Support NeoGAF

[teiresias]

So a bit of advice about character generation. Despite my friends seemingly wanting to play, I'm rather certain there's no way I'm getting any of them to buy the Essentials player guides (I have a sneaking suspicion that's not what happens anyway even though WoTC tries to say players should buy them). So how should I go about this?

I'm thinking for our first session I'll read through all the necessary rules and the two players guides and put together a little packet of information on the classes, races, and builds for them to read through prior to us getting together so they can start to think about what kind of character they want to play. Maybe I'll also put in the packet a short tutorial on the basics of a DC and the basics of the combat mechanics in there - I'm assuming this won't be getting into plagarism of any kind.

From there, the first session will start off simple. I'd have to go through character generation for everyone, and then maybe do one combat encounter and that would be it for the first session.

 

[ultron87]

For my first session with my friends I just whipped up some sample characters, explained the very basic rules, and just started playing. Just kind of taught things naturally as they came up after that.

"Can I unlock that door?" "Certainly! You just need to do this fancy thing called a skill check!"

After that first session they can actually make characters since they will have some understanding of what the stuff means.

I'm not sure exactly what he's referring to with his comment, but from my understanding outside the differences in the character build philosophy in the two Essentials Player Handbooks, the main good thing about the Essentials stuff is that it includes all the errata currently out there for the previous books. This would include the Rules Compendium, but apparently it also includes updated and corrected math in the stats of monsters in the Essentials Monsters Vault vs the older Monster Manuals books.

Okay. That's what I always thought it was.

His comment confused the heck out of me.

 

[krypt0nian]

So a bit of advice about character generation. Despite my friends seemingly wanting to play, I'm rather certain there's no way I'm getting any of them to buy the Essentials player guides (I have a sneaking suspicion that's not what happens anyway even though WoTC tries to say players should buy them). So how should I go about this?

I'm thinking for our first session I'll read through all the necessary rules and the two players guides and put together a little packet of information on the classes, races, and builds for them to read through prior to us getting together so they can start to think about what kind of character they want to play. Maybe I'll also put in the packet a short tutorial on the basics of a DC and the basics of the combat mechanics in there - I'm assuming this won't be getting into plagarism of any kind.

From there, the first session will start off simple. I'd have to go through character generation for everyone, and then maybe do one combat encounter and that would be it for the first session.

Make a slew of pre-mades of each role (Defender, Leader, Striker, Controller). If you have DDI subscription or access to the chara builder, they can use that MUCH later.

Explain the roles to them and then let them have at it.

Take a look at the first few D&D video podcasts on the wizards site to see how you can ease a system on people who have NEVER played in their lives.

 

[dude]

Advanced Fighting Fantasy I did not like to much after moving on to games that, being honest, took some of its strength and then made the other parts better. I think its a pretty big step back.

I used to play Altus Adventum a great deal, which may explain my continued desire to keep narrative high, rolling amounts to a all time low, and the game moving forward. It made a pretty big impact on me. I did have a couple complaints revolving around the system itself in that sometimes you can end up getting two characters a good deal like one another. It felt a big like the military with the infantry or something. Didn't always happen, it just occurred sometimes.

Both systems would work very well with some house rules to keep players feeling modernized. That's how we do it.

By the way, classless is great in a game, but sometimes a shallow class system, or advanced training system that a character can follow can do wonders to make players want to advance.

Well, we prefer classless for the time.
What game would you recommend that are like AFF? I know a second edition is on it's way, which is pretty exciting.
And Atlus Adventum does sound interesting, though we're leaning more towards AFF.

Different matter - I'm also having a bit of a hard time with transitioning from GM to player... I always used to GM but decided to play this time, and it's a little hard... I just had a conversation with the GM about characters dying - My opinion is that when in happens at the beginning or near the end of the story, it's manageable, but once it happens in the middle, at the peak of the story, the game is pretty much ruined. Every time that happen to me I had the player walk out the game shortly after... So I encouraged him to have some house rules to make death a very real possibility, but without it ruining the game - Like some sort of unconsciousness, worse than the one in D&D though, that would give the players a chance to save the character but still have death as a realistic fear. I didn't manage to get through to him much, but I hope he'll think about it.

