Adapting Troupe Play to D&D

[mythusmage]

Ars Magica has a particular type of party composition. This consists of one relatively powerful character, two or so somewhat less powerful characters, with the rest of the party consisting of 'help'. In a sense an Ars Magica adventuring party has one star, two or three supporting cast, and the rest minor roles.

An important note is that the player is not limited to one character. The player is limited to one active character per session. Which character is active depends on the adventure being run, and on character availability. For example, if one's mid level fighter is busy for some reason, then one may be limited to a low level fighter instead. So one would have a stable of characters one could play, depending on circumstances.

With that in mind, how would you adapt Ars Magica type troupe play to D&D? Once I have a few responses I'll give you my suggestions.

 

[Aaron2]

Ars Magica has a particular type of party composition. This consists of one relatively powerful character, two or so somewhat less powerful characters, with the rest of the party consisting of 'help'. In a sense an Ars Magica adventuring party has one star, two or three supporting cast, and the rest minor roles.

This is one thing I don't understand about Ars Magica. Why would someone choose to play a Grog character instead of his Companion character?

An important note is that the player is not limited to one character. The player is limited to one active character per session. Which character is active depends on the adventure being run, and on character availability.

This is what I did for my old Star Wars campaign. Each player would create three character; a bridge crew member, a stormtrooper and a TIE Fighter pilot. Depending on what type of adventure was occuring, the player would pick his character. So, for example, if the adventure was a ground assault, each player would play his Stormtrooper character. When creating characters, Each player had a set number of level to allocate among the three character. The character of that type with the most levels was the highest ranking character. For example, on player might allocate 6 of his levels to his Stormtrooper, making that character the leader of the other players. But he might only have one or two levels for his TIE Fighter pilot, so another player would lead the fighter wing, etc. For D&D's purposes, you might split the character types into Magic, Fighting, and Sneaking/Spying roles. If the current mission was some sort of Covert Ops, each player would bring his Sneaky character to the party (with maybe one Magic or Fighter for support).

You'd also need some sort of defined social status system to track both a character's status within a group and the groups status in the world at large. This way every character would have a vested interest in the goals of the group at large.


Aaron

 

[howandwhy99]

This is one thing I don't understand about Ars Magica. Why would someone choose to play a Grog character instead of his Companion character?

Back when 3rd edition Ars Magica was being released we played according to the book's suggestion. Each of us rolled up a magi character to fill out the covenant. Then we each made a Companion character to play during adventuring. These accompanied a sole magi on journeys, so it was actually easier to identify with the Companion characters as their was more continuity with them.

Finally, we made a large group of Grog character which were more like hirelings than anything else. Sometimes the GM played them and sometimes we did, but we created them all as a party so no one had sole ownership. (they were mostly utilitarian or comedic types)

 

[Someone]

This is one thing I don't understand about Ars Magica. Why would someone choose to play a Grog character instead of his Companion character?

Everyone plays the grogs - you have to choose between playing you wizard or your companion.

The simplest way I can think to mimic ars magica´s style is: make wizards more powerful in spellcasting, giving then the ability to spontaneously cast spells instead of having to memorize them, give them access to a wider spell list, and ban other spellcasting classes like druid and cleric. Give them less skill points (or require them to pick a large number of required skills, so they have less chioces). Other characters are normal, more mundane classes like fighter, rogue, ranger, etc of the same level. Also, make a bunch of lower level characters with NPC classes -warrior, expert- that everyone play.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I've pondered about this as well. Figure the way DnD is put together makes different levels of experience far more noticable than it does in Ars Magica. But that's skill based vs level based gaming?

The variant I considered was having all characters roughly similar level, but use different types of action dice. 'Grogs' get none, 'Companions' get D20 modern style action dice and 'Mages' get pumped up action dice - either much stronger ones - like Arcana Unearthed. Or possibly regenerating ones - like Spycraft. Perhaps both. Figure that would give the mages more influence over the script, which seemed to be part of the point of the game.

XP probably wouldn't get used - opt for deciding when it's time to level everyone up.

Havn't managed to thrash it out properly yet...



Why did anyone want to play grogs?

Grogs were good disposable fun. Easy to play and doesn't really matter what happens to them.

