Who will survive?

[Mark]

Each week four friends get together with a new DM each session. Everytime they play they create new characters of equal levels but the DM decides what level the characters will be.

Aaron spends his week taking acting classes and working at his telemarketing job.

Betty takes inner-city kids up to the boundary waters in Wisconsin to give them a taste of the outdoors.

Carl is slowly dwindling an inheritance by spending his week at the track.

Dora develops new technologies for a bio-tech firm.

Who is likely to see more of their characters survive after a year of playing together?

 

[Zappo]

If it was just one DM and we had more details about him, then, well, I dunno. But with 52 randomly selected DMs, you're bound to get more bad DMs than good ones, and more hack'n'slashers than roleplay-oriented DMs (please note that the good vs. bad and H'n'S vs. RP dychotomies are being kept distinct, ok? ).

Which means that munchkin ability will likely give one an edge.

For this reason, I chose Dora. She's a scientist, and bending laws to maximize something is what she does for a living. After doing it with natural laws, D&D should be a breeze. Plus, she's likely to be a smarter-than-average person, which can only help.

Aaron would fare well in a RP-oriented campaign, because he can act (which will certainly please a RP-oriented DM), and is used to talking with people. He would probably be able to avoid a good deal of fights. OTOH, the benefits of avoiding fights usually extend to the whole party, thus reducing his margin, and a HnS-oriented DM would not give him many opportunities for dialogue.

As for the other two, Betty's outdooring skills are useless in D&D where it is usually assumed that the characters know how to set a tent and light a fire. Not counting that at least a few of the games will be with high-level characters who will probably just cast Leomund's Tiny Hut and Hero's Feast every evening, set Alarms for the night, and turn any aggressive animal who happens to stumble by into catfood within a round.

Carl seems poor at long-term planning. While this can be an advantage if you're creating new characters each session (he won't be holding the charges in those wands for "later"), I don't see this as something the others can't do too.

 

[Mark]

If it was just one DM and we had more details about him, then, well, I dunno. But with 52 randomly selected DMs, you're bound to get more bad DMs than good ones, and more hack'n'slashers than roleplay-oriented DMs (please note that the good vs. bad and H'n'S vs. RP dychotomies are being kept distinct, ok? ).

Which means that munchkin ability will likely give one an edge.

Just curious but why would people assume that there are more bad DMs than good ones? I know of very few DMs who will label themselves as bad DMs. Most will mention one or two areas where they feel they might need some improvement but over all claim they are good. I've also heard that 90% of all people that get behind the wheel of a car consider themselves to be above average drivers, so, maybe I'm out of line here.

For this reason, I chose Dora. She's a scientist, and bending laws to maximize something is what she does for a living. After doing it with natural laws, D&D should be a breeze. Plus, she's likely to be a smarter-than-average person, which can only help.

How does knowing how to bend real world laws help you handle game rules that handle magic? If I am understanding you correctly I believe you mean the laws of science, correct? Isn't magic and even how it is handled through the rules of D&D still rather inexplicable?

Aaron would fare well in a RP-oriented campaign, because he can act (which will certainly please a RP-oriented DM), and is used to talking with people. He would probably be able to avoid a good deal of fights. OTOH, the benefits of avoiding fights usually extend to the whole party, thus reducing his margin, and a HnS-oriented DM would not give him many opportunities for dialogue.

I'm not sure how pleasing the RP-oriented DMs would help someone more inclined to RP. Aren't the RPing rewards in 3E rather small and optional?

As for the other two, Betty's outdooring skills are useless in D&D where it is usually assumed that the characters know how to set a tent and light a fire. Not counting that at least a few of the games will be with high-level characters who will probably just cast Leomund's Tiny Hut and Hero's Feast every evening, set Alarms for the night, and turn any aggressive animal who happens to stumble by into catfood within a round.

I'm curious why those things are usually assumed. You might be right but I am wondering if this is something most people assume and shouldn't. Do her weekly duties help her in other areas besides outdoor knowledge? Does the fact that she teaches teamwork to others help her?

Carl seems poor at long-term planning. While this can be an advantage if you're creating new characters each session (he won't be holding the charges in those wands for "later"), I don't see this as something the others can't do too.

Why hold charges if you have a new char each week? Although he chooses a poor medium to excersise his skills, doesn't his hardcore number-crunching ability to seek in the moment advantages help him somewhat? He's a risk taker, sure, but isn't that something that is rewarded by the system?

More questions than answers. I'm not saying you are wrong but I do think there is a lot of room for discusssion in all of this...