I prefer the ROLE-playing over the ROLL-playing as well. I have never used miniatures or been a rules-lawyer. Unfortunately it seems a lot of people want to argue over details in rulebooks and play a board-game rather than an RPG. I have tried over the years to start some D&D games via forum but it always gets bogged down as people want to take a million years just to make a damn character.

Man, I didn't have to deal with that since high school... I used to mod a P&P RPG forum, and we had some great games there. I GMed some games based on mangas (I was 17!) like HxH and Naruto, all home-brewed or free form. We actually had an interesting system in place in the HxH game - we let the player pick what attributes they have without rolling dice! It was our attempt to make the game free form while also having some system in place to have objectivity. It actually worked, and the game was pretty awesome.
I kind of miss those days.

 

[DurielBlack]

Well, we prefer classless for the time.
Man, I didn't have to deal with that since high school... I used to mod a P&P RPG forum, and we had some great games there. I GMed some games based on mangas (I was 17!) like HxH and Naruto, all home-brewed or free form. We actually had an interesting system in place in the HxH game - we let the player pick what attributes they have without rolling dice! It was our attempt to make the game free form while also having some system in place to have objectivity. It actually worked, and the game was pretty awesome.
I kind of miss those days.

These days I have pretty much stopped running games. I think what hurts my motivation the most is that I want to tell a cool story and give the players a chance to take part in that story. Unfortunately they want to treat it like some open world RPG and either just cause chaos or take advantage of everything.

In a recent game I wanted to introduce a honorable samurai-type character as a quest-giver of sorts. Players spot him being chased out of a small village by angry locals (foreigners in this setting weren't well-liked). Instead of intervening (these were good-aligned PCs by the way), the decide to hide in some bushes and watch.

Ok, so after taking a beating the samurai fights back, and doles out a bunch of non-lethal damage to his pursuers, leaving a few unconscious on the ground and sending the rest packing. He takes a bit of time apparently checking on the wounds of the unconscious villagers. I was hoping the PCs would finally step out and get involved. Nope. They continue to watch.

So he leaves the scene, heading off down the road. The PC's suddenly decide that this foreigner is dangerous, and too tough for them to take on themselves. So somehow they come to the conclusion they need to sever the heads and limbs of the unconscious villagers and stake them up along the road. The idea to get the villagers to hunt him down.

Plot destroyed, all because the players decided to go with what was "funny" over what they really should have been doing. In fact, I have trouble getting them involved in anything, as their usual reaction is to hide, observe, then interfere and cause chaos and trying to get others to fight one-another. While from time-to-time is OK for players to throw a wrench into my carefully laid plans and watch new plots unfold, these players never did anything different. Needless to say, I no longer play with this group.

My friend (who is the main player in said group) is also a GM. I hate his games because he expects me to play the same way he does, and just look for profit and cause chaos. When I try to follow what I think is the "main plot" I always end up getting screwed over and starting at square one. Its infuriating.

 

[krypt0nian]

These days I have pretty much stopped running games. I think what hurts my motivation the most is that I want to tell a cool story and give the players a chance to take part in that story. Unfortunately they want to treat it like some open world RPG and either just cause chaos or take advantage of everything.

In a recent game I wanted to introduce a honorable samurai-type character as a quest-giver of sorts. Players spot him being chased out of a small village by angry locals (foreigners in this setting weren't well-liked). Instead of intervening (these were good-aligned PCs by the way), the decide to hide in some bushes and watch.

Ok, so after taking a beating the samurai fights back, and doles out a bunch of non-lethal damage to his pursuers, leaving a few unconscious on the ground and sending the rest packing. He takes a bit of time apparently checking on the wounds of the unconscious villagers. I was hoping the PCs would finally step out and get involved. Nope. They continue to watch.

So he leaves the scene, heading off down the road. The PC's suddenly decide that this foreigner is dangerous, and too tough for them to take on themselves. So somehow they come to the conclusion they need to sever the heads and limbs of the unconscious villagers and stake them up along the road. The idea to get the villagers to hunt him down.

Plot destroyed, all because the players decided to go with what was "funny" over what they really should have been doing. In fact, I have trouble getting them involved in anything, as their usual reaction is to hide, observe, then interfere and cause chaos and trying to get others to fight one-another. While from time-to-time is OK for players to throw a wrench into my carefully laid plans and watch new plots unfold, these players never did anything different. Needless to say, I no longer play with this group.

