When a DM Starts the Campaign off on the Wrong Foot

[Doug McCrae]

In real life, if we were adventurers sitting in bar, looking to add a 5th member, we'd put up a sign, and probably talk to people, and then pick the guy we want to let in.

In real life if you were planning an operation that had a serious risk of death attached, but a potentially huge payoff, you would *only* pick people you knew for certain you could trust. People that you'd known for years. Ofc that's not what happens in a typical game, but that's rpgs for you.

 

[Papa-DRB]

Yea, agreed on this. What I am thinking seriously of doing for the next campaign I run is to implement the 'party alignment' rule based on the Temple of Elemental Evil PC game, no chaotic or evil, but let the group chose the party alignment and thus theirs. I'll also throw in a small vignette to start them off.

The issue comes up with you have to add a player, but then the party alignment rule helps with that.

-- david
Papa.DRB

The problem is, it is NOT up to the DM to decide that, though there are things the DM can do to encourage it in game.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

The problem is that according to the Ptolus campaign guide, the armor and magic items are there. It is a very high magic setting. The PCs saved up their money (from 1st level) and purchased the armor on their own. If the shop keeper had said "you can only spend 25% of your money here" for a metagame reason, I think that would have made some in the group unhappy.

The thing is it's not up to the shopkeeper to tell them "you can only spend 25% of your money here", it's up to you as GM. It's still a game and there are certain guidelines that might need to be met to maintain some semblance if balance. Much the same way that you laid out whatever character creation guidelines or other in game guidelines.

I mean do what you want it's YOUR TABLE. But the guidelines for some of this stuff is there. If your dont course correct on one end (following the guidelines for them getting their equipment) youre going to have to corse correct on the other (setting them up with encounters that express to some great effect the benefits and drawbacks of Full Plate). If you choose not to do either then you will have an issue but you really cant blame the system or the setting. Youre the GM, you set the tone. I know to some people they see the GM as a glorified manservant to bend utterly to will of the players. Or to others an adversary who is there to crush the will of his players. The truth is somewhere in between. It's a role-playing game, but youre not going to be able to quantify EVERYTHING in terms of the game world. It's still also A GAME.

You have to walk a fine line, sometimes your players aren't going to like it, there are other times where you're going to deal with things that you dont care for to make your players happy. Most of the time though you should both be happy with the game otherwise it'll just fall apart.

 

[carmachu]

Ideally CNs and LGs have some reason to stick together. The traditional one is - the CNs want to get rich, the LGs want to destroy evil. There are some evil monsters with a lot of treasure living in a nearby hole. Result? Everyone goes down the hole. Party sticks together.

Alternatively you ask the players to figure out a reason why they stay together. Perhaps two party members are relatives for example, or a lawful guy feels he owes a chaotic a debt, maybe he owes him his life or something.

Thats not really that hard in Ptlous- ultimately whether its the LG organizations, or the CN crazy thieves and assassins, Both sides have to live IN Ptolus. The city has to be whole for theievs and assassins to work in.

So some crazed chaos cultists whop want to unleash some unholy terror on the city, well even theives are going to want it stopped. Who can they rob or gain influence and power from if 3/4 of the city is a wasteland?

 

[Retreater]

So some crazed chaos cultists whop want to unleash some unholy terror on the city, well even theives are going to want it stopped. Who can they rob or gain influence and power from if 3/4 of the city is a wasteland?

Actually, the Chaotical Neutrals have had run-ins with the Chaos cults and thought they were pretty cool. The Lawful Goods think that they can be redeemed and aren't all that bad. Murder, kidnapping, mutilation, attempting to bring about the end of the world - I don't know how more blatant I can make it.

Retreater

 

[Lanefan]

The problem is, it is NOT up to the DM to decide that, though there are things the DM can do to encourage it in game.

There are many ways a DM can cause a bunch of characters to form a party simply by using story elements.

