A Non-Group of Adventurers [Archive] - Wizards Community

A Non-Group of Adventurers [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Plane Traveler
12-31-05, 02:11 PM What follows is a rant. It is nothing but that. Any comments and insights from others would be appreciated, but it isn't necessary. Let the carping begin...

Recently our group started a new campaign. There's a good backstory for the campaign by itself and as it relates to the characters, as well as a workable setting. In essence, this would seem to be an opportunity for very interesting role play.

We have no focus.

We are individuals who are a group by virtue of being a bunch of people sitting around a table with stacks of books, character sheets, writing implements, and dice. In the game itself we may as well be a bunch of characters whose lives intersect irrelevantly for but a moment.

Game opening: My character meets a bunch of other characters in an otherwise empty tavern. I'm in the tavern because my raison d'etre is complete. Ideally my goal according to the DM is to return home - by myself. I'm not making this up. Others' goals are equally as strange in that we're all going in opposite directions.

Understand that's all we have. It isn't as if we somehow learn that Lidda is missing, and was last seen heading toward the tower in the west, and that there's a reward for learning her fate. That would be a hook, an opening for a game that could potentially draw us together as a group. We have nothing to bring us together. We're a non-group of adventurers, armed individuals with nothing to do.

What has happend is that as PCs, we've sort of followed some trivial mutual goal, the moral equivalent of, "Well, we've nothing else to do, so let's do this!" "Sure, okay!" In the beginning that was fine, but that didn't last. In the course of recent sessions, one character has been murdered by the "group", one has been killed by outsiders for crimes, and one decided to walk into his bag of holding (yeah, that's right).

The DM is experienced, though I've never played under him until now. He was reputed to be quite good, but I cannot for the life of me understand why.

I've only been in the D&D universe for a short time, but if this is what it's about, I'm out of here. I've spent alot of time developing a character for adventuring. I have better ways to spend my time.
Generic_NPC
12-31-05, 03:24 PM It sounds like you just have a bunch of party members with problems. If they don't really want to work together, there is very little that a DM could do to force them to do so. Don't look badly on DnD for the failings of one small group.
celtredleg
12-31-05, 09:13 PM Shop around. There has to be another group out there. And no that is not how it usually works. Siounds like the other players and the DM both have problems.
TheChilliGod
12-31-05, 09:54 PM That's how my own campaign started. A bunch of completely random shmoes just happened to come into the same distressed village at the same time. Well, not quite the same time, rather a time period distributed over 6 sessions. But I'm pretty sure most of those in my party are completely satisfied with this method of play.

The entire motive of the campaign's quests thus far has been "Nothing else to do," as well as a little 'Destiny' stuff thrown in. Of course, this is because only one person made a goal on their own, and the quest involved in that goal is intended to take a long time to emerge. (which is to find a legendary sword fit for a level 30 character)

I would think it is a little tough for everyone to come up with characters that automatically have something to do with one another, and are going on a unified quest that is the direct result of the groups' goals and motives as a whole. Restrictive, even.

But if that's your cup of tea, then maybe you should start to think about trying to get the group together with the DM, and focus together on the quests that the DM tosses at you, and think about other motives to use, such as service to the King, or the search for a cure for a good friend of the PC's.
trapspringer
12-31-05, 10:36 PM I find that particular method to be my favorite, regardless of which side of the table I am on.

It does require that the players come up with some sort of initial goal, and some people aren't comfortable with that much freedom. The video gamer/problem solver type has special trouble with this type of game, while the guy who plays the chaotic-stupid halfling wizard usually gets a real kick out of it.
jamie_noone
01-01-06, 03:49 PM I would think it is a little tough for everyone to come up with characters that automatically have something to do with one another, and are going on a unified quest that is the direct result of the groups' goals and motives as a whole. Restrictive, even.
We've had the same experience you describe in your post, so what we've started doing is, as a group, decide on a common theme for the party. For example, maybe we'll all be from the same tribe, and we'll restrict our classes to wilderness-related classes (barb, scout, ranger, etc) or we'll be of the same race. We've really liked it a lot more, as the party cohesion doesn't feel as forced.