My friend (who is the main player in said group) is also a GM. I hate his games because he expects me to play the same way he does, and just look for profit and cause chaos. When I try to follow what I think is the "main plot" I always end up getting screwed over and starting at square one. Its infuriating.

Replace your players ASAP. I couldn't play with such baboons.

We have a gaming group that you would love. Really cool back stories that are part of the plot, eager to play out their part of the drama, always looking for ways to add to the shared world.

Keep looking until you find them. It took me 6 months on meetup.com.

 

[dude]

These days I have pretty much stopped running games. I think what hurts my motivation the most is that I want to tell a cool story and give the players a chance to take part in that story. Unfortunately they want to treat it like some open world RPG and either just cause chaos or take advantage of everything.

In a recent game I wanted to introduce a honorable samurai-type character as a quest-giver of sorts. Players spot him being chased out of a small village by angry locals (foreigners in this setting weren't well-liked). Instead of intervening (these were good-aligned PCs by the way), the decide to hide in some bushes and watch.

Ok, so after taking a beating the samurai fights back, and doles out a bunch of non-lethal damage to his pursuers, leaving a few unconscious on the ground and sending the rest packing. He takes a bit of time apparently checking on the wounds of the unconscious villagers. I was hoping the PCs would finally step out and get involved. Nope. They continue to watch.

So he leaves the scene, heading off down the road. The PC's suddenly decide that this foreigner is dangerous, and too tough for them to take on themselves. So somehow they come to the conclusion they need to sever the heads and limbs of the unconscious villagers and stake them up along the road. The idea to get the villagers to hunt him down.

Plot destroyed, all because the players decided to go with what was "funny" over what they really should have been doing. In fact, I have trouble getting them involved in anything, as their usual reaction is to hide, observe, then interfere and cause chaos and trying to get others to fight one-another. While from time-to-time is OK for players to throw a wrench into my carefully laid plans and watch new plots unfold, these players never did anything different. Needless to say, I no longer play with this group.

My friend (who is the main player in said group) is also a GM. I hate his games because he expects me to play the same way he does, and just look for profit and cause chaos. When I try to follow what I think is the "main plot" I always end up getting screwed over and starting at square one. Its infuriating.

These players sounds like idiots. I remember my first D&D games were like that... It's pretty horrible when you have players that are completely unresponsive. Don't give up though, nothing can live up to a good RPG game.
That said, I also don't wholly agree with what you were doing - First of all, you have to remember being the GM doesn't make you the owner of the story, it's the group's. it's supposed to be a joint operation with your players. Don't "give them a chance", they're as much of the storytellers as you are, they just have a different role.
Second - Never build your story in such a way your players will have to break character to be in it. Never assume your players will talk with this random guy and take a quest from him. I, for example, almost always play self interested characters, and any GM that knows me knows not to assume I'd help anyone in trouble or take a quest because it's for the "good" of someone. If the GM wants to motivate me, he'll have to find something my character cares about. You do this by talking with your players all the time, ask them of their expectation for the character, help them and yourself learn it. You should build your story so that every character will have a good and plausible reason to be in it. This is why our stories are never about "saving the world" or somesuch.
There are many ways for the player and the GM to know the character so that you could build a story that the character would want to participate in it - I, for example, gave a player of mine homework after every session, like writing down something as her character, asking her whether her character had sex, what would she do in a very extreme situation (that would be enough to break any facade she was trying to put) so that she could understand her character better. Then we talked about it, and I understood what made her tick and how to get her into the plot.

 

[krypt0nian]

We do a thing that we call "Campfire Stories" where everyone has to bring 1-3 things that their character can share with the rest of the group while traveling. This is in addition to normal roleplaying during the adventure.

