Eyeing Up Possible Players

[geneweigel]

Ouch, I'll refrain from commenting specifically but I can feel the frustration of having players on a different wavelenghts.

I remember getting into an argument over me having a giant spider talking to them because "they don't talk in D&D". So this guy is browbeating me with this authorative tone. He was full of shit. I went into this spiel about intelligence capability of the type and spiders in THE HOBBIT. The guys is shaking his head and his gf is agreeing with him and I was thinking "why am I still talking to these people?"

Its like somewhere inside you want to see the best in people and make them more open to thoughtful play and instead all they want is a bunch of cliches. Fortunately most of the cliches just happen to be from bad rpgs but thats besides the point!

[Rhuvein]

LOL!

Poor Gene.

I prefer talking vultures!

What the hell is wrong with some RPG players??

They should play Monopoly instead . . .

Brick: I buy Park Place!

Player: Brick you need to role the dice first and move to that spot on the board.

Brick: [rolls a 7] I buy Park Place!

Player 2: Brick, you have to land on it also. Right now, you’re on Electric Company.

Brick: I love lamp.

Player 3: Rolls eyes and looks at player 1 shaking his head.

Player 2: Well then buy it!

Brick: I buy Park Place!

Player 3: Arrgh! Drinks beer and holds cold bottle on his forehead – whilst swearing!

Player 1: Let’s play D&D!

Player 2: No friggin’ way if Brick is in the game!

;D

[geneweigel]

Monopoly is such a cheater's game. I've never had the urge to cheat at anything except perhaps video games (that I got really bored with and used mods to change the scenarios) but Monopoly is the king cheater game. I've seen so many people produce money that they didn't get in play like its okay to pile up money because nobody is counting. Don't you hate that? The other one is Trivial Pursuit where people who have no idea about certain subjects know answers from studying the cards. Or mystery games where the winner already knows the answer and slants everybody's investigations with red herrings. The worst is when you're playing a Risk type game and you got the toilet after 3 hours and you come back and something is changed.

[Scott]

Men-at-arms/NPCs/Henchmen are one of the game tests, IMO. It's almost like knowing when to run away. Nobody really likes giving away shares of treasure, but are you smart enough to realize that sometimes you have to? It would be different if the DM didn't make the help available or implied that it wouldn't be needed, but it was pretty obvious that the extra help would be needed in this case, a party of three low level characters slogging it out with tribes of humanoids. I think Mark realized it at the end, after everybody was dead.
I don't know about the two characters each thing. I'd rather it stay one with hirelings, and maybe a henchman or two when the PCs can manage it.

[Scott]

Speaking of not liking NPCs, my cousin DJ (who plays Maylin, a 9th level magic-user) hates them, especially magic-users, but he's familiar enough with my style to realize that you sometimes need them. He's such a greedy character, especially for magic-items. He gets so pissed anytime an NPC magic-user gets a magic item. He won't even have a magic-user henchman.
I have a group of elves that charge a magic item toll guarding one of the entrances to the dungeons, based on Gary's notes, and them showing up in the Greyhawk Ruins adventure. DJ hates them. More than once he's threatened to raise an army just to get rid of them. I have a lot of fun making the elves antagonize Maylin.

[Scott]

As for Dimwall and Drudge, I didn't want to break up that team. I decided to make Dimwall against adventuring with another magic-user because I didn't want him to end up with a few of the magic items that you might have found. I thought the party would have gone for another fighter or a few men-at-arms, and maybe a thief.

[GT]

Gary, that was an insightful analysis worthy of Gronan (Mike Mornard), I must say! I'm afraid that I'm often of the "wing it alone" sort as well (my paladin, Scott?), even though I know better--in my earliest DM days I presented my first players with situations where they had to have hired help... ^__^

[Scott]

Towards the end, I knew Gary knew what the smart thing to do was, and I was watching him wrestle with that, and the suggestions the other party members were giving him. I'm thinking, 'don't go back into the cave, don't go back into the cave, it's a no exit death trap that will allow the kobolds to send attackers from two directions'. And then he went back into the cave and I knew it was over.

[Scott]

It did take just about the whole kobold tribe to bring him down though.

[Scott]

Over the course of a campaign, I'll write material adapted to individual players, the group, and the way I want it. The Greyhawk Dungeons I've been running fall into the last category. I write it tough, but not an inescapable death trap. There should always be a way for a smart party to avoid situations that are too tough. And I try to give the party the chance to escape when they get in too deep, but that window closes pretty quick.