-Jamie
Plane Traveler
01-01-06, 07:01 PM Thank you everyone for your responses! I find it interesting that having no preconceived focus would be fairly normal, but part of why I posted was to learn.
JarathWulfenstein
01-01-06, 09:20 PM personally, i enjoy the idea of the players coming up with their own motives instead of being under the absolute control of the DM. i view the DM as someone who directs the flow of the game to keep it organized, but i think that creating it and putting the characters together in their adventure and story should be a group effort, with the players playing just as much, if not a bigger, role than the DM
TheChilliGod
01-01-06, 10:27 PM We've had the same experience you describe in your post, so what we've started doing is, as a group, decide on a common theme for the party. For example, maybe we'll all be from the same tribe, and we'll restrict our classes to wilderness-related classes (barb, scout, ranger, etc) or we'll be of the same race. We've really liked it a lot more, as the party cohesion doesn't feel as forced.

-JamieI'd say you got lucky with your group. Either that or I'm unlucky, because I don't think I could ever persuade my players to agree to be the same race, or to have a restriction on their background, or have a single common trait at all.
Plane Traveler
01-02-06, 12:40 PM I have a most excellent DM.

I've been emailing my DM, and I think everything will be okay. My personal life is complicated with Asperger's Syndrome. For me, novel situational structures are nearly impossible for me to comprehend.

Consider the situation in my opening post. I've altered it a bit from the actual situation, but my description differs only in detail. I saw that I'd committed a number of egregious errors in the recent game sessions. They were the things I saw that my character must do, but to me things concluded horribly. I told my DM I was dropping D&D. I clearly didn't "get" the game.

He thought I'd done a fine job, given the situation. He said he'd have done the same, and that my actions have helped to draw the other adventurers together as a coherent group. What he told me was almost entirely opposite of how I viewed my play.

:eek:

Many long emails have passed between us. Based on past - if limited - experience with him, and based on the responses here in this thread, I trust him. Trust is not something I give freely. I'll play in the next game. I'm back.

I have expressed my thanks to my DM, and have told him I trust him.

