
> We were surprised to hear that his DM condoned the behavior.
> Is this a prevelant 'house-rule'.?
> If so doesn't it promote a weak learning curve for the players?
I have been following this thread for some time now, and feel I
have to respond. Yes, I also 'fudge' hit point die rolls for characters at
1st level. Actually, I use the 'min starting hit points' from UA, or the
actual number rolled, whichever is higher.
There is just no point to have a char walking around with 1 or 2
HP, who will die from just falling off a stair. Sure, it may be realistic,
but if you want realistic, why are you playing a _Fantasy_ roleplaying
game? The characters are supposed to be adventurers, special, tough kinda
guys and gals, who stick out above the 0th level rabble.
Characters will still die from being stupid, the learning curve is
still very much in force. Just this way, I do not have to either fudge
damage rolls all the time, or think up even more unbelieveable and
convoluted means by which to bring back the dead. Survivability is the
word. I demand that characters be well thought out, and have complete
history and personality backgrounds. To have to redo that twenty times
before some char gets lucky enough to reach 2nd level is annoying, no
fun at all and generally completely pointless.
Insured surviveability, no matter what is ofcourse foolishness.
The character who dives head first into a pool of lava is dead, no matter
his or her level. The character who engages a kobold inhand to hand who
gets hit once should not die automatically IMHO couse he or she has only
one hit point. Then they would be regular folk. Not heroic adventurers.
Greetz,
Whisper!
--
____ ____ - = | Whisper! | = - a.k.a. CNN, Ranma, Cmdr. CA$H
\\ |||| // email:ent...@nijenrode.nl, website:www.nijenrode.nl/~enters
D.\\S.//I. Founding Member DSI, SITI, The Lanathus Circle
\/ "Ceterum Censeo Chinam Esse Delendam","Whatever!"
"Who? Me?? Nobody saw me do it! You can't prove a thing! The Alien did it!"
Eric Nelson Shook
Jim Sisolak wrote:
> I don't dispute this, nor do I say you're playing "wrong". I'm just saying
> that (a) most people I've played with can tell when a DM fudges or
> otherwise refuses to kill PCs unless they're "stupid" and (b) most people
> I've played with have less fun if they sense this.
However, the best judges fudge all night long, and you never even have
a chance of knowing it! The players end the night, or weekend with the
feeling that they barely got away with their teeth, and had to hang on by
their teeth the whole adventure.
You are absolutely right, though! A judge should be able to give a
totally convincing adventure. I've always hated it when the judge's only
means at hiding his mechanisms is to yell, "Ignore that man behind the
curtain!"
--
Eric Nelson Shook (ens...@csd.uwm.edu) http://www.uwm.edu/~enshook/
While eating roast beef I became enraptured by its delicacy & its
tastiness. This became almost orgasmically sensuous, at which point
the flesh became obviously the flesh of another being being rolled
in my mouth and torn at. I almost became a vegetarian....Almost....
Marc Quattromani
In article <320081...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>,
Eric Nelson Shook <ens...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>However, the best judges fudge all night long, and you never even have
>a chance of knowing it! The players end the night, or weekend with the
>feeling that they barely got away with their teeth, and had to hang on by
>their teeth the whole adventure.
But continued near-death experiences are a sure sign of a DM who is
fudging die rolls. You can't keep skirting death without death
occuring sooner or later. The more death-defying adventures that pass
without a death, the more likely it is that the ref is fudging rolls.
Most players will figure this out fairly quickly, consciously or not.
When that happens, some of the fun goes out of the game.
Fudging can be detected in a particular instance if it is blatant
enough. Clever fudging can only be detected over the course of many
events but it can still be detected. You may not know which specific
events the DM fudged but it becomes incredible that he didn't fudge
some events.
I am a ref who fudges die rolls but I try to make it very occasional.
At a suffficiently low level fudging is difficult to distinguish from
the noise. Of course, if you fudge at all, the temptation is their to
begin to fudge too much. The only defense is to keep a critical eye on
these aspects.
Marc Quattromani
Andy Baird
>
> whether the DM is fudging or not.
> JS Guaranteed survival isn't right, as you ill soon find your first level
characters seeking out the lair of Smaug... it can lead you right into a munchkin game,
as the characters rapidly become unkillable anyways...
However, killing a character just because the dice tell you to isn't right
either. It can spoil the fun to lose a character even when you did nothing wrong, just
to bad luck.
My latest idea on handling this question (to kill or to fudge?) was using a
thing I've tentatively called Luck. It esentially works this way:
-Each character has a certain amount of Luck Points, which is known only to the DM.
-Luck is used to save a character from bad luck during the course of an adventure (How
interesting would Star Wars have been if Luke had gotten shot early in the film?).
-Luck is not used if players are acting stupidly (1st levels: Let's go hunt a Lich!), or
at certain Climactic moments (I usually make luck no longer automatic at these points).
-Luck returns at a rate adjudicated by the DM. I base it on how well someone is
roleplaying. (The better you and your character are developed, the more Lucky you get).
-Major Villians have Luck, too. (Again, had Darth Vader died early in Star Wars, would
things have been the same?)
I usually apply luck to save someone from death only, although I did once use it
to let the party make a roll it needed to follow the plot line they wanted. I found it
lets most characters live much longer, and yet maintain a sense of danger. And when
characters do die, it happens at important, dramatic points and adds to the enjoyment
(or at least makes the death less of a blow).
As to how much Luck characters start with, that depends on the DM. I like 5,
+/- 1 myself, but it really depends on what kind of flavor you want in the campaign.
--
Andy Baird
-"Oh, Sirs! Is very bad you fall in spring!" Ranma 1/2
-"But no.. you had to drag me off to some crazy training ground in
China, and you didn't speak a word of Chinese!" Ranma 1/2
-"Aah, he looks even more like her royal highness when he has the
cat on him." El-Hazard
-"I like you. Would you like to be a guinea pig for my experiments?"
Tenchi Muyo
-"Shampoo not like girl-type Ranma. Maybe only pervert girl like
girl-type Ranma?" Ranma 1/2
Jim Sisolak
"ENS" == Eric Nelson Shook <ens...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> writes:
ENS> However, the best judges fudge all night long, and you never even
ENS> have a chance of knowing it! The players end the night, or weekend
Bunk. You can always tell; some players deliberately push things just to
test the DM, but even without such tricks, fudging will eventually shine
through -- maybe not the specific instances, but the players will *know*
the DM is doing it.
ENS> with the feeling that they barely got away with their teeth, and had
ENS> to hang on by their teeth the whole adventure.
That's fine if all you want is pure roleplaying, and its fine if you just
play for a night or a weekend, but in a campaign spanning years of real
time where you work a PC up from 1st level to 21st and eventually have him
die of old age, it doesn't wash. It isn't as enjoyable if you know the DM
is giving you breaks, and if you play long enough, you *will* know.
ENS> You are absolutely right, though! A judge should be able to give a
ENS> totally convincing adventure. I've always hated it when the judge's
ENS> only means at hiding his mechanisms is to yell, "Ignore that man
ENS> behind the curtain!"
Depends what you mean by "convincing"; the DM should be consistent and
impartial, but he shouldn't have any "mechanisms" (by which I assume you
mean plot devices designed to force a particular outcome) to hide.