[GT]

It's hard for me to "revert form" and think as a player versus as a DM sometimes. As DM, I actually see an upcoming death trap and think "Hmmm... well, this can be gotten around in the following ways"; but as a PC, you must constantly be thinking "what sort of deathtraps might lie ahead, and what is the optimal way to be prepared for all of them?" It's hard for me to shift gears sometimes. ^__^

[Scott]

Well, Gary knew what the smart thing to do was. He even stated his opinion, but I think he didn't want to have to choose between which comrade to save, and which one to leave to the kobolds' tender mercies.

[geneweigel]

Nov 16, 2008 6:16:18 GMT -5 Scott said:

Men-at-arms/NPCs/Henchmen are one of the game tests, IMO. It's almost like knowing when to run away.

Passing notes to the gm is another "test" that people fail especially those who roleplay good types who feel they have to announce everything.

Bringing henchmen, running away from monsters and passing notes to me or recording for yourself are something that i give a speech about everytime for new players til they "get it". Sometimes, I get derailed by the "slumming for players" type who uses that time to try to discuss how they handle it. Don't you hate that?

I usually add that there are many new elements that they will see on a regular basis but sometimes I overlook that part hence the "talking spider" incident"!

I also insist on finding better medical treatment in a proper specialized facility (surgeons, barbers, etc.) instead of the "temple = hospital" routine as that irks the shit out of me. There's no reason to make a well-rounded character class the only means of magical healing. Its a cliche that has seen its time. Back in the day we used healer NPCs so going back to that mentality through barbers and surgeons whose real world techniques were based on core principles of magic (contagion and sympathy) not only makes it more reasonable to have their style "effective in a world of magic" but it puts the cleric back where he belongs: religion.

Another thing that I eschew is for clerics of "singularities" (sun, war, etc.) to have more deities, demigods and heroes to honor than just one. Its a concept that has seen its time and its flogged dead. It may have worked in Greyhawk day one to have pagan priests of various natural aspects at its each other's throats for followers but for that to continue in a repetitious pattern and not have integrated and modular "copantheon link ups" or even no "comparative mythological link ups" for cleric players to have a level of dogma-free cooperation has had its day. What I'm saying if you're moving priests out of the background in S&S then why not have them as they are supposed to be? "Wise" and cut the chatter about conversion and copantheon antipathy all the time? Thats my spiel on clerics.

So here the Weigel preamble:

1) Runaway (A dungeon romp is not an over the top of the wall siege its mining based in trickery use stealth tactics for all)

2) Hirelings (they're cheap and most don't get or share experience) or just take anybody willing as a default. Or I'll pull Hedrick the Drunken Ranger out of retirement!

3) New Stuff on a regular basis (monsters, spells, etc.)

4) Copious Notes for yourself and GM (more means better secrets, etc.)

5) Emphasis on magical med over clerics (go to the magical medics first they're cheaper, faster and better)

6) Clerics must take several gods instead of one to break the old pattern however if they want to be a stickler then they can have other options (if monotheistic they must take at least one saint and one hero: if polytheistic but have a central urban focus on one god [classical D&D] then they have to take at least one demigod and one hero as well). What a bastard!

For the new new players its: "just shut the fuck up when I tell you to!"

[GT]

Yes, we keep small notepads around the table just for that purpose. I have pre-prepped notes to give out if the need arises as well--it helps the game flow more smoothly.

[Scott]

I’m easy with the clerics. Inter-god/inter-pantheon hostilities aren’t the norm. But there’s a distinction between followers (including some priests) and clerics. The kind of magical empowerment that clerics get requires a different kind of devotion. That’s how I rationalize it, at least. The pantheon devoted cleric is always an option, but I see no problem with, and even prefer, the single devotion model.

[GT]

I agree with Gary's tactics, both as a "thinking-Fighter" and as a Ranger staying to try to save his comrades. Any Paladin of mine would've done the same... ^__^

[GT]

I remember over on Rob's boards stating that a Druid or Ranger would be great PC's for Dark Druids, and he expressed a dislike towards both. In a "good-oriented" party, I think a Ranger is the most versatile form of Fighter to have.

[Scott]

They're both seem like naturals to me.

[GT]

BTW, Scotty---I was just thinking that in all of my years gaming, only two people in my world played a Paladin (PC or NPC) well in AD&D (I had a guy named John who played an excellent one in Mythus, but never in AD&D...)--that would be ME (^__^), and a guy named--are you ready for this?--Tim(othy) Scott!! How's that for a coincidence? Scott Gregg... Greg Timm... Tim Scott!! HAR!!!!!

[Scott]

I've always liked the class. Paladins and magic-users have always been my favorites.
My three favorite (surviving) PCs are Talivar the magic-user, Gilderoy that paladin, and Gildon (the Glib) the bard. All are currently looking for adventure.