DragonLancer
Hero
I've never liked the notion of a party caller. I think it takes a lot of the game away from the other players. We tried the mapper as well, but they get it so wrong that I end up doing their map for them - not that I mind really.
What issues should a new group settle up front?
- Thread starter Kahuna Burger
- Start date
farscapesg1
First Post
DragonLancer said:
Oh, I realize that not everyone likes this method, but when most of the group is too occupied with looking at new supplemnts, talking about the new movie they went to, going over character ideas for "if this character dies", instead of paying attention to the
ing game, then it ruins the fun for the rest of the group. Just like you think that it takes a lot of the game away from the other players, not using it in a group like this takes a lot away from the players that are there to play the game.
helium3
First Post
jdrakeh said:
Have you ever heard the phrase "it's like herding cats?" While I agree that there are probably some DM's out there that are a bit to Hextorian in nature, there are probably a larger number of groups that suffer because the DM is unwilling to take a leadership role. Being the DM can be a lot of work, especially considering that you can only influence the direction of the game in-directly (if you're performing your role well.)
From my experience, the most important thing to do when starting a new game or group is to have the first game session be nothing more than a big chat session about what kind of game the players want to be in (I give them options about the campaign world at this point) and maybe start rolling up characters. We talk about alignments and the type of characters people want to play. That way, if someone changes mid-stream its sort of on record and a lot easier to shame someone into keeping their word. I really try to stress that the party needs to be designed to work well together. Even then, it doesn't always work. It seems like its impossible to avoid running into players that are just in it for the power trip and don't really want to play with the group.
DragonLancer
Hero
farscapesg1 said:Oh, I realize that not everyone likes this method, but when most of the group is too occupied with looking at new supplemnts, talking about the new movie they went to, going over character ideas for "if this character dies", instead of paying attention to the
Thats what really big sticks are for. *Nods wisely*
Seriously though, if you have players doing that consistantly, then its a good idea.
For marching order we have the miniatures in position, towards the DM being front. This works double duty because it keeps people from playing with their mini and it is a concrete set up that they can't argue with. If you didn't want your guy in front he shouldn't have been left there. Now roll your reflex!
Emirikol
Adventurer
I think all of this simply calls for a house rulebook. Not so you can have things set in stone, but that you need to discuss those things. The house rulebook would then have a,"These things need to be decided by the group consensus" section.
For example:
"What is the group consensus on the following:
* X.P. awarded to a PC of someone not showing up or bothering to call
* Allowed party alignments
* Rules-lawyering
* Munchkinizing
* Character death difficulty
* Ordering food in the middle of the game (estimated time used 1 hour) during a 4 hour session
* Players who chronically never have their characters updated
etc.
Yes?
jh
For example:
"What is the group consensus on the following:
* X.P. awarded to a PC of someone not showing up or bothering to call
* Allowed party alignments
* Rules-lawyering
* Munchkinizing
* Character death difficulty
* Ordering food in the middle of the game (estimated time used 1 hour) during a 4 hour session
* Players who chronically never have their characters updated
etc.
Yes?
jh
Similar Threads