Adventures and sub-lots write themselves. =)

 

[DurielBlack]

These players sounds like idiots. I remember my first D&D games were like that... It's pretty horrible when you have players that are completely unresponsive. Don't give up though, nothing can live up to a good RPG game.
That said, I also don't wholly agree with what you were doing - First of all, you have to remember being the GM doesn't make you the owner of the story, it's the group's. it's supposed to be a joint operation with your players. Don't "give them a chance", they're as much of the storytellers as you are, they just have a different role.
Second - Never build your story in such a way your players will have to break character to be in it. Never assume your players will talk with this random guy and take a quest from him. I, for example, almost always play self interested characters, and any GM that knows me knows not to assume I'd help anyone in trouble or take a quest because it's for the "good" of someone. If the GM wants to motivate me, he'll have to find something my character cares about. You do this by talking with your players all the time, ask them of their expectation for the character, help them and yourself learn it. You should build your story so that every character will have a good and plausible reason to be in it. This is why our stories are never about "saving the world" or somesuch.
There are many ways for the player and the GM to know the character so that you could build a story that the character would want to participate in it - I, for example, gave a player of mine homework after every session, like writing down something as her character, asking her whether her character had sex, what would she do in a very extreme situation (that would be enough to break any facade she was trying to put) so that she could understand her character better. Then we talked about it, and I understood what made her tick and how to get her into the plot.

Well, I don't aim to "railroad" players through a campaign even though I have a particular story in mind I would like to see played out, whatever its final outcome may actually be. The problem lies more in my GMing style being more towards wanting characters to get in the center of the plot and drive it forwards in their own way. They want to avoid being anywhere near the center and play grand theft auto.

Also attempts to discuss character background and development usually results in grumbling, glassy-eyed looks, and loss of interest. I no longer play with any of those people aside from my one friend.

I did run a solo-game with just him as a player that seemed up his alley. Its a homebrew western setting and he was hired by a retired Northern general to wage a private war against the South during peacetime. He gets to do all the mean violent stuff he wants and cause chaos, and it fits in with the theme of the campaign.

 

[krypt0nian]

Also, there is nothing wrong with saying "in the next campaign I run, you are required to play a heroic character with a heroic motivation". Just like you could require them all to have a noble house background if that fit your story. Unlimited player options are sometimes not what a game needs.

It's your game. Not with those shit flinging morons of course.

 

[dude]

Whenever I play one on one the game ends up being borderline cyber sex. It's pretty fun but I haven't done it in a while.

And I know those groups... But as I said, don't give up, I'm sure you'll find some more like minded players!

Also, there is nothing wrong with saying "in the next campaign I run, you are required to play a heroic character with a heroic motivation"

I don't know, I wouldn't play under those conditions.

 

[Kinitari]

My friends and I were playing the official campaign around last year this time, we had an absolute blast. unfortunately the usual DM went to Bolivia for a whole bunch of months, and just recently got back. In that time, no D&D . (I bought a new dice set and everything).

Anyway, he's back now, and everyone is really in a D&D mood again, I think that episode of Community that aired stirred up something in all of us. So he's making a campaign he is going to loosely base around his travels.

UNTIL then, I wanted to play some games! Was wondering if there were any... online games being run? Not necessarily GAF games, I mean more along the lines of, some online community in which you can find games and play. It wont be the same as in person, but it might be a fun distraction until that happens.

 

[krypt0nian]

I don't know, I wouldn't play under those conditions.

It's not something I do with any frequency, but there's nothing wrong with it in the right story. Just like subtle railroading. Just more GM tools, IMO. And if you have great players, sometimes the revel in the limitations. =)


EDIT:

For those interested in D&D or roleplaying, or lapsed players that aren't in a game, I recommend again the excellent actual play podcasts of the Critical Hit folks.

http://www.majorspoilers.com/media/criticalhit.xml - RSS
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/critical-hit-a-dungeons-dragons/id327725953 - iTunes

Wonderful roleplaying, DM of the gods, funny and at times touching. <3

 

[War Peaceman]

Is there any way to play DnD online? By which I mean forum or msn orwhatever based roleplaying and gaming? What is the best way for that?

 

[JayDubya]

Is there any way to play DnD online? By which I mean forum or msn orwhatever based roleplaying and gaming? What is the best way for that?

1) Get a free VOIP (TeamSpeak, Ventrilo, Mumble).
2) Get a free virtual tabletop (MapTool, Gametable)
3) Get some friends that want to log in to the host server of both VOIP and tabletop at the same time.
4) Play D&D.