--
JS
joseph oberlander
Points. I just figure out what number of points it will take the BEST
player class playing at the time to reach a level and give people that
many xp to deal with.
I usually start most players out at 5th level(5 for fighters and about 4th
or so for mages)
I like to also design a background for the players - you don't want
everything known - let them figure it out together. Everyone has subtle
motives and backgrounds that then flesh out. I also allow different ages
in my campaign. Central Casting is a good idea as well.
Most of my citizens of decent age are simmilar to level 3-12. Yes, this
means that the average citizen of middle age is level 3-5 and a
non-specialized fighter. This seems to fit with the world, which is high
magic and patterened after Middle Earth but with a high level of
integration and specialization(imagine Spelljammer(tech) and
Tolkien(atmosphere) - a very good combination though I don't usually do
space campaigns.) should be able to raise a decent militia. Only teens
and such are first level as most citizens are required to serve(male and
female) for 4 years in exchange for training and protection. The world
is a dangerous place, and having a populace that can protect itself is far
better than hiring an army to protect a bunch of nothings, especially when
orc and goblin tribes are always around.
(I used Switzerland and Israel for a role-model of this kind of situation)
Sparta/Athens and the Vikings also are situations of this.
It seemed that most people in Tolkien's world were able to protect
themselves if they were inclined to(especially the Elves and Dwarves)
That "poor idiot" you are intent on robbing might be a 8th level veteran
who has become a drunk - you never know.
I also find that 5-7 level is a good starting place as getting to 9th or
10th level still takes about 1/2 a year of sessions due to the HUGE xp
requirement. Most good dungeons require a 8-12th level party in my world.
Lastly, the base xp given encourages players to do exciting things.
My current GM does this and my best character ever was a dual class:
Advanced to level 3 as a fighter.(4000 xp) stopped being a fighter
Advanced to level 3 as a thief.(2500 xp) stopped being a thief
Advanced to level 2 as a mage(3500 xp spent)last class - stuck with it
Not bad for 10,000xp to spend. Took one gaming session to advance to
level 3 as a mage and not have to take xp penalties. Character rocked.
Dude was a 3rd level mage with a 18 con(max first level - 14) plus a roll
of 4 and 9 for the other two levels(plus 8 for high con). Total of 35 hp
at third level. He had only one 18, and had a okay str and dex(read 12-15).
His int was the same as well(about 14 if I remember)
If my current elfin mage dies(is currently 7th level with 70K exp or so)
even after the xp penalty I will do the same trick. A dual-classed
Druid/Mage comes to mind(7th level druid/5th level mage is an awesome combo)
Fighter:"I just hit that mage with my axe"
Me: "um, that makes me a bit angry"(brushing off the 20 or so damage as
I shapechange into a Polar Bear and smush him)
KnightoftheRedRose
Well the perfect campaign begins with characters of Level 1 (or 0 depending
on the perspective). This gives the player the full experience of working
their way up. Trust me, most people look back on their "first adventure"
with fondness. One reason is that usually they were new to RPGs and everything
seemed exciting. Another is that it wasnt easy to get things. And living thru
an adventure with 5-6 hit points was an adventure in itself. You earn what
you get at that time in your adventuring career (assuming a fair and good DM).
Of course, if your characters are ONLY hack and slashers, that may not suit
them. So starting at 3-4th level is an option (randomly rolling or choosing
magical items etc for them). It isnt as fun as you can mold your character
if you went from the grounf up. This method can have some advantages but
also disadvantages.
Zanos
Janis Stipins III
What are your opinions on giving experienced players (not experienced
characters) 8th-level or so characters to use for a short series of
adventures? I mean, if you're in the middle of a 12th-level campaign
or so, and someone's character dies, are you going to make that person
start a new character from level 1, or are you going to let him use a
temporary 8th-level or so?
-Janis Stipins III
jsti...@mit.edu
"Every day, in every way...."
GPG70
When our group started we all had max HP and rolled for gold--my halfling
F/T was proficient ina weapon he couldn't afford yet!! As the DM I simply
figured he broke it in some fashion and therefore didn't have it for his
first adventure.
Two reasons for this:
1. I like what either the DMG or PHB says in the earlier portion of the
book--when a dwarven fighter rushes into a roomfilled with 8 orcs and a
captain and somehow manages to survive, this colors how the PC will
role-play in the future. He may have started out wanting to be a guardian
for the group but is now the frontrunner and pointman in adventures. This
happened to our party--my F/T remained a fighter--to the party but any
time I could I used my thief abilities without their knowing. Well our
resident thief was so inept--he missed on almost ALL his thief ability
roles, finally someone in the group who had suspected my true nature said
"you look at the lock." Ever since then he has resumed his career
emphasizing his MU side and me my Thief side.
2. Starting at 1st level creates a sense of urgency--I need money so I
can find better armor, weapons, etc. Read the above description of my
character's dilemma. If you start at 4th or 5th level you needn't worry
about encountering a group of 20 orcs or the like. Plus the DM would've
probably given some magic items to each PC. Why adventure if you are
already somewhat stacked? In my group we have a dwarf fighter who wants a
+5 sword--he's 3rd level--get real--he's adventuring with the idea he'll
eventually find one (he will). That's what role-playing is all
about--aspiring to more than what you are.
Besides, it provides some interesting side conversations during game time
about--"what about that time we..." is always good for a laugh or using a
previous relevant solution now.
This is not so important for experienced players but if you are novices
and so are they--1st level is the route to go--you'll learn together.
Orion the Great Grey Elf
Lawrence R. Mead
Eric Nelson Shook (ens...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu) wrote:
: Jim Sisolak wrote:
:
: > I don't dispute this, nor do I say you're playing "wrong". I'm just saying
: > that (a) most people I've played with can tell when a DM fudges or
: > otherwise refuses to kill PCs unless they're "stupid" and (b) most people
: > I've played with have less fun if they sense this.
: However, the best judges fudge all night long, and you never even have
: a chance of knowing it! The players end the night, or weekend with the
: feeling that they barely got away with their teeth, and had to hang on by
: their teeth the whole adventure.
I would say that the best DMs don't *need* to fudge.
: You are absolutely right, though! A judge should be able to give a
: totally convincing adventure. I've always hated it when the judge's only
: means at hiding his mechanisms is to yell, "Ignore that man behind the
: curtain!"
:
: --
: Eric Nelson Shook (ens...@csd.uwm.edu) http://www.uwm.edu/~enshook/
: While eating roast beef I became enraptured by its delicacy & its
: tastiness. This became almost orgasmically sensuous, at which point
: the flesh became obviously the flesh of another being being rolled
: in my mouth and torn at. I almost became a vegetarian....Almost....
--
Barbara Haddad
gp...@aol.com (GPG70) writes:
> When our group started we all had max HP and rolled for gold--my halfling
> F/T was proficient ina weapon he couldn't afford yet!! As the DM I simply
> figured he broke it in some fashion and therefore didn't have it for his
> first adventure.
