One very common mistake, and one which looks like it might derail the current campaign, is the creation of PCs in a vacuum. Roger goes off and creates a whimling wizard, Andy a human fighter, Andreas an aspected rogue, Johannes a sloth cleric of laziness, and Craig a vaggatz barbarian. The party is then somehow expected to come together. The reality is that they come apart.
The simple fact of the matter is that I'm not really up for running five cross-cut campaigns, so if the party splits I see three options:
1) Switch to a troupe-style game, where each person has five PCs, a 'main' PC and four secondaries, one each to accompany the other players main PCs. We'd then rotate through the five campaigns, running one session of each in sequence. I'm not really keen on that, for a couple of reasons that I'm not going to go into.
2) Require the group to choose one of the existing PCs to follow, and then require everyone else to generate new PCs to fit. In effect, doing the same as 1, but ditching four of the sub-campaigns. Again, I'm not too fond of this option.
3) Wrap the whole thing up.
It's one thing to follow the antics of a split party when they're seperated in a town or dungeon, with the expectation that they'll meet up again later. It's entirely another to do the same across a whole campaign; I'm not Robert Jordan.
The problem is that there really is little reason for the current group to stay together. Already, Jerriz has been forced out, and replaced with Artax in a somewhat contrived manner. Tekkis and Vibius are basically incompatible, while Kal-Bax has his own priorities. And there is no clear direction for the party to follow next, or clear reason for them to stick together; they'd probably do better going their seperate ways.
The root cause for this problem is that little thought was given to how the party was formed. The characters are all interesting, and quite well fleshed out. Even Tekkis has some depth. But there's little reason for them to have gotten together, and even less reason for them to stick together.
In days of yore, this was never a concern. PCs tended not to have backgrounds or personalities; they were playign pieces, and the group was together to hunt for treasure. Sometimes, I miss those days of old-school dungeon crawls and mindless death, but never for long. Games like that get tiresome quickly now.
However, if your character has a personality, he needs a reason to be with the people he is with. No one in their right mind would trust their life to a relative stranger, and I doubt very much that Vibius or Tekkis would ever trust one another to allow the other to keep watch while he slept.
Smart games designers saw this problem ages ago, and put in mechanisms to deal with it: Vampire has the coterie mechanism, where young vampires band together for mutual protection and influence. The Sabbat and Werewolf both have the pack mechanism, where characters are bound by common cause, and also religious practice. They even had the foresight to include the multiple blood-bond in Sabbat games, to prevent people from just killing one another. Star Wars, of course, has the easy out that characters are all Rebels, banded together out their common status as fugitives from the empire.
In the media, parties come together for various reasons: The Fellowship of the Ring were bound by their common quest, the Companions of the Lance (from Dragonlance) mostly grew up together. Other parties are formed by common membership of a common organisation (Star Trek, Alias), or common support for a central figure (Buffy, Angel).
The common shorthand in D&D remains the old-school notion that characters are random mercenaries bound by their common quest for fortune and glory. I guess that doesn't work any longer.
Archived comment by Andrew:
ReplyDeleteThis would be my only problem with the current campaign, in that Vibius has no reason at all to trust Tekkis and they seem to highlight the classic "Rome vs. Barbarian" storyline. I think what we need to do is find a reason for us to work together, for example perhaps Tekkis' tribe (if he has one) needs the support of the 9th Legion in a war against another tribe or else be slaughtered and the 9th Legion needs their help in a mutual alliance against said enemy? Tekkis would have a reason to want to work with Vibius (well maybe, I don't know Tekkis' background) and Vibius would want to stay friendly with "that barbarian" so that his father wouldn't lose an important ally?
One thing though I think it's up to the players to find reasons for our characters to stay together, only with some help from the DM so that it would fit with the campaign he had in mind. Maybe it's our own fault for not asking each other what characters were created at the start of the game and that we should've seen what was going to happen with our choices.
Depending on what happens, what if I ditched Vibius and created another one to work alongside Tekkis, or else have Tekkis ditched and one created to work alongside Vibius? Again it could just be we need a good reason. Maybe Vibius' father has those horses that Tekkis is/might be(?) looking for?
Archived comment by me:
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, the DM should have two inputs to party creation: Firstly, he sets the parameters for the game, so could insist on an all-fighter party if that's the nature of the campaign. Secondly, the DM should be allowed to insist on party cohesion of a level that he is comfortable with. Beyond that, it should, as you say, be down to the players.
The thing is, the DM is responsible for running the game, and can't be expected to run a game he is not comfortable with. But the player's are the consumers of the game, and should no more be required to play characters they detest than the DM should run a style of game he doesn't like.
So, if as DM I create a campaign where are the characters are first level commoners with no prospect of advancement, I should be able to insist that all players in the game play just that. However, the players also have the right to point out that I'm being an idiot, and to play another campaign. There's no shame in finding that the players don't want to play a given campaign, or in the DM not wanting the change his campaign too far - it just means that that group of players shouldn't play with that DM at that time.
Of course, a more sensible solution all round is for the players and the DM to discuss campaigns before the DM creates his magnum opus, and thus ensure that they're all on the same page.
As regards the particular Vibious/Tekkis thing, this is a situation that should have been dealt with before the first session began. If it was agreed that Tekkis was an outcast from his people, seeking a new life in the empire, and thus attached to Vibius as a possible patron, or alternatively that one of Vibius' arguments with his father stemmed from Vibius' respect for the vaggatz, and particularly his friendship with Tekkis, this problem wouldn't exist.
What actually happened was that I said "you met these guys on the road, and decided to travel together." Which, in hindsight, was a mistake.
As regards ditching Tekkis or Vibius, I'm not fond of either idea. The thing is that both characters are quite fun, and aren't actively at each other's throats. There's no reason they couldn't stick together, and even trust one another, just no reason why they should at the present time. That, of course, is something that needs worked on.
As regards not knowing Tekkis' background, you're not alone. I only know the most sketchy of details about his past life. An extended background would prove extremely useful, I think, but one has not been forthcoming...
Archived comment by Andrew:
ReplyDeleteI like the idea on Vibius' respect for the Vaggatz, perhaps as warriors on the battlefield? This of course would be out of touch with common thinking and would explain why Vibius didn't just attack the barbarian he met on the road. Maybe you can have a word with Craig about it on Saturday unless he has a different idea about his character?