An idea from an aspiring DM [Archive] - Wizards Community

An idea from an aspiring DM [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Alabran
05-05-05, 11:42 PM How do you start a campaign/new group and introduce the the characters to each other? It seems so cheesy and redone to just have them all meet in a tavern. I actually had an idea which I thought had merit. The idea is this: before actually letting the players meet each other, you have them individually have a solo session with each person in the group at different times. One of the keys of this idea is that none of your players actually meet the other players until they would meet in-game. I was also thinking about staggering when the events the individual players do happen, so for example if player 1 burgularized some home, player 2 (who does things 3 hours later then player 1 in game time) would find a house devoid of anything of value. Once one of the players can see the other you can ask him if he would like to make contact with that player. If he does, you close the game session and have him come back again at his regular time next week, day, whatever. You also have the player whom the first player made contact with come by and from then on they work as a team.
What do you think?
OneSidedDice
05-06-05, 12:03 AM I think the idea is interesting but it is going to be extremely difficult to execute. Coordinating player schedules to allow for this sort of thing is probably going to cause headaches. As a player, I'd much rather spend the time that would be devoted to this kind of setup adventuring with the entire group.

Additionally, if your players are roleplaying their characters properly, you could conceivably end up with a situation where two players would not initiate contact with one another because their characters would have no reason to, or even worse would dislike one another enough to avoid each other.

You'd also have to be very careful constructing such scenarios for each character. It would be necessary to make sure they catered to each character's motivations and desires and would actually be something that character would participate in. Just because someone has "rogue" written on his character sheet, for example, does not mean he is interested in burglarizing a house.

I played under one DM who did something similar. The game began with each character going through a solo "mini-adventure". Said mini-adventure was based on each character's class. This turned out not so well, because the brutish greatsword-wielding half-orc and the agile longbow-toting elf are both fighters but are worlds apart. I positively put the DM into conniptions by choosing to play a fighter/wizard. Furthermore, each mini-adventure was assumed to be happening at the same time, since we all emerged into the same area at the same time. However, no character ever encountered another character, even though several were doing the exact same thing at the exact same time. It was a pretty big mess.

It's good that you considered a lot of things that will prevent such a mess from occurring. If at all possible, I'd encourage you to use this idea only if your players have extremely flexible schedules, or are willing to give up a session or two. Running the encounters online is also a good option.

It's a very interesting idea. Good luck with it.
TheChilliGod
05-06-05, 12:12 AM Alabran... I've heard that name before... MtG YMTC forums, right? If not, never mind.
Anyway, your idea is very complicated and risky, as it requires different times for different players, and changing the time to have a session (eg-if A plays at friday and B plays at saturday, and you want to have them meet up on the same day) could be difficult if players have other commitments. Of course, that goes for every game but the concept is kind of more relative to this situation.
What's wrong with the Tavern cliché? Makes for a great barfight and friendships forged in the heat of battle! Or, if possible, avoid the meet-up concept altogether and just make it so PC's always knew each other! You're idea is credible and unique, but it is risky and it destroys the idea of D&D being a social get-together as well.
Phantom Lord
05-06-05, 12:16 AM I have tried exactly what you are talking about. It made the story begin wonderfully, but it was way too taxing on me and my mental faculties. It was also a pain in the rump.

Then again, I have a wife, kids, a 50-60 hour/week job...it may work great for you.
Alabran
05-06-05, 12:31 AM TheChilliGod, that is correct. I just started posting here recently.
---
My main goal is not to eliminate the social aspect of D&D, only to serve by creating a more meaningful bonding of the group. While it would be almost imposibly difficult for any but the most talented DMs to pull off, if it was done well it would improve the campaign exponentially. It also allows time for each individual player to become comfortable with their new character and even would provide reason for the union of a half-orc and an elf. As a crude example, the half-orc and elf become imprisoned by ithilids. The only way for them to escape is to join forces and the bonding sticks. The result would be throughout the rest of the entire campaign (after the entire group has formed one party) the roleplaying opportunities would be unmatched, this is because the players would not have to completely act out their role-playing. "Dat elf there and me be buds, he be smacking them mindsuckers good. Me don't like bein' mindsucked. You be kindly to him or me be smacking you good!" and all of that.
SearcherOmega
05-06-05, 09:01 AM I actually have to second this. I'm a pretty big opponent of the stereotypical 'randomly bump into each other at the tavern' system, simply because there's so many better ways to do things.