Personally, I believe that PCs should start out at 1st level (& I do
give max hp for 1st level [only], automatically [since I've known a lot
of players who manage to roll '1's])
However, why assume that a starting character should personally own
all the weapons they are proficient with? It's a lot easier to assume
they were taught by (fill in blank: by father/brother/mother/sister/
town's weapon master/uncle/friend of family) .....and that when they were
taught the weapon, said weapon was owned by their tutor. (Thus, they
don't have the weapon since it belonged to dad, etc.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Haddad - mel...@shakala.com
Shakala Communications, Inc. CA +1-408-734-2289
Thomas Forlenza
> A good, balanced adventure can still kill the PCs even if they do
> everything right. A lucky shot, a blown saving throw, a bad surprise roll,
> and it might all be over. If you're only going to kill them if they're
> stupid, you will have to fudge.
>
things you put in an adventure the more chance the characters have of dying. That is
an imbalance. 1st level mages should not be fighting Ogres. If they come across them,
the players should have a chance to avoid them. This is game balance.
> TF> As a DM, I'll only kill characters who play too stupidly and out of
> TF> character. e.g. A thief trying to fight a huge sea creature in
> TF> hopes to get the treasure when the mere sight of the beast would
> TF> make a Cavalier cringe in fear.
>
> This sounds like fudging to me. They only die if you judge they deserve
> it; in other cases, you have to find a way to prevent death: fudge.
>
Now, if thos mages attack the Ogres? Pretty stupid eh!. Guess what!, They'll Die. No
fudging there.
> TF> Someone always does something stupid and makes a good example for
> TF> the rest of the group. Occasional character 'deaths by example'
> TF> usually keep my players on their toes.
>
> That's fine, and it's as good a way to play as any other, but realize that
> keeping them "on their toes" is *not* the goal of DMs who never prevent
> death. The goal is to provide a game environment in which players *know*
> that working a PC up to high levels really is difficult and requires great
> skill/luck. Working a PC to high levels is nothing for a player to feel
> proud of unless it's a challenge.
>
I agree with you Jim. And remember, players have fun when their characters live more
than when they die. So killing them because they were suprised by Giant Spiders and
then bitten and need to save vs death, no warning, nothing. That's bad balance. And
not too exciting for the players.
Before a player saves vs death they should have some kind of warning. That's were I
have the biggest problem. Saves vs death out of the blue.
> TF> Stupid actions will certainly cause death. In some cases a character
>
> Why? If the action causes death, then it does, but a "stupid" action
> should be no more a guarantee of death than a "smart" action should be a
> guarantee of survival.
>
Don't be so litteral about everything. You know what I am trying to say here. Why are
you so critical about it?
As the example above. The 1st level mage has a choice to not attack the Ogres. You
tell me what is stupid and what is not?
--
- Tpf
Thomas Forlenza
> I have been following this thread for some time now, and feel I
[cut]
> Insured surviveability, no matter what is ofcourse foolishness.
> The character who dives head first into a pool of lava is dead, no matter
> his or her level. The character who engages a kobold inhand to hand who
> gets hit once should not die automatically IMHO couse he or she has only
> one hit point. Then they would be regular folk. Not heroic adventurers.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Whisper!
Bravo!
'Purple Haze' Jeff Hazen
On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Franko Franicevich wrote:
: Janis Stipins <jsti...@mit.edu> wrote:
[snip]
: if you're in the middle of a 12th-level campaign
: : or so, and someone's character dies, are you going to make that person
: : start a new character from level 1, or are you going to let him use a
: : temporary 8th-level or so?
: I'd give them a character a couple of levels below the last character.
If you want more 'solid' mechanics (as opposed to just saying 'a
couple of levels lower') you can do what the I've been with in the
past have done. Take the lowest character's XP * .75 and figure out
the level from there.
If you've played DarkSun at all (or know somebody who has) you can use
the character tree idea. It works great, and you can use the other
characters in future adventures besides. The only drawback: you have
to start out with this close to the beginning of a campaign.
In this case, I think I'd introduce an NPC to the campaign, then after
a bit let the player whose character died take over for the NPC. This
may work the best (and still give the player a character of comparable
skills/powers as the rest of the party). Just my 2 ceramics...
Jeff http://weber.u.washington.edu/~avedis
____________________________________
University of | Husky Drumline
Washington | Husky Tae Kwon Do
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Franko Franicevich
In article <3204E511...@mit.edu>, Janis Stipins III
<jsti...@mit.edu> wrote:
> What are your opinions on giving experienced players (not experienced
> characters) 8th-level or so characters to use for a short series of
> adventures? I mean, if you're in the middle of a 12th-level campaign
> or so, and someone's character dies, are you going to make that person
> start a new character from level 1, or are you going to let him use a
> temporary 8th-level or so?
I'd give them a character a couple of levels below the last character.
--
Joe Feyas
Barbara Haddad wrote:
>
> gp...@aol.com (GPG70) writes:
> > When our group started we all had max HP and rolled for gold--my halfling
> > F/T was proficient ina weapon he couldn't afford yet!! As the DM I simply
> > figured he broke it in some fashion and therefore didn't have it for his
> > first adventure.
> <snip>
>
> Personally, I believe that PCs should start out at 1st level (& I do
> give max hp for 1st level [only], automatically [since I've known a lot
> of players who manage to roll '1's])
> However, why assume that a starting character should personally own
> all the weapons they are proficient with? It's a lot easier to assume
> they were taught by (fill in blank: by father/brother/mother/sister/
> town's weapon master/uncle/friend of family) .....and that when they were
> taught the weapon, said weapon was owned by their tutor. (Thus, they
> don't have the weapon since it belonged to dad, etc.)
adventuring? I commonly see modules for low level characters that I think
give too much reward in GP for that level. For instance an adventure were
characters are paid 50GP to guard a caravan for a week.
This makes no sense when regulars guards (F1) get paid around 5GP a week. I
can see maybe a priest or mages being paid more (slightly).
The only exception to this would be if a player worked into his history that
he came from a wealthy background. Then I would consider starting him/her out
with more - but at a penalty that in the future that PC would *always* need
to maintain a higher standard of living than the other PCs (at least 5 to 10
times so).
Marc Quattromani
In article <4u7ttn$g...@news.sas.ab.ca>, <vr...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
> I believe DMs should feel free to start the character at whatever level
>they feel is appropriate for their campaign. If you feel the characters
>should be more experienced, veterans that know what's going on in the
>world, then feel free to start characters at higher levels. If you want
>inexperienced novices start at first level, or 0 level trying to get
>apprenticed.
I strongly agree here. Level 1 is an arbitrary starting point. The
only absolute starting point is birth and that's kind of dull.
Nearly all of my campaigns start at level one due to tradition and
player preference but it is a "soft" preference, not a hard one.
Well developed characters arise from out-of-game prep work and in-game
actions. It's got little to do with starting as a complete and utter
wimp, at least with experienced players who have a firm understanding
of what being first level really means. It has everything to do with
hours of game play, at any level.
People say that a character taken from 1st to 10th level will be well
developed. Of course it will be; you spent 100s of hours on it. If you
spend 100s of hours taking a character from 5th to 12th, it too will
be well fleshed out, perhaps more so because it's earlier adventures
might have been a richer experience than acting as a caravan guard.
Years ago in high school, we had unlimited play time. These days, I'm
lucky to get my players together twice a month for 6 hours each time.
Play time is precious. If starting at greater than 1st level improves
player enjoyment and better utilizes a player's time (as it definitly
does when re-starting after a PC death), I'm all for it.