If I can't get my regular group together this weekend, I'd be up for doing something like this, even if only to show someone else how.

If I join additional games, I'd rather be a player. Each additional game you DM is a lot of extra stress and labor to take on unless you're a master improviser...


Edit: There is a middle step I forgot. One kind of needs, or should have, some D&D books, or whatever other tabletop game you want to play.

Only the DM really needs to have a lot of books, but I'd recommend the player have at least the Player's Handbook with the class they want to play.

 

[krypt0nian]

1) Get a VOIP (TeamSpeak, Ventrilo, Mumble).
2) Get a virtual tabletop (MapTool, Gametable)
3) Get some friends that want to log in to the host server of both VOIP and tabletop at the same time.
4) Play D&D.


If I can't get my regular group together this weekend, I'd be up for doing something like this, even if only to show someone else how.

If I join additional games, I'd rather be a player. Each additional game you DM is a lot of extra stress and labor to take on unless you're a master improviser...

All excellent tools and easy to setup and run once you get a bit of practice in. There are really nice tutorial videos on YouTube for apps like MapTool, etc.

Wizards is in early beta for their version of an online game table, but right now it needs a lot of work to be competitive with the heavyweights that already exist.

 

[JayDubya]

More specifically, my gaming group, if it is to reconvene, is going to do so on Sunday nights.

Talking in generalities, nothing ever gets done - if anyone wants to do something online w/ D&D on Saturday or some Saturday in the near future, I am up to advise / help / play whatever.

 

[DurielBlack]

Is there any way to play DnD online? By which I mean forum or msn orwhatever based roleplaying and gaming? What is the best way for that?

As mentioned, skype/vent/mumble would work. Advantage is that its the closest to having a standard D&D table game. But people need decent internet, microphones, and to actually all be on at the same time.

You can also look into Play-by-Post games on forums. Giant in the Playground has a very active PBP forum (i'm playing in a game there right now), I am pretty sure the WotC boards have one as well. Theres a host of other websites out there too dedicated to it, just use Google.

If we could get an informal GAF D&D night going that would be cool. Someone make up some premade characters and short quest, whoever shows up gets to play. COuld lead to something more official later.

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

My friends, inspired by Community, want to play.

I am the default DM. I'm DM/GM'd before. But haven't played since 2nd edition.

This should be interesting.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

I've played Shadowrun. It's gobs of fun. I had a cat shaman! It's really down to taste though. I like using multiple six-sided dice more than 20 sided dice, myself. I'm not an expert though, I needed some help with the rules. My dad, however, has played Shadowrun since second edition. I'll have to talk to him about it some more!

I haven't played Shadowrun in a long time. I heard they changed deckers in 4.0 though.

I just recently starting reading Shadowrun novels- ebooks to be precise. Anyone else here into those?

 

[krypt0nian]

My friends, inspired by Community, want to play.

I am the default DM. I'm DM/GM'd before. But haven't played since 2nd edition.

This should be interesting.

Keep us in the loop. Maybe we can help.

I haven't played Shadowrun in a long time. I heard they changed deckers in 4.0 though.

I just recently starting reading Shadowrun novels- ebooks to be precise. Anyone else here into those?

My gaming group back home has shifted to Shadowrun, as our main DnD4E campaign is on hold until I get back since my character is a keystone. Can't wait to get back to it in April.

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

Keep us in the loop. Maybe we can help.

Thanks. Right now I'm just navigating the rules. Wondering what these new races are seeing how the combat/saving throw mechanics have changed.

I did not that its more...wargamey? More tactical and a need for miniatures.

 

[krypt0nian]

Thanks. Right now I'm just navigating the rules. Wondering what these new races are seeing how the combat/saving throw mechanics have changed.

I did not that its more...wargamey? More tactical and a need for miniatures.

That's definitely true as they gave the character classes many more options than just "swing sword" in most cases. One of the many odd criticisms of 4E when it came out and the Edition Wars were still strong was that it prevented roleplay.

That is completely ridiculous as 60-70% of out sessions remain full on roleplay. Combats do tend to run long so if you don't like that, increase all damage by 50%. We use combats as roleplaying opportunities so we utilize the time without shortening it.