For my current campaign, the group met up because of circumstance; I just made sure I knew each character's motivation (Talrek the Wizard likes money, Devith the Paladin wants to protect the innocent, etc.), found some way for their common interests to be thrown together, and then had them bear witness to a terrible crime. They (initially) group together out of necessity.
nephtis
05-06-05, 09:46 AM That sounds like a great idea. If you're able to invest the time your players should really enjoy this. (At least I would)

If you don't have the time there are other possibilities...
I sometimes suggest that players provide a character background to make sure at least two PC know each other. They don't have to have travelled together but they might be from the same village/organization/tribe/whatever.
They don't always do it (after all it's just suggestion) but it's easier if you have fewer characters to integrate. If they plan characters that way they usually create them the way they will work together well.

Apart from the standart tavern-meeting-start there are other ways to satart a group. Have them meet in jail (all being arrested -on false or true accusations depend on the kind of campaign you run), they get transported to some kind of court hearing, some rogues attack the guards to free one of there own in this prisoner transport - et voila, the group is on the run. (Possibly from both the bad guys who don't want to be named- and the authorities.) Plot idea: prove your innocence and find out who really did what *you* were accused of.
snowlynx
05-06-05, 12:00 PM Some sort of 'prelude' to the game, whereby you work with the characters individually before introducing them to each other, usually works pretty well in my experience: they are more likely to work together if they don't feel the situation was forced on them. However, you have to be careful about making sure that the players don't feell left behind ("why do I start *weeks* behind the other character, and have less equipment and xp?") and that the players who aren't participating before you have mamanged to tie them together have something to do.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Alabran 05-05-05, 11:42 PM	How do you start a campaign/new group and introduce the the characters to each other? It seems so cheesy and redone to just have them all meet in a tavern. I actually had an idea which I thought had merit. The idea is this: before actually letting the players meet each other, you have them individually have a solo session with each person in the group at different times. One of the keys of this idea is that none of your players actually meet the other players until they would meet in-game. I was also thinking about staggering when the events the individual players do happen, so for example if player 1 burgularized some home, player 2 (who does things 3 hours later then player 1 in game time) would find a house devoid of anything of value. Once one of the players can see the other you can ask him if he would like to make contact with that player. If he does, you close the game session and have him come back again at his regular time next week, day, whatever. You also have the player whom the first player made contact with come by and from then on they work as a team. What do you think?
OneSidedDice 05-06-05, 12:03 AM	I think the idea is interesting but it is going to be extremely difficult to execute. Coordinating player schedules to allow for this sort of thing is probably going to cause headaches. As a player, I'd much rather spend the time that would be devoted to this kind of setup adventuring with the entire group. Additionally, if your players are roleplaying their characters properly, you could conceivably end up with a situation where two players would not initiate contact with one another because their characters would have no reason to, or even worse would dislike one another enough to avoid each other. You'd also have to be very careful constructing such scenarios for each character. It would be necessary to make sure they catered to each character's motivations and desires and would actually be something that character would participate in. Just because someone has "rogue" written on his character sheet, for example, does not mean he is interested in burglarizing a house. I played under one DM who did something similar. The game began with each character going through a solo "mini-adventure". Said mini-adventure was based on each character's class. This turned out not so well, because the brutish greatsword-wielding half-orc and the agile longbow-toting elf are both fighters but are worlds apart. I positively put the DM into conniptions by choosing to play a fighter/wizard. Furthermore, each mini-adventure was assumed to be happening at the same time, since we all emerged into the same area at the same time. However, no character ever encountered another character, even though several were doing the exact same thing at the exact same time. It was a pretty big mess. It's good that you considered a lot of things that will prevent such a mess from occurring. If at all possible, I'd encourage you to use this idea only if your players have extremely flexible schedules, or are willing to give up a session or two. Running the encounters online is also a good option. It's a very interesting idea. Good luck with it.