There's nothing wrong with starting at 1st. It's traditional and most
people do it. Starting at higher levels is trickier but quite
managable. And sometimes it is better.
Marc Quattromani
PS I could start a whole thread on time management in campaigns :-)
vr...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Barbara Haddad (mel...@shakala.com) wrote:
: gp...@aol.com (GPG70) writes:
: > When our group started we all had max HP and rolled for gold--my halfling
: > F/T was proficient ina weapon he couldn't afford yet!! As the DM I simply
: > figured he broke it in some fashion and therefore didn't have it for his
: > first adventure.
: <snip>
: Personally, I believe that PCs should start out at 1st level (& I do
: give max hp for 1st level [only], automatically [since I've known a lot
: of players who manage to roll '1's])
: However, why assume that a starting character should personally own
: all the weapons they are proficient with? It's a lot easier to assume
: they were taught by (fill in blank: by father/brother/mother/sister/
: town's weapon master/uncle/friend of family) .....and that when they were
: taught the weapon, said weapon was owned by their tutor. (Thus, they
: don't have the weapon since it belonged to dad, etc.)
I don't think it's necessary for PCs to start at first level because
first level isn't the beginning of their adventuring career anyways. The
fighter has already received training in arms somewhere, the thief has
learned his skills, the mage has been an apprentice, the cleric has been
initiated into his church. At first level their careers are already in
action so it's not like starting at the beginning.
Lawrence R. Mead
Janis Stipins III (jsti...@mit.edu) wrote:
: What are your opinions on giving experienced players (not experienced
: characters) 8th-level or so characters to use for a short series of
: adventures? I mean, if you're in the middle of a 12th-level campaign
: or so, and someone's character dies, are you going to make that person
: start a new character from level 1, or are you going to let him use a
: temporary 8th-level or so?
I see no reason for not giving the player (if he/she is an experienced
player) a temporary medium-level character. If it were to be permanent,
I usually begin the character at 3rd level; however, on occasion a player
has fallen in love with an NPC character they run temporarily and of course
I allowed them to keep the characer as a PC.
DMGorgon
Dan Moloney
> Marc Quattromani
>
>PS I could start a whole thread on time management in campaigns :-)
PLease do , our group wastes so much time that they hardly ever get
anything done in one session.
Cheers
Dan
*********************************************
"A graduate student eh! How come you guys can
fly to the moon but you can't make my shoes
smell good?"
-Homer Simpson
*********************************************
Jim Sisolak
"TF" == Thomas Forlenza <tfor...@turbo.kean.edu> writes:
>> A good, balanced adventure can still kill the PCs even if they do
>> everything right. A lucky shot, a blown saving throw, a bad surprise
TF> Maybe that's true enough Jim, But ya see that's the trick. The more
TF> save vs Death things you put in an adventure the more chance the
What? It only takes 1 failed save. The issue is whether or not to fudge
things *during play* so as to prevent death. At some point, the PCs are
going to have to face "save or die" situations, and the DM is either going
to fudge and keep the PCs alive or he isn't. The question of how many
"save or die" traps to put in the module has nothing to do with fudging;
it's part of module design.
TF> characters have of dying. That is an imbalance. 1st level mages
TF> should not be fighting Ogres. If they come across them, the players
TF> should have a chance to avoid them. This is game balance.
I don't believe in game balance. If the players ventured into an area
infested with ogres at first level, that's their fault. Sure, there is
balance in the sense that they could have done some research/asked around
to find out which parts of the country are "safe" and which are dangerous,
but this is up to the PCs.
I'm not going to relocate the ogre lair or give the PCs automatic
surprise/initiative just because they insist on marching into an ogre
cave.
If they just got an amazingly unlucky roll on the monster chart, they
should run away and hope for the best; life is not always fair, and neither
is an AD&D world.
TF> Now, if thos mages attack the Ogres? Pretty stupid eh!. Guess
TF> what!, They'll Die. No fudging there.
No, but if the ogres get the drop on the fleeing mages, you'll probably let
them escape, regardless of what the dice say (assuming I have interpreted
you correctly). That's fudging.
TF> I agree with you Jim. And remember, players have fun when their
TF> characters live more than when they die.
I disagree with this premise. Good players may, in fact, have PCs who live
more than they die, but the fun comes from knowing that *you* the player
have beat the odds through skill. Five PC deaths only heightens the
accomplishment of the 6th which lives to 15th level.
TF> So killing them because they were suprised by Giant Spiders and then
TF> bitten and need to save vs death, no warning, nothing. That's bad
TF> balance. And not too
The DM does not "kill" anyone. The game is a simulation, and the DM is
there to handle unforeseen conditions, play the NPCs, and (beforehand) to
invent the world. The DM should not alter the rules of the simulation
while it's in progress, and the DM should not be "deciding" whether the PCs
die or not.
If the PCs got surprised and can't deal with it, that's their fault. Most
monsters and traps are avoidable: stay home. You shouldn't leave home to
go adventuring unless you're sure you can handle the challenge (or are
prepared to die).
Maybe that means not playing with spiders unless you can Neutralize Poison.
Maybe that means not entering caverns until you have scried the whole
complex. Maybe that means you wait 6 levels before you go in.
TF> [....] Before a player saves vs death they should have some kind of
TF> warning. That's were I have the biggest problem. Saves vs death out
TF> of the blue.
Hey, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Good advice for
any PC.
TF> Don't be so litteral about everything. You know what I am trying to
TF> say here. Why are you so critical about it? As the example above.
Yes, I *do* know what you're saying. I'm critical because I disagree
strongly with you.
TF> The 1st level mage has a choice to not attack the Ogres. You tell me
TF> what is stupid and what is not?
If he attacks and manages to live through blind luck, the DM shouldn't
"kill" him as an example. If he runs, but gets caught and killed anyway,
the DM shouldn't "save" him in the interest of fairness. The DM's opinions
as to the intelligence of the PC's actions should not be an issue.
--
JS
Barbara Haddad
> Janis Stipins III (jsti...@mit.edu) wrote:
> : What are your opinions on giving experienced players (not experienced
> : characters) 8th-level or so characters to use for a short series of
> : adventures? I mean, if you're in the middle of a 12th-level campaign
> : or so, and someone's character dies, are you going to make that person
> : start a new character from level 1, or are you going to let him use a
> : temporary 8th-level or so?
It's something I wouldn't do as a ref. If the PC died (just like if
an NPC died) and is unrecoverable, then the player gets to start a new PC
at level 1. Of course, if they join up with a high level party, they
won't be level 1 for long, since they will probably earn enough XP to
gain levels at a truly swift rate. (& this has happened several times in
my games & within a week or two, said newbie PC's are usually 4th or 5th
level if they play even half-way smart {and do support-role things like
drag off the wounded, NOT try fighting in front-rank, use 2nd-rank
weapons or missile fire}.)
Marc Quattromani
In article <4ubg1q$c...@hobyah.cc.uq.oz.au>,
Dan Moloney <mol...@chem.chemistry.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>PS I could start a whole thread on time management in campaigns :-)
>
>PLease do , our group wastes so much time that they hardly ever get
>anything done in one session.
Okay, here goes.
While some of our readers may have essentially unlimited time for
gaming, most probably have a very limited amount of game time
available.