Also, mages advanced much faster studying at home than they did adventuring... We often ended arguing about who had to go. Companions are normally away doing stuff for half the year and most of our group had non combatant companions - found them to be generally more useful to us.

 

[Tonguez]

Aren't they called PC and Cohort in DnD?

 

[shilsen]

Aren't they called PC and Cohort in DnD?

I thought it was spellcaster and non-spellcaster

 

[mythusmage]

I had this idea. It would work best as a convention event, trying to do it at home would present problems.

You start with a standard 4 character group. Each PC gets one henchman and two hirelings. Each character; PC, henchman, and hirelings, has a player. Yes, that means 8 players just for the hirelings. A total of 16 players all together. Which is why this is best done at a convention.

Now here's the deal. Only the PC players interact with the DM. Those who play henchmen only interact with the PC they serve, and the hirelings they lead. Those who play hirelings can only interact with the henchman player. Or the PC player if he gives them a direct command or otherwise initiates social intercourse. Or, in the case of emergency.

Naturally there's going to be crosstalk between people, but having something of a formal arrangement should keep confusion to a low roar.

And of course adventure and encounter design will have to go through a few changes, what with all the extra characters of lesser puissance running around. I should expect combat to be de-emphasized in favor of social interaction and intrique.

If run as a tourney set up prizes thusly:

Best PC
Best Henchman
Best Hireling
Best Overall Player
Best Team

Considering the size of the group a 3 part tourney adventure would probably work best. But if an open-gaming event a single session might be better.

So there you have a glimpse into my febrile mind. Comments?

Just though of something: Assistant DMs would help. One to deal with the henchmen, another the assist with the hirelings. Maybe a third to handle inter-team affairs. So along with PC teams you would have a DM team.

Your thoughts?

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

I had considered something like this with Spycraft. Everyone gets three PCs, and a team is assembled for every mission. Every PC gains a base level of XP regardless of adventure action, but only active PCs gain story based XP or XP from unused action dice.

For D&D, you have a problem with making a LotR type party. While the level differences would be large within the party to start, say between the hobbits and Gimli or Aragorn, it is a workable idea. They would take on the role of protectors while the lower level party members could have fun just staying out of the way. It would also encourage the Players to make smart choices about the path they take and the battles they fight. The lower level PCs would eventually narrow the gap with each encounter, and equiptment could be used to offset the difference in the short turn, (Frodo was nearly the best equiped of the lot). Gandalf is the one that throws out all balance. If played by a PC, you have the bulk of the parties power in one person, and you either have to give him the spotlight or spend most of your time negating him . If run as an NPC, Dues ex Mechana.


The best way I can see troupe play working is at low levels, with one PC at level 7-10 at most, and the rest at levels 1-5. You would need to lower the average XP gained, I'd say by half, so that you could have a real camaign before the leader gets to high. At even 10th level, a wizard isn't a do everything guy yet, a fighter can be overwhelmed by weaker opponents, and a cleric can heal most injuries, but cannot yet alter fundamentals of the game like death easily.

For lower level PCs, fighters, Rogues, Bards, and Sorcerers would do best. Fighters have enough HPs to last a while, especially if funded with good weapons and armor. Sorcerers have lower level spells, but more of them. Bards and Rogues have skills, which can have some heafty bonuses at low levels with the right ability scores and feats. Clerics would do well, also.

One thing to consider would be to grant everyone +2 skill points, one higher HD, and higher than average ability scores. These would give lower level PCs a much greater chance of survival, and would not be unbalacing if granted to only one high level PC. It might seem that you might as well just give them a level instead, but these would be eclipsed by higher level abilies fairly quickly. Take two identical 5th level Fighters, and give one ranks in Diplomacy and +2 Con. The fight would still be close. Make it a level or two, and the outcome would be fairly obvious.


The greatest change would have to be the game itself. You would have to shy away from combat, both as players and DM.

 

[Aaron2]

You start with a standard 4 character group. Each PC gets one henchman and two hirelings. Each character; PC, henchman, and hirelings, has a player. Yes, that means 8 players just for the hirelings. A total of 16 players all together. Which is why this is best done at a convention.

Do you expect all 16 players to run at the same time/table? That's a bit much.


Aaron