TheChilliGod 05-06-05, 12:12 AM	Alabran... I've heard that name before... MtG YMTC forums, right? If not, never mind. Anyway, your idea is very complicated and risky, as it requires different times for different players, and changing the time to have a session (eg-if A plays at friday and B plays at saturday, and you want to have them meet up on the same day) could be difficult if players have other commitments. Of course, that goes for every game but the concept is kind of more relative to this situation. What's wrong with the Tavern cliché? Makes for a great barfight and friendships forged in the heat of battle! Or, if possible, avoid the meet-up concept altogether and just make it so PC's always knew each other! You're idea is credible and unique, but it is risky and it destroys the idea of D&D being a social get-together as well.
Phantom Lord 05-06-05, 12:16 AM	I have tried exactly what you are talking about. It made the story begin wonderfully, but it was way too taxing on me and my mental faculties. It was also a pain in the rump. Then again, I have a wife, kids, a 50-60 hour/week job...it may work great for you.
Alabran 05-06-05, 12:31 AM	TheChilliGod, that is correct. I just started posting here recently. --- My main goal is not to eliminate the social aspect of D&D, only to serve by creating a more meaningful bonding of the group. While it would be almost imposibly difficult for any but the most talented DMs to pull off, if it was done well it would improve the campaign exponentially. It also allows time for each individual player to become comfortable with their new character and even would provide reason for the union of a half-orc and an elf. As a crude example, the half-orc and elf become imprisoned by ithilids. The only way for them to escape is to join forces and the bonding sticks. The result would be throughout the rest of the entire campaign (after the entire group has formed one party) the roleplaying opportunities would be unmatched, this is because the players would not have to completely act out their role-playing. "Dat elf there and me be buds, he be smacking them mindsuckers good. Me don't like bein' mindsucked. You be kindly to him or me be smacking you good!" and all of that.
SearcherOmega 05-06-05, 09:01 AM	I actually have to second this. I'm a pretty big opponent of the stereotypical 'randomly bump into each other at the tavern' system, simply because there's so many better ways to do things. For my current campaign, the group met up because of circumstance; I just made sure I knew each character's motivation (Talrek the Wizard likes money, Devith the Paladin wants to protect the innocent, etc.), found some way for their common interests to be thrown together, and then had them bear witness to a terrible crime. They (initially) group together out of necessity.
nephtis 05-06-05, 09:46 AM	That sounds like a great idea. If you're able to invest the time your players should really enjoy this. (At least I would) If you don't have the time there are other possibilities... I sometimes suggest that players provide a character background to make sure at least two PC know each other. They don't have to have travelled together but they might be from the same village/organization/tribe/whatever. They don't always do it (after all it's just suggestion) but it's easier if you have fewer characters to integrate. If they plan characters that way they usually create them the way they will work together well. Apart from the standart tavern-meeting-start there are other ways to satart a group. Have them meet in jail (all being arrested -on false or true accusations depend on the kind of campaign you run), they get transported to some kind of court hearing, some rogues attack the guards to free one of there own in this prisoner transport - et voila, the group is on the run. (Possibly from both the bad guys who don't want to be named- and the authorities.) Plot idea: prove your innocence and find out who really did what you were accused of.
snowlynx 05-06-05, 12:00 PM	Some sort of 'prelude' to the game, whereby you work with the characters individually before introducing them to each other, usually works pretty well in my experience: they are more likely to work together if they don't feel the situation was forced on them. However, you have to be careful about making sure that the players don't feell left behind ("why do I start weeks behind the other character, and have less equipment and xp?") and that the players who aren't participating before you have mamanged to tie them together have something to do.