In my own case, game time has probably gone from 15+ hours per week many
years ago in high school, to about 12 hours per month for the last ten
years. My players and I have only so much time to spend on gaming. To,
me, time is precious and must be used wisely, as player and as ref.
As player or ref, how much do you value game time? What do you do to
ensure 'quality' game time, if anything? Is effective use of time even
a goal for you?
As a DM, do you consciously try to advance game play or do you allow
the players to choose their own pace? Or is it something in between?
Marc Quattromani
Marc Quattromani
In article <a7wcsD...@shakala.com>,
Barbara Haddad <mel...@shakala.com> wrote:
> It's something I wouldn't do as a ref. If the PC died (just like if
>an NPC died) and is unrecoverable, then the player gets to start a new PC
>at level 1. Of course, if they join up with a high level party, they
>won't be level 1 for long, since they will probably earn enough XP to
>gain levels at a truly swift rate. (& this has happened several times in
>my games & within a week or two, said newbie PC's are usually 4th or 5th
>level if they play even half-way smart {and do support-role things like
>drag off the wounded, NOT try fighting in front-rank, use 2nd-rank
>weapons or missile fire}.)
But why is it better to start a PC at 1st and have them zoom through
the ranks into 2-3 weeks to 5th level? Why is that a better character,
by any measure, than one who just came in at 5th level, but with the
appropriate background to explain how he reached 5th level?
In a campaign that begins at fist level, it usually takes a fair number
of sessions to hit 5th level; usually 15-20 in my worlds. If someone dies
and restarts at 1st and hits 5th level in 4 sessions, then why has this
one PC hit 5th so quickly when all others took 5 times as long? Why don't
all 1st level PCs tag along with a high level group to get some quick
levels?
If just observing and mildly participating with a high level group is
all it takes to hit 5th level, it would seem that training videos
would be extremely hot sellers in such a world.
The re-start at 1st and zip to 5th level is standard D&D with a long
history behind it. It works well enough and I certainly won't tell
anyone not to use it. But it has sufficient inconsistencies in it
that restarting near the level of the party seems equally or even
more sound.
Marc Quattromani
Marc Quattromani
In article <4ue0pd$p...@pyrodactyl.or.pyramid.com>,
Marc Quattromani <ma...@pyramid.com> wrote:
>As player or ref, how much do you value game time? What do you do to
>ensure 'quality' game time, if anything? Is effective use of time even
>a goal for you?
>
>As a DM, do you consciously try to advance game play or do you allow
>the players to choose their own pace? Or is it something in between?
As a matter of personal ref'ing philosophy, I feel the ref has an
obligation to provide an entertaining session for the players. That
doesn't mean the ref isn't allowed a bad night or that players must
be coddled. It does mean that the players have commited a fair chunk
of their precious time and deserve interesting scenarios and
interesting play time.
It isn't just a matter of being kind to the players. We live in a busy
world and your game competes with others forms of entertainment from
books and movies to other group activities. Players who are hooked
seek out your game and make time for it. Players who aren't give
poorer quality play, tend to miss sessions or drop out entirely.
To avoid "dead time" where little of relevance or interest happens,
several techniques are useful.
1) Force the party to choose a leader. It can be a permanent leader
or rotated from session to session. The leader is responisble for
all mundane activities like choosing marching order, watch order,
etc. Other players have right of veto, but the leader proposes.
2) Prod the group when discussions are running off topic or are
producing no more useful information. Sure, in 1% of the cases,
something interesting might pop out but most of the time, you
just waste another 30 minutes.
3) Make sure the party has an explicit, well defined goal, both
in the scenario and the campaign as a whole. With a unifying
purpose, there is less squabble and less question as to what
to do next.
4) Try to cast many of the scenarios around something of particular
interest to a single PC. This means at least one of the players cares
strongly about party actions and acts as a good point of focus.
5) Use all the old DM tricks to prod players: throw dice as if rolling
an encounter, mention the passage of time ("It is getting dark now"),
look up a critter in the monster manual. These work.
6) Encourage the party to have a simple, clear treasure distribution
plan so that hours aren't wasted in treasure division. Or do it
out of game.
7) Conduct as much of the maintenance and routine activities out
of game; either after the session or through e-mail.
8) Try to arrange topics that might result in lengthy player discussion
to fall between games and be discussed over e-mail, if possible,
or at least be thought about out of game.
9) Absolutely minimize the amount of single player-on-ref time. When
the ref is alone with a player, all other players are idle. Even
in a 4 player game, 20 minutes of single player ref'ing idles
an hour of person-time. The trap here is that the ref is having
a good time since he is fully occupied, everyone else spends
much of their time bored.
10) Don't let inter-player conflicts drag on for ever. They are fun
from time to time but if they get out of hand, every session can
spend half its time listening to the two argue and plot.
11) Give brief but clear descriptions of rooms, NPCs and other settings.
This can save a lot of back and forth questioning or wasted time
due to misconceptions.
12) Think how your favorite books and movies created suspense and
drama and steal their plot devices. Writers have some of the same
problems of creating interest; use their tricks.
Successful time management requires a consistent approach. It doesn't
matter much that you run a few things quickly if the party wastes 10
minutes every in-game night discussing watch order.
The little tricks save 1-5 minutes at a time but can add up to an hour
in an evening. Big tricks can save an hour or more.
If you get twice as much done in an evening, it can be more than twice
as much fun. Think back to the last 3 hour, boring movie you watched
and imagine how much more you might have liked it if it had been
edited to 90 minutes. It might go from a one star movie to a 3
star. ("Wyatt Earp" comes to mind. My wife calls it "Wyatt Yuck")
Marc Quattromani
GPG70
When PCs do something out of sheer stupidity I let the consequences fall
where they may. <<Ex--My party was adventuring in some ruins where some
orcs and half-orcs happened to be. Well they thought they were being
clever and surrounded the room and the orcs contained therein. They waded
in and were getting the upper-hand but forgot to check their back--one of
our mages was backstabbed on a natural twenty die-roll and therefore took
quadruple damage. They eventually defeated the monsters but took HEAVY
losses considering their opponents.>> Anyway, if my party plans well,
tries to execute the plans but the dice roll against them I am inclined to
let them off with a close shave of a two-handed sword. This is especially
improtant during the first few levels because it is frustrating to keep
having your character die and not participate in the rest of the
adventure. Role-playing is what it's all about right? At fourth level
and beyond I like playing with them as a cat would a mouse, simply because
I know and they know I don't deliberately try and kill them. Having an US
vs the DM attitude is counter-productive to any RPG and friendships. How
many times have we read it here where people are frustrated and quit
because they and their DM are at odds with each other? This is a GAME and
as such, should be fun for all...not just the DM with a battleaxe to grind
or the munchkin PCs who number crunch like midieval tax-collectors.
Believe me as a DM you can have much more fun with a party with making the
ordinary unusual than by deliberately killing the PCs or not giving them
breaks when necessary. If anyone is interested in some stories Email me
and I'll give you some responses of things I've done to mess with my
troops--believe me, it's funny to see a group of 8 mostly multi-class PCs
run from 6 skeletons...