 

[Hobbun]

My friends and I don't like at all what was done to 4th edition, Wizards simplified it too much, so we started up Pathfinder and love it.

We still do have a couple D&D campaigns going, but they are from 3.5.

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

Yeah, since the people I'm DM'ing come from a variety of backgrounds, such as some people who played 2nd Ed. Shadowrun, or the Palladium system and abouthalf the group is straight up newbies. Seems better to start off with a completely new system.

I just hate having to buy new books.

 

[krypt0nian]

My friends and I don't like at all what was done to 4th edition, Wizards simplified it too much, so we started up Pathfinder and love it.

We still do have a couple D&D campaigns going, but they are from 3.5.

I guess I don't get this. Now you have so much more to consider in combat in each role. If anything they made it more complicated.

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

I guess I don't get this. Now you have so much more to consider in combat in each role. If anything they made it more complicated.

I do like the need for grids and stuff for area of effect spells.

My inital thought was, "Whaddaya mean they got rid of THAC0?"

 

[Double D]

I've never played. Never even been in the presence of a game being played.

 

[BattleMonkey]

I guess I don't get this. Now you have so much more to consider in combat in each role. If anything they made it more complicated.

4E makes characters fall under the same thing you get when playing MMO's where you often are trapped into routines of doing the same things over and over again. Character customization is highly constrained also which really peeves some people off. I like 4E for the simplicity of it all and that character design is more straightforward so that all characters have very specific uses and useful. With 2nd to 3.5 an Pathfinder, you can screw up a character and make them total shit, while it's almost impossible in 4E. It's good and bad to some, at times it gets frustrating to play something like 3.5 and Pathfinder and having to deal with all the rules and looking things up one must do.

Though I find all these D20 systems to be bloated even with how streamlined 4E made things out.

 

[krypt0nian]

The thing I don't like about 3.5/Pathfinder is multiclassing. Played without that it feels so much better to me.

It is however the most beautiful core book in quite a while. Art direction of the gods.

 

[BattleMonkey]

I have no problem with multiclassing, I don't do it so I really don't care. If a person wants to bother with it, let them, it's their problem when they create an awful character and also having to deal with complicated nature of doing it. As long as I don't have to do it

 

[Sai-kun]

I've played a couple short games with friends, set in the classic Megaman universe, and those were always super fun, but my roomie/best friend wants to start DMing a campaign, so I had to create a character and all that fun stuff I'm super excited to start playing.

 

[Escape Goat]

I'd play D&D if I could play with a group like in Community. Ya know, with attractive girls and socially adept men.

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

I'd play D&D if I could play with a group like in Community. Ya know, with attractive girls and socially adept men.

Our group is: an attorney, ER doc, rapper, chef and a writer.

 

[BattleMonkey]

Half our normal group is usually women, and we all have good jobs. One is a Nuclear Engineer, the other is a programmer for the power company, one is the director of logistics for SOCOM, etc.

I usually just stay away from gaming at game stores which have serious mouth breathers.

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

Half our normal group is usually women, and we all have good jobs. One is a Nuclear Engineer, the other is a programmer for the power company, one is the director of logistics for SOCOM, etc.

I usually just stay away from gaming at game stores which have serious mouth breathers.

I saw a girl at the game store I dropped by yesterday. She was gaming witha bunch of dudes.

At one point she said, "Holy shit, light some incense, it smelled like nerd in here."

I should have asked her for her phone number.

The people I've run into so far in our foray back in to D&D haven't been too weird. Except for the store owners/employees.

 

[DurielBlack]

Our group is: an attorney, ER doc, rapper, chef and a writer.

You should play as yourselves in some sort of d20 modern or Cthulu game.

 

[Orlandu84]

The thing I don't like about 3.5/Pathfinder is multiclassing. Played without that it feels so much better to me.

It is however the most beautiful core book in quite a while. Art direction of the gods.

What I really liked about Pathfinder versus 3.5 was that the core classes remained very viable in Pathfinder. When I ran 3.5 campaigns, I almost always had to multiclass NPC's so that they could give the PC's a challenge. With Pathfinder I don't have to do that because the core classes seem to retain their strength and personality from level 1 to 20. As a GM who loves to produce NPC's from the core classes, it made my life much easier.

