Help me convince my players that the Cleric is cool

[Trainz]

Say nobody amongst a group of players wants to play a rogue. Turning around and running a campaign titled "City of a Million Traps" is not good DMing.

I surely don't intend to do that. I run a four players campaign. The party can be composed of anything. They can have 3 monks and a cleric. They can have 2 wizards, a rogue, and a cleric. They can have 3 sorcerors and a cleric. They can have the standard FCWR line-up. That's not being restrictive at all. I will forge my adventures based on whatever they pick.

I'm sure you would have a blast in that game.

 

[Trainz]

You know what, if I joined a new campaign and the DM said "you guys can play whatever you want, but one of you, just ONE of you must play a rogue", then I'd say "ME ! I'll do it !".

If anything, the DM is hinting that for SURE the campaign has something in store for a rogue character. It hints at major role-playing opportunities for such a character. It hints at SOMETHING, whatever it can be. I'd be a fool to pass the occasion up.

Often, when I'm a player, I let the other players pick what they want to play, then look at any area that has been left unfilled, and pick that, to make sure that the party will be ready for anything. I like playing all classes (except druid, bard, and ranger), I don't really care. For me, role-playing is less about what class you play then HOW you play it.

I can turn water into wine. Really.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I surely don't intend to do that. I run a four players campaign. The party can be composed of anything. They can have 3 monks and a cleric. They can have 2 wizards, a rogue, and a cleric. They can have 3 sorcerors and a cleric. They can have the standard FCWR line-up. That's not being restrictive at all. I will forge my adventures based on whatever they pick.

For three players, they can play whatever they like. It's the fourth player, the one who's browbeaten by the other three to play a cleric, who will wind up playing something other than he wanted. Sometimes, you have a player who's willing to suck it up for the team and can have fun playing a class that he doesn't really like. Then sometimes you have players who really just don't like a class, and will have noticably less fun being shoehorned into a particular role.

I'm sure you would have a blast in that game.

You know, I don't doubt this at all. The fact that you started this thread to try and appeal to your players, the fact that you spend as much time on your game as you do, leads me to believe it would be an honor and a privilege to play in your game.

Let me reiterate that I don't mean my comments to be an indictment on your game, Trainz, but rather a statement against a certain type of DMing, which your example happened to show traits of. I'm not trying to smear your DMing or your game, and I've no doubt in my mind that I'd have a ball playing in it.

Though I'd definitely be the guy emailing you various self-written prestige classes.

 

[Trainz]

Let me reiterate that I don't mean my comments to be an indictment on your game, Trainz, but rather a statement against a certain type of DMing, which your example happened to show traits of. I'm not trying to smear your DMing or your game, and I've no doubt in my mind that I'd have a ball playing in it.

I totally concede your point of view. We must always be weary of straight-jacket DM's and I've seen a few (like I mentioned in a previous post). You bring out absolutely valid points.

Though I'd definitely be the guy emailing you various self-written prestige classes.

I WILL quote you on that. Try to entice them into participating more.

NOT holding my breath.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Hellenic Anticlericalism & Olympic Tragedy

(i only read the title) clerics are powerful, clerics are a necessety to every adventurig group, clerics are fun to role play... but clerics are in absolutly no way cool.

As a fellow Hellene, I am ashamed by your lack of bravado and your disdain for a keeper of the Sacred Mysteries.

How about that basketball game though?

Damn, Greece should have won.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Without a DM, D&D Would Be as Shaky as a Fiddler on the Roof

Trainz, I have followed this thread from the beginning. I don't mean to attack you personally, but you have in this thread given an example of a certain style that I disagree with.

<Sir Pelenore draws his sword and steps forward to defend the King.>

Hold, friend.

You have a good point, but Trainz's intentions are pure.

Also, I'm sure you realize that someone has to instigate the gaming process in the first place.

Believe it or not ... although tyrants suck, leaders are necessary.

Try dancing without one.

 

[just__al]

I don't like the idea of DM's intentionally stacking the deck against the party by playing to their weaknesses.

See, I have a different take on the issue.

I try to mix things up so the following happen. (percentages are approximate)

10% of the time your character will be the perfect person to have there and the rest of the party would be very hard pressed without you.

10% of the time your character can't do much of anything but you've got the whole rest of the group to back you up.

10% of the time you are glad the party brought bob along (He's a cleric, fighter, bard, whatever) and the party would be totally boned without him

10% of the time you along with the rest of the party are woefully unprepared and you better run or at least try again later.

30% of the time you, along with the rest of the party bring your unique skills to the table and it's a good thing because there's something for everybody to do.

30% of the time you along with the rest of the party are there and contributing but your special skills are neither a bane or boon in the situation.

 

[Halivar]

See, I have a different take on the issue.

I try to mix things up so the following happen. (percentages are approximate)

What you just described happens naturally when you plan an objectively balanced campaign (i.e. not tooled specifically to the group).

 

[DarkMaster]

Say nobody amongst a group of players wants to play a rogue. Turning around and running a campaign titled "City of a Million Traps" is not good DMing.

Well I never do that, I am more the type of DM who says, OK what do you want to play? The player choose their character and I usually allow a lot of the variant classes from various books so the divine healer doesn't have to be a straight cleric.

Then I set them up somewhere in my world, as first level character they have to find something to do among the locals. Usually they end up with two or three possible "jobs" They choose what they think would be the best fit for their group and we go from here. An adventure path which initially requires no cleric might need one a few level later, the group then have to prepare themselves accordingly if they don't have a cleric or face the consequences. They can also decide to stop this adventure, if possible and face the consequence of their descision (Losing their reputation as hero or letting the princess die, Let the enemy won the war and see their country being completly sacked by the enemy, ect) then find another quest.

If in the adventure path they choosen they need to infiltrate a dungeon which contains thousands of trap, and they don't have a rogue, they will need to investigate about this dungeon (Again the rogue would be welcome for the gather info check) Then decide if it is worth it to hire a trap specialist to bring with them in the dungeon.

If none of the PC has enough social skills or magic to gather the required info and they don't have a rogue with trap skills, then yes they will all probably die from the traps, because their group was not well balanced for this. adventure.

 

[Arnwyn]

No, it's not. Because deciding on the type of campaign to play in is not only the DM's choice. It's the entire gaming group's choice. And if everyone but the DM wants to play in a campaign that does not require a cleric to survive, then the DM going forward with exactly the opposite is not fine.

Sure, it's the entire group's choice - if the DM wants to play such a campaign as well. So, I reiterate - it is fine if the DM tells them of the type of campaign he/she intends to run beforehand. If the players don't like it, one of them can DM. As you noted in your own post - the DM isn't a slave to the players' whims. If they don't like what the DM plans to run, one of them can DM instead. Problem solved.

You seem to be the kind of DM who would allow the PCs to "choose their own BBEG" as it were. So yeah, if the players have the option of avoiding the undead, then choosing to pit themselves against undead without a cleric is a make-your-bed-now-lie-in-it kind of scenario. Great.

Most certainly. Because I allow the players to choose whatever class they want to play, I have to be that kind of DM. If they decide that they don't want a cleric in their party, for example, then they've decided that they aren't interested in dungeon-crawling. It's their decision, and that's fine.