Barbara Haddad
> In my own case, game time has probably gone from 15+ hours per week many
> years ago in high school, to about 12 hours per month for the last ten
> years. My players and I have only so much time to spend on gaming. To,
> me, time is precious and must be used wisely, as player and as ref.
> ensure 'quality' game time, if anything? Is effective use of time even
> a goal for you?
>
> As a DM, do you consciously try to advance game play or do you allow
> the players to choose their own pace? Or is it something in between?
I let my players determine the pace of the game & never force them
to move along. IMHO if they're enjoying the roleplaying of --shopping--
for example, why hurry them on?
(& yes, my own gaming has dropped from about 5days a week [both
weekend days & 3 evenings] - to only 2 days a week [both weekend days])
Marc Quattromani
In article <B2mesD...@shakala.com>,
Barbara Haddad <mel...@shakala.com> wrote:
> I let my players determine the pace of the game & never force them
>to move along. IMHO if they're enjoying the roleplaying of --shopping--
>for example, why hurry them on?
> (& yes, my own gaming has dropped from about 5days a week [both
>weekend days & 3 evenings] - to only 2 days a week [both weekend days])
I think this works very well with the amount of play time you are able
to manage (40+ hours per month it sounds like.) Then, an hour spent
shopping is only a fraction of the game time. But at 12 hours per
month, an hour is almost 10% of game time. And often, shopping is
interesting for a few of the players, but not all of the players. So
those uninterested players just wasted 8% of their monthly game play.
Another way to look at time management, is that with two days of play
per weekend, you can still get in many encounters (both roleplaying
and combat.) For me, with six hours every two weeks, it's a struggle
just to get three solid encounters in per night. Without at least
three, there is little advancement of campaign; something that is okay
from time to time but isn't, IMHO, in the long term. Who wants to
spend six months of real time and have little to show for it?
Readers expect things to happen in a novel; similarly movie goers
expect the story to progress. The same holds for roleplayers, I like
to believe. With lots of game time, as Barbara has, you have a lot
more freedom which is probably the ideal game environment. With
limited game time, it looks more like a movie or book where length is
fixed and time a precious resource.
Marc
John A. Murphy
|> > As a DM, do you consciously try to advance game play or do you allow
|> > the players to choose their own pace? Or is it something in between?
I also try to allow my players to set the pace. But the catch here is to
make sure all the players are in agreement with the pace. If one person
is nitpicking and running off on solo assignments, the others will get bored
quickly. This is a danger spot to look for with thieves.
I find that props can greatly speed things along. If you pre-write out
player maps it helps paint a clearer picture and gets your points across
quickly and clearly. Besides, players love props and maps. It helps them
remember things from session to session.
Murf
--
John A. Murphy (better known as Erin's dad) j...@philabs.research.philips.com
345 Scarborough Road
Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510 One one-trillionith of a surprise: picoboo
(914)945-6216 millihellen: The beauty needed to launch 1 ship
DawnMage
sis...@trans4.neep.wisc.edu (Jim Sisolak) wrote:
>have beat the odds through skill. Five PC deaths only heightens the
>accomplishment of the 6th which lives to 15th level.
And SKILL should be the operative term. A player who dies through bad
dice is not dying because of lack of skill, but because of some stupid
polyhedron-shaped pieces of plastic that go on the same exorbitant
price scale as the rest of the TSR product line.
And what about DMs like me who want to eventually drag out the
high-level adventures? Let's suppose one character out of 3 lives at
each of 1st-4th levels. Now let's suppose the DM has 6 players and
wants to eventually run an adventure for 5-7 characters of levels
9-12. Let us examine the way the levels stack up, assuming the
characters advance at a relatively fast pace of 2 adventures per level
on levels 1-5:
LEVEL OF CHARACTERS
ADVENTURE# PLR.1 PLR.2 PLR.3 PLR.4 PLR.5 PLR.6
BEGINNING 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 died died 1 died died 1
2 1 died 2 died 1 died
3 died 1 2 died died 1
4 died died 3 died 1 2
Can you see how LONG it will take for me to run that high-level
adventure at this rate?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aurorius Dawnwind, Archmage of Darlundin
Aurelian Dragon (UDIC) Mail: allu...@nai.net
Web: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6197
"Freedom, love, and magic above all."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Quattromani
In article <4ugek8$c...@a3bsrv.nai.net>, DawnMage <allu...@nai.net> wrote:
>And what about DMs like me who want to eventually drag out the
>high-level adventures? Let's suppose one character out of 3 lives at
>each of 1st-4th levels. Now let's suppose the DM has 6 players and
>wants to eventually run an adventure for 5-7 characters of levels
>9-12. Let us examine the way the levels stack up, assuming the
>characters advance at a relatively fast pace of 2 adventures per level
>on levels 1-5:
>
> LEVEL OF CHARACTERS
>ADVENTURE# PLR.1 PLR.2 PLR.3 PLR.4 PLR.5 PLR.6
>BEGINNING 1 1 1 1 1 1
> 1 died died 1 died died 1
> 2 1 died 2 died 1 died
> 3 died 1 2 died died 1
> 4 died died 3 died 1 2
>
>Can you see how LONG it will take for me to run that high-level
>adventure at this rate?
This is another example of why refs might want to start players
at higher than first level :-)
Marc Quattromani
Paul James Zoski
Marc Quattromani (ma...@pyramid.com) wrote:
: In article <4ubg1q$c...@hobyah.cc.uq.oz.au>,
: Dan Moloney <mol...@chem.chemistry.uq.edu.au> wrote:
: >>PS I could start a whole thread on time management in campaigns :-)
: >
: >PLease do , our group wastes so much time that they hardly ever get
: >anything done in one session.
: Okay, here goes.
Time management can indeed be a problem! Let's see what we come up with.
: As player or ref, how much do you value game time? What do you do to
: ensure 'quality' game time, if anything? Is effective use of time even
: a goal for you?
Before we go on, we need to know what exactly "quality game time" is.
I think that if everyone is having fun, you have quality game time.
Others will surely disagree - some might wish to measure quality time
by how far the campaign or adventure progresses in a setting, but I feel
that the really important thing is to have fun.
No matter how you define quality, the most important thing a DM needs
to do is prepare, prepare and then prepare. Nothing kills time more
horridly than a DM searching through rulebooks for a quarter of an hour
at a time looking up stats or descriptions. Make sure everything you
need is right there in front of you and put bookmark in important
pages of important books so you can find references quickly. Have
plenty of written descriptions on hand for as many people, places, and
events as practical. You should encourage the same of your players.
(Such as having prepared notes for their magic items, special abilities,
spells, etc.).
: As a DM, do you consciously try to advance game play or do you allow
: the players to choose their own pace? Or is it something in between?
I prefer to let the players control their desitiny as much as possible,
even if they grind the game to a halt. I don't want them to ever feel
that they are being led by the nose. IF they start screwing around,
I let them waste their time. Occassionally, if I feel the need to
push them I remind them that "time is passing," meaning that events
are progressing in the world - monsters are moving, spells are expiring,
plots are being unleashed, etc.
