Getting the Band Together, Part 2

Let's use some specifics from my recent PC planning sessions (both in-person and via email) to illustrate some of the points from my prior post.  Some of the names have been changed to protect the innocent.

Player 1 is a roleplayer and enjoys both story elements and gamist elements and is a pleasure to have in the group.  She dove right in to my background and setting information and came up with a concept (scoutlike halfling rogue) that was tightly connected to the gameworld.  She developed a few NPCs (family members) and gave me some additional ideas for the campaign, writing out a backstory (and names!) for herself and immediate family members.  In this way, she became a contributor to the campaign itself.  I will have no issues connecting her character to the game or story elements and she provides her own motivation.  I just have to make sure I can incorporate her creativity and keep up with her work product!

Player 2 is a blended player with both roleplaying and powergamer tendencies but doesn't really have the time to create the extensive backstories of Player 1.  He told me what he wanted overall (a thuggish half-orc barbarian with a revenge backstory) and was eager for me to help fill in his details.  Via mutliple emails, we worked through his origin, came up with a name, and explained how his character has narrowly avoided imprisonment and being ostracized in the predominately human and halfling campaign area.  He also asked for a specific supernatural ability -- a sort of sixth sense -- we negotiated this and I have a secret "disadvantage" that I'll be springing on him in mid-campaign.  While I had to do a little more work with him on character creation, he will be relatively low-maintenance once the campaign begins so long as I can keep the revenge element present in a significant portion of the adventures.  We may have to shift his focus if and when he gets his revenge.

Player 3 is one of the DMs in the group and is a flamboyant roleplaying, team-focused, and storyteller type.  Typically, he waited for everyone else to declare their concepts and chose the "leftover" role for balance purposes and (predicably?) ended up as the cleric.  While I had something in mind for him, he very much wanted to go his own way and created a character with a dark yet whimsical secret.  He created his character but left the details of his insertion into the campaign up to me.  In this way he can be both a team player (as a cleric) while indulging in his desire for playing over-the-top, humorous characters.  As with Player 1, Player 3 will not require a lot of maintenance, providing his own motivation and enjoyment.

Player 4 is a returning player who last played in 3.5 edition games.  He's a powergamer that enjoys playing chaotic, id-driven characters as a way to blow off steam and have fun.  An analytical type, he is also one of those hyperintelligent players that likes to see if he can break the game.  Fortunately, he is good-natured and recognizes that creativity is not one of his strong suits.  I suggested a concept that fit his predilection (a Mad Martigan swordsman type with a background as a minor knight -- a character that I originally had envisioned as an NPC) and he was off to the races, diving into the character creation rules to maximize his character's potency.  He actually appreciated me supplying him with a concept, background, and name.  So long as I provide him with an opportunity to engage in his wild side and give him a chance to be powerful, he will be a fun and non-destructive element in the game.

Player 5 is a sardonic, introverted player with interest in both gamist and story-driven elements, though she is not a huge roleplayer.  She often plays a particular type of character (usually an elven druid or other support-oriented divine caster) and has decided to "branch out" a bit by playing a human bounty hunter that found religion/philosophy and became a monk.  As with player 2, I will likely be doing back-and-forth emails with her to get the story elements to her liking so she can enter the game fully-formed.  My challenge will be to provide her with engaging story elements and combats that allow her to be rewarded for her non-standard character choice.

Player 6, while a good low-key "blended" player, is relatively disengaged by the character creation and campaign launch process.  He hasn't replied to my many emails and has committed only to playing a Wizard.  No race, no name, no background ... utterly generic.  His wife (player 5) has warned me that he'll procrastinate to the end.  So I can either keep paddling upstream to get some more information out of him, simply assign him a character (as I did with player 4) which he will likely not appreciate ... or I can go with the flow and challenge my own need to develop everything.  Maybe I can let go.  Maybe I can just wing it and let Player 6 be the mystery man in the group.  Since I am going for a "sandbox" type of game allowing the PCs to do as they will unbound by a central story, maybe having a "sandbox" PC is okay too ... the PC that is in the process of discovering himself or possibly even revealing himself to himself via a curse or mental illness.

So there it is -- this process of character generation and campaign launching, played out with real players with differing motives and personalities.  By cooperatively working with the players to give them what they want -- but within your previously-established framework -- you maximize the likelihood that they will take ownership of their fledgling characters and the campaign.  This in turn will generate many story ideas and character interactions that you would not have imagined on your own, turning the campaign into a collaborative process.

Back in the Saddle and 5th Edition

There is no excuse for a 15 month blogging absence -- a virtual blog lifetime.  Other life elements intrude, excuses abound.  But like a bad case of the clap, I keep coming back to D&D.  Or it to me.

I have been sucked back, simply, due to 5th edition D&D (I refuse to call it "Next," unless they promise to call the next version after that "Last."). 

While the playtest versions (as of now) are only about 60-70% complete at best, it is in playable form finally and I like what I am seeing.  It's enough to get me to run a campaign using it.