I also have to say that I thought that the artwork in the Pathfinder books has been awesome.

 

[JayDubya]

What I really liked about Pathfinder versus 3.5 was that the core classes remained very viable in Pathfinder. When I ran 3.5 campaigns, I almost always had to multiclass NPC's so that they could give the PC's a challenge. With Pathfinder I don't have to do that because the core classes seem to retain their strength and personality from level 1 to 20. As a GM who loves to produce NPC's from the core classes, it made my life much easier.

I also have to say that I thought that the artwork in the Pathfinder books has been awesome.

TBH, I kind of like how D&D 4E NPCs don't use character levels, at all. It makes it so much nicer on the DM.

Character building takes a very long time compared to custom monster building.

 

[thoughthorizon]

We do a thing that we call "Campfire Stories" where everyone has to bring 1-3 things that their character can share with the rest of the group while traveling.
Adventures and sub-lots write themselves. =)

I find a similar thing happens if you require that your players submit a character back-story before the game starts. You kind of bounce ideas back and forth until the back story fits with the kind of campaign you're running, then as if by magic things start happening and plots write themselves!

Because I have a great group of players (who are mature and actual play the game for the story rather than as experience harvesting sessions) I also allow a lot of latitude for players to create the world as they go: someone playing a knightly character, for example, when faced with the need to talk to a local lord, might state that he has met one of the lord's knights in a tourney, and can gain an introduction this way.

Of course, this is a dangerous precedent to set, but it avoids the game getting bogged down and keeps spawning new ideas withing the player group, rather than just the GM's head.

Then again, we don't play D&D (which lends itself to immature play), but rather a more sedate game from the '80s called "Dragon Warriors" (recently re-released), which is based more around small local campaigns with a gritty 13th century feel, rather than world shattering free-for-alls with bizarre combinations of characters.

Our group is: an attorney, ER doc, rapper, chef and a writer.

We have a doctor, a special response team police sergeant, a school headmaster, and a software developer.

You should play as yourselves in some sort of d20 modern or Cthulu game.

This is actually a remarkably fun thing to do: I dropped my players (as themselves) into an apocalypse situation to see how they fared. Good times were had by all... fortunately they have a good mix of skills in the real world, including lots of combat skills.

 

[dude]

Our group is young, so we're all in the odd jobs phase of life. Me and another are waitering right now, another just quit his animation studies and looking for a job etc. We have one girl in the group right now. All of us, I believe, are socially adept. I mean, we also go clubbing together and such...

And multi-classing in any form of D&D (including Pathfinder) is simply broken - You're spending double the XP for half the level. It usually works better for warrior types (though you're still losing a lot of BAB), but for spell-casters this system is utterly broken. Either look for some house-rules (I use the fractioned caster level, it's not perfect but it's the best I found) or don't allow it all together.
I, personally, multi-class about 98% of the time, I like to not limit my character's progression, and usually it results in new classes. I started once as an Half-Elf paladin and multi-classed him into a fighter, as he quit his order, and than into a druid as he found his new place in life, another example is my dwarf fighter, who became a rogue when he lived aboard a pirate ship, and then took a year of apprenticeship for a mage, which resulted in 2 Wizard levels. All of these are changed that happened during the game, I can't imagine sticking to one class throughout a game...

 

[DurielBlack]

I wish my old Cthulu group would get back together. We broke up when the GM moved to Arizona (he might be coming back sometime in the next year or so hopefully).

That group actually was into RP and played cthulu in the manner it was meant to be played (most stuff will kill you or drive you mad). I enjoyed developing my characters back-story which only I and the GM knew. The other players were slowly starting to turn their heads to me, especially since I was specifically threatened by some mysterious people. Nothing like the whole party being ambushed by some crazy guys, one survivor using his last breath to point me out and say "They are coming for you." before he dies.

Combine that and the knowledge they have that I go to great lengths to avoid being seen by police and the campaign was getting to a point where my character was going to have his chance to shine (and probably die, since its cthulu)...good times. Too bad they never got to dig into my past and know about the series of murders from the east to west coast of the US and my involvement in them.

I've been in a D&D mood so I have been making progress on my fantasy setting. Maybe this will be the year I finally get it finished.