I really think the key to keeping the game moving is the players. Different
players have different styles and consequently will have different objectives
during a session. One player might be really into tole playing his character's
personality (which he spent hours developing) and another might be really into
solving the current mystery the DM has placed in front of them. Another one
might be interested in hanging out and having a good time (and if we happen
to get some plaing done, that's nice too). When different players have
different ideas of what should be going on in a session, someone always
looses out. While the role player is engaged in conversation with the
bar-hop about taxes, the mystery soolver is starting to boil over because
everyone is wasting time talking to the wrong NPC, or at least asking the
wrong questions. Meanwhile, the guy who's just there to hang out wishes
everyone would lighten up a little so he could talk about baseball.
None of these people has the wrong idea about how to play the game, but their
ideas don't agree so the session is not a quality one. Somehow, you need to
get your players all to agree on what the game is supposed to be like. Once
everyone agrees, I think quality time will happen automatically.
--
Paul J. Zoski e-mail: pj...@ms.uky.edu
718 Patterson Office Tower WWW: http://www.ms.uky.edu/~pjz1
Office Phone: (606)-257-6806 Fax: (606)-257-4078
Helf! Somebbodfy stole my spel cheecker.
Dan Moloney
In article <4ugek8$c...@a3bsrv.nai.net>, allu...@nai.net (DawnMage) says:
>
>sis...@trans4.neep.wisc.edu (Jim Sisolak) wrote:
>
>>have beat the odds through skill. Five PC deaths only heightens the
>>accomplishment of the 6th which lives to 15th level.
>
>And SKILL should be the operative term. A player who dies through bad
>dice is not dying because of lack of skill, but because of some stupid
>polyhedron-shaped pieces of plastic
Luck is part of life, like it or not. How many times do we see a survivor
just walk away from an horrific car/plane accident while another person
trip down their back stairs and dies? Just because a person/PC is skilled
at whatever they do does not mean that they cannot be the victim of bad
luck. And PC's ,by their profession are in a hazardous line of work
therefor they are more subject to bad incidences ie death.
>
>And what about DMs like me who want to eventually drag out the
>high-level adventures?
Do what i do bring them in as an new character with the same XP as their
old character but only award them XP for the parts of the adventure in which
the new character participated. I find the idea of bringing in a new
level one character to a party of higher lvl characters, eg lvl 6, to be
ridiculous and i have found my system to work well, while not penalising
character too severely for dying it does discourage them from being stupid
and thus chewing through characters.
Jim Sisolak
"D" == DawnMage <allu...@nai.net> writes:
D> sis...@trans4.neep.wisc.edu (Jim Sisolak) wrote:
D> And SKILL should be the operative term. A player who dies through bad
D> dice is not dying because of lack of skill, but [....]
Why should SKILL be the sole determinant? Consider card games: in almost
all of them, *either* bad luck or lack of skill will cause you to lose most
of the hands. I'd get laughed at if I said I ought not to lose a game of
cribbage just because of "bad cards".
Skill is necessary, but it is not sufficient to guarantee survival; it just
tips the odds in your favor.
Part of the fun of the game is that it's almost real -- the PCs and NPCs
act like real people with real motivations, fears, etc. In real life,
people fail, even die, through bad luck even if they have lots of skill and
ability. The fun is lessened unless the game reflects this.
[..hard to get to high levels if you let players die from bad luck..]
D> Can you see how LONG it will take for me to run that high-level
D> adventure at this rate?
Yes, I know from experience. However, the (permanent) death rate drops at
higher levels, since such magic as Raise Dead and Wish come into play.
Also, skill becomes *more* of a factor at higher levels because you have
more abilities at your disposal, so again, the death rate for skilled
players drops.
--
JS
Marc Quattromani
In article <4uln0h$2...@t3.mscf.uky.edu>,
Paul James Zoski <pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu> wrote:
>I prefer to let the players control their desitiny as much as possible,
>even if they grind the game to a halt. I don't want them to ever feel
>that they are being led by the nose. IF they start screwing around,
>I let them waste their time. Occassionally, if I feel the need to
>push them I remind them that "time is passing," meaning that events
>are progressing in the world - monsters are moving, spells are expiring,
>plots are being unleashed, etc.
>
>I really think the key to keeping the game moving is the players. Different
>players have different styles and consequently will have different objectives
>during a session.
I agree with you, Paul, on the whole. But I couldn't resist pointing out
a few things :-)
You earlier stated that quality time occured when the players were having
fun. Letting players grind the game to a halt generally results in players
not having fun, in my experience. It is sometimes necessary but it can
put a damper on the session.
Also, as you point, individual players have individual preferences. In
most groups I've ref'd, there have been dominant players who, if left
without any ref nudging, might direct the party entirely in directions
they prefer, leaving other players with other preferences less than
full enjoyment.
That is, letting the players go their own way, puts the ball entirely
in their hands but can still result in dissatisfied players. As a
matter of reffing philosophy, some refs might say, "so what, each
player has the chance to shape events." Having seen many players
blossom with a little encouragement, my own philosophy is to try to
keep all players engaged and having fun and that can require a little
intervention, although I prefer to keep it to a minimum.
Marc Quattromani
Wayne J. Rasmussen
DawnMage (allu...@nai.net) wrote:
: sis...@trans4.neep.wisc.edu (Jim Sisolak) wrote:
: >have beat the odds through skill. Five PC deaths only heightens the
: >accomplishment of the 6th which lives to 15th level.
: And SKILL should be the operative term. A player who dies through bad
: dice is not dying because of lack of skill, but because of some stupid
: polyhedron-shaped pieces of plastic that go on the same exorbitant
: price scale as the rest of the TSR product line.
I would suggest that a more skilled could reduce the effects of bad die
rolls better than a less skilled player. You might consider it bad to
die in a situation and blame it on "bad die rolls" when the smart play
would have been to avoid the situation or try a different strategem.
: And what about DMs like me who want to eventually drag out the
: high-level adventures? Let's suppose one character out of 3 lives at
: each of 1st-4th levels.
I suspect that your players are not playing the various situations well or
that you just have a high attrition campaign.
: Now let's suppose the DM has 6 players and
: wants to eventually run an adventure for 5-7 characters of levels
: 9-12. Let us examine the way the levels stack up, assuming the
: characters advance at a relatively fast pace of 2 adventures per level
: on levels 1-5:
: LEVEL OF CHARACTERS
: ADVENTURE# PLR.1 PLR.2 PLR.3 PLR.4 PLR.5 PLR.6
: BEGINNING 1 1 1 1 1 1
: 1 died died 1 died died 1
: 2 1 died 2 died 1 died
: 3 died 1 2 died died 1
: 4 died died 3 died 1 2
: Can you see how LONG it will take for me to run that high-level
: adventure at this rate?
If you really want to run high level campaign then start them as high
level. If you want to run a campaign where characters grow to high level
you could have a problem. But those characters which reach high level
will be loved by their players.
BTW, just posting death stats isn't great for determining your
"problem". We don't know the characters and their abilities, the rules
you use (like critical hits), and the detail of the situations they were in.
wayne
Lori Reaves
One scenario that has NOT been discussed (while I was watching, anyway) is
adding a new player to an existing 'high level' group.
New players usually have not acclimated to the group gestalt yet. They
do things that the other players dont realize they are going to do, and
vice-versa. (Like charge headfirst into a bandit ambush even though the
group KNEW it was there {g})(Or insult the perfectly rational Ogre Chief
that the group thief had been trading with for the past 2 years {ugh})
(Or... nevermind. that one is just TOO painful to relate.)