Good News Part 1: the game has taken many of the best elements from prior editions and mostly merged them:

* ability checks a la many OSR systems are the new default, making skills both relevant and simple to execute
* simplification (relative to 3e and 4e, anyway)
* return to class-based design rather than MMO-inspired "role"-based design of 4e
* cribbing from a few of 4e's strengths such as at-will spells
* A flatter power curve (more like OD&D/2nd edition)

In sum, it feels like a streamlined version of 3e with 4e/OSR elements.  What is still lacking:

* The monsters overall have relatively low ACs.  This may be intentional.
* Multiclassing is still an unknown.  Whether it will look like AD&D (level up in multiple classes simultaneously, splitting xp), 3e (add a class as you go) or 4e (get a little multiclass functionality from a feat) is anyone's guess.  I am guessing it will be more 3e-ish, though the only way that worked for spellcasters was to use prestige classes or take feats to boost their caster levels.  I would be open to an AD&D version too, though once you took your classes you were locked in ...
* We still need a few more "core" classes, like the bard and (for me, anyway) the sorcerer.  I wouldn't mind seeing a warlock, either.  Essentially, if a class' features can't be added as a subclass to an existing class, or if it has some unusual mechanic, it needs to be its own class.  For my money, the 3e bard (bardic music effects), sorcerer (spontaneous casting/wizard alternative), warlock (eldritch blast, unique warlock powers and invocations) all justify their own classes; they can't be wizard variants, other than possibly the sorcerer.
* The spell list, magic items, and bestiary are sparse.  More content will be needed to justify an end product.

All in all, I am encouraged.  I want to play this version of the game. Moreover, I am encouraged that the designers are taking their time and listening to feedback.

That Old Feelin'

It started when I put my computer game habit to the side and picked up my pen & paper games again.  I'd never let go of PnP gaming, having maintained a place in Brodie's 3e/4e game as a player and 3e DM for the last 12 years, more or less.  But I noticed, frankly, that I wasn't being the kind of husband, father, and man I wanted to be while fully absorbed in computer games.  I started seeing clients whose marriages were falling apart due to computer and video games.  It was time to let it go.

But D&D is a different animal, to me anyway. It's a hobby, theater of the mind, a creative outlet, and a social occasion.  For me, computer games were a suppressant, a tranquilizer.  D&D expands my real life and engages both sides of my aging brain.

So the box(es) of D&D materials beckoned, and the writing started.  Once the writing (blogging, and campaign-building) began, a need for an audience formed with it.  I suspect this is a partial reason why people blog -- the dual need to "get it all down on paper" and express oneself combined with the very basic need to communicate on a brain-to-brain basis with those of a similar bent.

And then the old feeling came -- the need to DM again.  I suppose I knew it all along, but having written up Dunlyle, I needed to experience it, and not just to playtest it either.  I wasn't ready to just file it away or be content to occasionally pull it out and tweak it.  I needed to feel it and let it live.  Cue the Dr. Frankenstein analogies.

It will also give me a chance to playtest Joe Bloch's excellent Adventures Dark & Deep.

My Regular Game and the 4th Edition Rant

My longest-running regular game meets today.  Run by my friend (and best man) Brodie, it's a homebrew 4th edition campaign.  It's story-heavy, which is the only thing that's kept me in the game beyond friendship. The group itself is wonderful. Of the six players, two are women. Everyone is an adult in their 40s with jobs and their own personal living space. I enjoy their company and have socialized with all of them in non-gaming settings.

And yet I have to drag myself to this game -- my loathing for 4th edition is that strong.

The "I hate 4th edition" ship has sailed long ago.  Like many in my demographic, I tried to like it.  I bought the PHB and the Martial Powers warrior builder book.  I have suffered through two campaigns using this ridiculous rule system.  I have a mind to show up today with my Red Box (Erol Otus cover) Basic Set or Pathfinder and dare Brodie to switch rule systems.

My character -- a tiefling wizard I inherited -- has hit 11th level.  So now I must choose a "Paragon Path."  None of the paths in the PHB fit my concept.  My character is an egotistical bastard with an occasional nice streak.  I suppose I'll have to search on Brodie's WotC "insider" program to find an acceptable path from the various supplemental material out there.

The case against 4th edition:

• "Roles"
• "Encounters"
• Everything keyed to challenge ratings
• Near-impossibility of death
• Paragon Paths
• The entire "powers" concept -- I feel like a pro wrestler with my own finishing moves.
• The game serves the rules, rather than the reverse
• Tactical wargame feel
• Combat takes forever
• Binary Skill system does not allow for customization
• No saving throws -- DM rolls an attack roll.  "Save" to end an effect.
• No save or die
• wholesale changes to established settings to shoehorn Dragonborn and Tiefling into the mix
• abandonment of Greyhawk

The case for 4th edition:  Higher level play is slightly less bulky than 3.x.  Also, I like the way passive perception and insight are handled in-game.

Giving Meetup a Spin

I'll be giving Meetup a spin, using our local Fort Worth band of Gamers, The Order of the Funny-Shaped-Dice.  So far so good: I got a very quick response to my inquiry on a Pathfinder game.  It'll be good to get back in the saddle of actually playing regularly, whatever the edition.

I am hopeful.  The group seems to be mature, with real people with real jobs that take showers and whatnot.  So hope springs eternal.  I'm pretty sure that my closet gaming nature is partially informed by my fear of being thought to be an unwashed, unemployed, basement-living member of the gaming subculture.  Don't you just hate it when those little self-observations reveal your shallow-but-unfortunately-true ways of thinking?