In real life, if we were adventurers sitting in bar, looking to add a 5th member, we'd put up a sign, and probably talk to people, and then pick the guy we want to let in.

In real life if you were out in the field and down a man or two, and came across someone who had some skills that could help you out, you'd most likely take him in and worry about questions later if at all.

Not all new characters join up in controlled situations.

In D&D, if you make a PC and show up, the players are expected to let the guy in, sans interview, background check or anything.

Depends on the game. At game start, you're right: pretty much anything goes. However I've seen numerous occasions where a PC trying to join an established party has been rejected, or even mistakenly assumed to be enemy and killed outright.

There are people who hi-jack that auto-acceptance to smuggle in traitors and sociopaths, and they think they are clever for fooling the party.

So basically, I turn that crap off, and as a GM I tell the players to talk amongst themselves and build a party that they will want to work with. That's me putting the onus on the players to play a group game by planning on playing a group game.

You're making a whole bunch of assumptions about what your players want based on what you want.

It's clear you want a game where it's the unified party vs. the world/game/bad guys/whatever. But your players might be quite happy with a game where inter-party disputes are every bit as vicious; where you're never quite sure who has your back or who's about to put a knife in it.

It's a "group game" only inasmuch as there's a group of people playing it at the same time. Nothing says they have to be playing as a unified group.

Lanefan

 

[carmachu]

Actually, the Chaotical Neutrals have had run-ins with the Chaos cults and thought they were pretty cool. The Lawful Goods think that they can be redeemed and aren't all that bad. Murder, kidnapping, mutilation, attempting to bring about the end of the world - I don't know how more blatant I can make it.

Retreater

If your CN folks are hanging around depraved chaos cultists and think that it was pretty cool, their alignments need to start slipping. Kidnapping children, experimenting on them, and other various nasty things....

LG think they can be redeemed and not that bad?

I dont think your making them bad enough. No way LG folks should see them as something to be redeemed. Their something that should be put down.

 

[Minicol]

If your CN folks are hanging around depraved chaos cultists and think that it was pretty cool, their alignments need to start slipping. Kidnapping children, experimenting on them, and other various nasty things....

LG think they can be redeemed and not that bad?

I dont think your making them bad enough. No way LG folks should see them as something to be redeemed. Their something that should be put down.

Exactly ! here the problem is a lack of maturity in your players, who are willing to ruin the game by testing your limits.

You said you did not like the system, which is fair, but if you let this happen, no other system is gonna save you : the big truth is that ALL RPG systems are broken (or can become) if you let your players do everything and abuse every option.

The problem here IMO, is that your group is not ready yet to play sandbox style.

 

[Retreater]

Update:

After trying to bait them into wrapping up the current adventure arc (and speaking to them about it metagame via email), they didn't go along with it. Last night's session, for which I prepared about 8 hours, ended up being a series of confusing discussions about why they shouldn't attack the BBEG. ("We don't have enough proof," "things are too ambiguous," and "what if he is too tough.") What was intended as a straightforward combat that should have taken 30-45 minutes and lead into the "rest" of the adventure (a typical save the small town vs. the evil humanoids mission) was instead replaced with split party investigations, going to brothels, visiting orphanages, street preaching, breaking into buildings - all done by individual characters with no clear goals in mind.

I try to make things as straightforward as possible, but they always find ways around it. The villain in this case was a LE manipulative type, and they totally bought every thing he said (even though the group KNEW he was evil and was trying to destroy the city).

Next session, I'm not even going to try to wrap up anything. I'm just pushing the game ahead a few weeks time and starting things "in media res" to where the action is.

Retreater

 

[pemerton]

Retreater, did the players enjoy the session or not? If they didn't, then you've got a bit of a dysfunctional situation on your hands. But if they did, then I don't entirely see what the problem is. If your players want to play a game in which they are ambivalent about taking down an NPC and instead preach in the streets and break into buildings, what's the problem?