Starting such a player as first level insures they will play 'second fiddle'
in the band until they DO know how to read the score.
Having a player start at a higher level will allow her more leeway to chart
her own course for a longer time, and disrupt group play for that much
longer.
eric
*posting using his wife's account*
The Amorphous Mass
lo...@netcom.com (Lori Reaves) wrote:
>New players usually have not acclimated to the group gestalt yet. They
>do things that the other players dont realize they are going to do, and
>vice-versa. (Like charge headfirst into a bandit ambush even though the
>group KNEW it was there {g})(Or insult the perfectly rational Ogre Chief
>that the group thief had been trading with for the past 2 years {ugh})
>(Or... nevermind. that one is just TOO painful to relate.)
Is it anything like the elf ranger who, when confronted by a grove
of treants, reacted by slashing and burning until they managed to
restrain him? The evil grey dwarf priest in the party ended up mending
fences and working out a set of conditions for the elf's release. The
elf's player had never run a ranger before...
Good points about level advancement though.
----------------
The Amorphous Mass (james-r...@uiowa.edu)
aka Hyacinth, elven ambassador to the Human Islands
Marc Quattromani
In article <lorirDw...@netcom.com>, Lori Reaves <lo...@netcom.com> wrote:
>One scenario that has NOT been discussed (while I was watching, anyway) is
>adding a new player to an existing 'high level' group.
>Having a player start at a higher level will allow her more leeway to chart
>her own course for a longer time, and disrupt group play for that much
>longer.
It's a problem and it's a possible reason to start them low, but it's
managable. Usually new players are pretty quiet while they learn the
ropes, regardless of level, in my experience.
An alternate problem, one that I've experienced as a player, is lack
of engagement when you're first level, everyone else is 7-10th level
and the ref tells you levels will be few and far in between. I don't
mind doing my time but many sessions of being essentially useless
isn't real exciting. There are better ways to spend my time (and I
fonud them; I don't play in that game.)
Marc Quattromani
Jamie Nossal
Lori Reaves wrote:
>
> New players usually have not acclimated to the group gestalt yet.
> Starting such a player as first level insures they will play 'second fiddle'
> in the band until they DO know how to read the score.
True. You can include the DM on that point, too. I believe it is a good
idea to keep things simple (read low level) for new players until the DM
(and player for that matter) can get acclimated to one another's style.
hnei...@access.awinc.com
ma...@pyramid.com ("Marc Quattromani") wrote:
>In article <a7wcsD...@shakala.com>,
>Barbara Haddad <mel...@shakala.com> wrote:
>> It's something I wouldn't do as a ref. If the PC died (just like if
>>an NPC died) and is unrecoverable, then the player gets to start a new PC
>>at level 1. Of course, if they join up with a high level party, they
>>won't be level 1 for long, since they will probably earn enough XP to
>>gain levels at a truly swift rate. (& this has happened several times in
>>my games & within a week or two, said newbie PC's are usually 4th or 5th
>>level if they play even half-way smart {and do support-role things like
>>drag off the wounded, NOT try fighting in front-rank, use 2nd-rank
>>weapons or missile fire}.)
>But why is it better to start a PC at 1st and have them zoom through
>the ranks into 2-3 weeks to 5th level? Why is that a better character,
>by any measure, than one who just came in at 5th level, but with the
>appropriate background to explain how he reached 5th level?
>In a campaign that begins at fist level, it usually takes a fair number
>of sessions to hit 5th level; usually 15-20 in my worlds. If someone dies
>and restarts at 1st and hits 5th level in 4 sessions, then why has this
>one PC hit 5th so quickly when all others took 5 times as long? Why don't
>all 1st level PCs tag along with a high level group to get some quick
>levels?
Simple answer: if this were not a Player Character, the group would
not accept him, as he couldn't pull his own weight. Alternatively, he
would quickly perish (think about how often 7th level+ adventurers
encounter area effect damaging traps, spells, etc. that would do
enough damage to kill a novice). In my view, this is an example of
the playstyle that says player characters have "PC" branded on their
forheads so all the other PC's know they have to let this guy stay
with the group, regardless of whether there is any logical reason to
in game context (much like the inability to kick out the thief who
steals from his own party members).
>If just observing and mildly participating with a high level group is
>all it takes to hit 5th level, it would seem that training videos
>would be extremely hot sellers in such a world.
>The re-start at 1st and zip to 5th level is standard D&D with a long
>history behind it. It works well enough and I certainly won't tell
>anyone not to use it. But it has sufficient inconsistencies in it
>that restarting near the level of the party seems equally or even
>more sound.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with starting a new PC at a level
consistent with the rest of the party. I find problems tend to
develop, however, when a new player is started at a level commensurate
with the party - better to run some lower level adventures to teach
the new player how the game works, and let them get used to their
character's abilities gradually. Even this is often not practical if
your group doesn't want to "break" from the usual party for several
sessions to build up the new guy!
hnei...@access.awinc.com
allu...@nai.net (DawnMage) wrote:
>sis...@trans4.neep.wisc.edu (Jim Sisolak) wrote:
>>have beat the odds through skill. Five PC deaths only heightens the
>>accomplishment of the 6th which lives to 15th level.
>And SKILL should be the operative term. A player who dies through bad
>dice is not dying because of lack of skill, but because of some stupid
>polyhedron-shaped pieces of plastic that go on the same exorbitant
>price scale as the rest of the TSR product line.
HERE HERE - if the only way PC#6 made 15th level, where 1-5 died, can
be summed up as "luck of the dice", that's not skill - it's blind
luck.
Yes, you can improve your odds through skill. However, no one is
immune to random chance. The two schools of thought we see warring on
this, and similar, threads, can generally be summed up, IMO, as "The
world's a tough place and sometimes bad things happen to those who
don't deserve it" vs "The players are heroes, and heroes shouldn't
lose solely due to poor luck".
Both are valid playstyles. My personal view is that the players are
heroes, and deserve some protection from random chance. If the DM
isn't certain whether he's coddling the players, he should look at how
often "bad luck" gets them. Assuming a reasonable adventure, only
really poor luck should result in a need to fudge, so if you have to
fudge every encounter, or even 10% of major encounters, this is
probably too much.
Paul B.
ma...@pyramid.com ("Marc Quattromani") wrote:
>But why is it better to start a PC at 1st and have them zoom through
>the ranks into 2-3 weeks to 5th level? Why is that a better character,
>by any measure, than one who just came in at 5th level, but with the
>appropriate background to explain how he reached 5th level?
After a long group discussion, we have tried a new twist, at least to
us, to this question. All the PC's start at third level, to benefit
from any WP and NWP additions, HP and THAC0's, and other miscellany,
but the character's have 0 experience points. No one gains a level
until they have reached the proper exp level for fourth level.
We only recently begun, but the players seem to enjoy the extra's.
I had the 6 PC's in a cave fighting 12 osquips, and haven't seen
players fear for their lives like they did for a long while. They all
expected to die in that encounter. If a beast had 13 HP remaining,
someone would do 11 points of damage, so in the last 2 rounds, the
remaining 7 of the beasts had like 1 or 2 hit points left. They all
PO'ed 'cause they used up almost all of their spells, no small feat
since their all either single or multi-classed spellcasters.
Paul