 

[krypt0nian]

I find a similar thing happens if you require that your players submit a character back-story before the game starts. You kind of bounce ideas back and forth until the back story fits with the kind of campaign you're running, then as if by magic things start happening and plots write themselves!

Because I have a great group of players (who are mature and actual play the game for the story rather than as experience harvesting sessions) I also allow a lot of latitude for players to create the world as they go: someone playing a knightly character, for example, when faced with the need to talk to a local lord, might state that he has met one of the lord's knights in a tourney, and can gain an introduction this way.

Of course, this is a dangerous precedent to set, but it avoids the game getting bogged down and keeps spawning new ideas withing the player group, rather than just the GM's head.

This is exactly how we play, and we are lucky to have stable, normal creative people that ares also in it for the story as a whole.

We have an former secret service FBI agent, a technical writer, a network designer, and two high level marketing execs from fast food corporate. All in their 30s and stable.

I'm ridiculously lucky.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

Not quite D&D but if anyone is interested in some Warhammer novels in epub format:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/

 

[JayDubya]

And multi-classing in any form of D&D (including Pathfinder) is simply broken - You're spending double the XP for half the level.

You lost me here.

In 3.5 and Pathfinder you have to go up to the next experience level to multiclass. You gain early class features, but some classes have good stuff as they progress, or abilities that build based on your class level. Pathfinder actually did a good job making sticking in one class more attractive.

In 3.5, Fighter, for example, was really only a valid choice as long as you wanted / needed more bonus feats, otherwise you'd be better off with a different class, especially if you factored in all the available alternative classes, like Knight or Warblade or whatnot. In Pathfinder, you got some decent bonuses for just sticking with Fighter.

Multiclassing is a really bad idea long-term for casters unless you keep progressing with the same spell list and slots, as well...

AD&D and 2nd Ed had their own, unique systems for MC of course.

4th Ed does it well, I think; trade feats for the versatility, trade the power of a paragon path for still more versatility...

 

[aepokh]

I played for a while last summer, but I couldn't get the hang of it because instead of a traditional smaller-scale campaign where the players would complete quests and battle foes, the DM ran a very large world in which the players were big political officers who made trade decisions and played Risk. In addition to it hardly being D&D, the DM was a mess of cognitive biases and logical fallacies, so the world was completely broken.

The players were pretty chill, though. I'm putting together a campaign for them (if they accept me as a DM, that is) which will be more focused on individual players and characters, with some moral conflict thrown in to make it interesting.

What edition does everyone prefer? I like 3.x's specificity in skill checks and such, but I also really like 2e's simplicity. 4e is just irritating with all the numbers that are easy to forget, and I've never played 1e.

 

[JayDubya]

What edition does everyone prefer? I like 3.x's specificity in skill checks and such, but I also really like 2e's simplicity. 4e is just irritating with all the numbers that are easy to forget, and I've never played 1e.

I love 4th. I don't think I'd ever go back to 3.5, but Pathfinder refines it quite a bit and the result is quite palatable.

 

[thoughthorizon]

This is exactly how we play, and we are lucky to have stable, normal creative people that ares also in it for the story as a whole.

We have an former secret service FBI agent, a technical writer, a network designer, and two high level marketing execs from fast food corporate. All in their 30s and stable.

I'm ridiculously lucky.

Out of curiosity, how long have you been playing with this particular groups. Stable groups tend to have been gaming together for years, just wondering if you guys continued that trend.

 

[krypt0nian]

Out of curiosity, how long have you been playing with this particular groups. Stable groups tend to have been gaming together for years, just wondering if you guys continued that trend.

Actually, it's funny as I just got my Happy Friendiversary email from Eva. It will be exactly one year this Saturday that we first gathered around them table, wielding dice.

FBI Dave and I met on meetup.com, then hand selected/interviewed party members together. Dave and I turned out to be brothers from another mother, and Craig and Eva are the core we picked. Around July we picked up Dan and Ed and they've been with us ever since.

Kevin was just added in October, and he sits in more of a designated hitter schedule, but is a great creative guy.

I'd love to hear other group's stories.

 

[golem]

My long term group consists of a game dev, doctor/homecoming king, longshoreman, marketing dude, and a motion graphics artist