What issues should a new group settle up front?

[farscapesg1]

Well, due to the current campaign I am in, I would have to say that PC relations would be the biggest issue.

After our last campaign TPK'd, the DM decided to start fresh and told all the players to create characters that would work together this time. At first I thought all would be well, until we started playing It appears that no-one understands the concept of "working together". Our warlock is supposed to be CN but is being played Chaotic Stupid (doing things like running off with the only light source because he wants to be in the middle of everything, leaving half the party in the dark). Our druid is a haughty, derogatory, bad-mouthing elf that looks down upon every other non-elven character as being inconsequential. Apparantly, the only two characters willing to risk themselves to help the rest of the group is the cleric and paladin (both LG followers of Heironeous).

Other issues are;

How much time is spent playing the game vs other activities (eating, talking, etc.)

How big of an issue is it to start the game on time.

What happens to characters when the the player can't make the session

How many people have to make the session to make it worth trying to game.

How is food/drinks going to be handled for the games.

 

[Shadowslayer]

Well, while I can see where the idea of not wanting the GM totally dictate the game, I do think it is the GM's prerogative to decide on a campaign style/world.

I'd go along with that...but it only goes so far. I've always viewed the world setting as the DMs character...but it should be up to the players as to what kind of stories to pursue in said world.

On the other hand, extreme variances on the core of the game should be hammered out with the players. This is mainly in the case of DMs who like to drop stuff like "there are no elves in my game, because they're dumb. Same for Halflings. And by the way, there are no clerics either." As a player, I like to have a say in that sort of thing. You may want to share your "vision on how the game ought to be played", but rest assured, you're probably the only one at the table who wants you to share it.

 

[Parlan]

On the other hand, extreme variances on the core of the game should be hammered out with the players. This is mainly in the case of DMs who like to drop stuff like "there are no elves in my game, because they're dumb. Same for Halflings. And by the way, there are no clerics either." As a player, I like to have a say in that sort of thing. You may want to share your "vision on how the game ought to be played", but rest assured, you're probably the only one at the table who wants you to share it.

Changes like this both me more than they should. I had one DM want elves to have green skin. No changes to the crunch, but it just -bothered- me every time I remembered it.

I would also love to play a core races, core books only campaign at some poin.

Heck, I'd like to just PLAY at some point. Stoopid RL, it sucks.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

I love ALL styles, and I also loving having fun. One common rule we have is not letting our personal/emotional issues come up at the session. We all have agreed that when we get together to game, we do it and have fun.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

The biggest problems I have encountered over the last 25 years with multiple groups is a: how non-attending players want their characters handled (i.e. as an NPC by the DM or run by another player-both have their pros and cons) and b: How much levity is allowed in the game. The group I currently play with has been together off and on since the late 70s and with that much history we're constantly cutting up. Newbies that have tried gaming with us are surprised but it. In an average 6 hour session we probably get in 4 good hours of gaming.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

The biggest problems I have encountered over the last 25 years with multiple groups is a: how non-attending players want their characters handled (i.e. as an NPC by the DM or run by another player-both have their pros and cons)

This is a good example of why it's important to discuss these issues - because it's incomprehensible to me that it would be a huge, major issue.

About the only thing I would want to establish is that I'm not interested in playing if my character can die while I'm absent - I'm happy to have any character I play die the most meaningless of deaths, but I want to be present for the end of their story.

 

[The_Universe]

You absolutely should make sure you and the other players are speaking the same language when you talk about phrases like "immersive", "role-playing, not roll-playing", "munchkins" or what have you. Don't presume that the correct answer is "obvious" and use these catchphrases: give your players examples of the kind of encounters you'll give them, the sort of behaviour you think it unacceptable, etc.

Fantastic advice. Sample encounters and their potential consequences are pure genius! Genius, I say!

 

[GQuail]

Fantastic advice. Sample encounters and their potential consequences are pure genius! Genius, I say!

I often tell people I'm a genius: now I've got someone else backing up my claims.

Yeah, it might take the DM a minute to think up and write them down, but it'll make it absolutely clear what might happen in game. Outright give them an example of how stupid they have to be before your "PCs only die if you act stupid" rule trips, or if you're going to fudge some combats to keep your plot NPCs alive, let them know that's the kind of game you're going to run.

Fundamentally, it's for your own benefit. It's kind of like how I could sit down one evening and watch an episode of The Prisoner, Lost, Justice League and Family Guy. All of these things can be enjoyable to me, as long as I'm in the mood for them and know what I'm getting into. A GM who doesn't let you know you're going to be playing a Conan-esque game and you go in expecting something more akin to He-Man isn't helping his game one bit.

(Obvious exception: sometimes the whole point of a game is you don't know the genre entirely. One example would be someone who tells you you're playing a modern day game of whatever genre, when it slowly becomes apparent it's actually a Cthulhu horror game, or a fantasy game where sci-fi tropes start to pour in until it becomes clear you're the post apocalyptic remains of an old civilization, or something. That kind of game can be quite an experience to play, but the GM still has to make sure he has all his players on th e same page re: tone and what have you when he starts.)

 

[The Sigil]

I'll add two things...

1 - The PCs need to decide how they will divide the loot ("auction method", "everyone takes turns grabbing a magic item method" or whatever).

2 - The PCs need to set a "marching order" and elect a party caller (to use bD&D parlance) - outside of combat, I only listen to the party caller; everything else is "unofficial discussion of what we're going to do." That way, I don't get any "I was just kidding" arguments. Of course, in combat, each player is asked individually what he will do when his turn comes up, but it's easier on me to have to deal with one person representing the whole party and force them to cooperate amongst themselves than it is for me to try to rule on everyone doing their own thing at once.

I also ask them to have a party mapper, but that generally doesn't work much any more.

--The Sigil

 

[farscapesg1]

2 - The PCs need to set a "marching order" and elect a party caller (to use bD&D parlance) - outside of combat, I only listen to the party caller; everything else is "unofficial discussion of what we're going to do." That way, I don't get any "I was just kidding" arguments. Of course, in combat, each player is asked individually what he will do when his turn comes up, but it's easier on me to have to deal with one person representing the whole party and force them to cooperate amongst themselves than it is for me to try to rule on everyone doing their own thing at once.

You know, this is something that I have been trying desperatly to get going in the group I am currently playing with, but has met with so much resistance I am about to pull my hair out. Everytime I try to get the other players to decide on a "marching order" they change things up the very next time we go anywhere. The DM wants me to take the part of "party caller" for the group, but then he doesn't back me when I mention where the characters are and what they are doing and someone gets upset because that isn't what he wants his character to be doing :\

For example, we have decided as a group that we are searching a room. I help place all the characters where they are searching (everyone else is chatting about this and that outside the game) and the DM mentions that one of the characters found a trap and triggered it. That characters player then gets all huffy because he didn't place his character there, even though we all agreed we would all be searching the room and no one wanted to specify where exactly they were in the room