Thank you everyone. Mea culpa.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Plane Traveler 12-31-05, 02:11 PM	What follows is a rant. It is nothing but that. Any comments and insights from others would be appreciated, but it isn't necessary. Let the carping begin... Recently our group started a new campaign. There's a good backstory for the campaign by itself and as it relates to the characters, as well as a workable setting. In essence, this would seem to be an opportunity for very interesting role play. We have no focus. We are individuals who are a group by virtue of being a bunch of people sitting around a table with stacks of books, character sheets, writing implements, and dice. In the game itself we may as well be a bunch of characters whose lives intersect irrelevantly for but a moment. Game opening: My character meets a bunch of other characters in an otherwise empty tavern. I'm in the tavern because my raison d'etre is complete. Ideally my goal according to the DM is to return home - by myself. I'm not making this up. Others' goals are equally as strange in that we're all going in opposite directions. Understand that's all we have. It isn't as if we somehow learn that Lidda is missing, and was last seen heading toward the tower in the west, and that there's a reward for learning her fate. That would be a hook, an opening for a game that could potentially draw us together as a group. We have nothing to bring us together. We're a non-group of adventurers, armed individuals with nothing to do. What has happend is that as PCs, we've sort of followed some trivial mutual goal, the moral equivalent of, "Well, we've nothing else to do, so let's do this!" "Sure, okay!" In the beginning that was fine, but that didn't last. In the course of recent sessions, one character has been murdered by the "group", one has been killed by outsiders for crimes, and one decided to walk into his bag of holding (yeah, that's right). The DM is experienced, though I've never played under him until now. He was reputed to be quite good, but I cannot for the life of me understand why. I've only been in the D&D universe for a short time, but if this is what it's about, I'm out of here. I've spent alot of time developing a character for adventuring. I have better ways to spend my time.
Generic_NPC 12-31-05, 03:24 PM	It sounds like you just have a bunch of party members with problems. If they don't really want to work together, there is very little that a DM could do to force them to do so. Don't look badly on DnD for the failings of one small group.
celtredleg 12-31-05, 09:13 PM	Shop around. There has to be another group out there. And no that is not how it usually works. Siounds like the other players and the DM both have problems.
TheChilliGod 12-31-05, 09:54 PM	That's how my own campaign started. A bunch of completely random shmoes just happened to come into the same distressed village at the same time. Well, not quite the same time, rather a time period distributed over 6 sessions. But I'm pretty sure most of those in my party are completely satisfied with this method of play. The entire motive of the campaign's quests thus far has been "Nothing else to do," as well as a little 'Destiny' stuff thrown in. Of course, this is because only one person made a goal on their own, and the quest involved in that goal is intended to take a long time to emerge. (which is to find a legendary sword fit for a level 30 character) I would think it is a little tough for everyone to come up with characters that automatically have something to do with one another, and are going on a unified quest that is the direct result of the groups' goals and motives as a whole. Restrictive, even. But if that's your cup of tea, then maybe you should start to think about trying to get the group together with the DM, and focus together on the quests that the DM tosses at you, and think about other motives to use, such as service to the King, or the search for a cure for a good friend of the PC's.
trapspringer 12-31-05, 10:36 PM	I find that particular method to be my favorite, regardless of which side of the table I am on. It does require that the players come up with some sort of initial goal, and some people aren't comfortable with that much freedom. The video gamer/problem solver type has special trouble with this type of game, while the guy who plays the chaotic-stupid halfling wizard usually gets a real kick out of it.
jamie_noone 01-01-06, 03:49 PM	I would think it is a little tough for everyone to come up with characters that automatically have something to do with one another, and are going on a unified quest that is the direct result of the groups' goals and motives as a whole. Restrictive, even. We've had the same experience you describe in your post, so what we've started doing is, as a group, decide on a common theme for the party. For example, maybe we'll all be from the same tribe, and we'll restrict our classes to wilderness-related classes (barb, scout, ranger, etc) or we'll be of the same race. We've really liked it a lot more, as the party cohesion doesn't feel as forced. -Jamie
Plane Traveler 01-01-06, 07:01 PM	Thank you everyone for your responses! I find it interesting that having no preconceived focus would be fairly normal, but part of why I posted was to learn.
JarathWulfenstein 01-01-06, 09:20 PM	personally, i enjoy the idea of the players coming up with their own motives instead of being under the absolute control of the DM. i view the DM as someone who directs the flow of the game to keep it organized, but i think that creating it and putting the characters together in their adventure and story should be a group effort, with the players playing just as much, if not a bigger, role than the DM
TheChilliGod 01-01-06, 10:27 PM	We've had the same experience you describe in your post, so what we've started doing is, as a group, decide on a common theme for the party. For example, maybe we'll all be from the same tribe, and we'll restrict our classes to wilderness-related classes (barb, scout, ranger, etc) or we'll be of the same race. We've really liked it a lot more, as the party cohesion doesn't feel as forced. -JamieI'd say you got lucky with your group. Either that or I'm unlucky, because I don't think I could ever persuade my players to agree to be the same race, or to have a restriction on their background, or have a single common trait at all.
Plane Traveler 01-02-06, 12:40 PM	I have a most excellent DM. I've been emailing my DM, and I think everything will be okay. My personal life is complicated with Asperger's Syndrome. For me, novel situational structures are nearly impossible for me to comprehend. Consider the situation in my opening post. I've altered it a bit from the actual situation, but my description differs only in detail. I saw that I'd committed a number of egregious errors in the recent game sessions. They were the things I saw that my character must do, but to me things concluded horribly. I told my DM I was dropping D&D. I clearly didn't "get" the game. He thought I'd done a fine job, given the situation. He said he'd have done the same, and that my actions have helped to draw the other adventurers together as a coherent group. What he told me was almost entirely opposite of how I viewed my play. :eek: Many long emails have passed between us. Based on past - if limited - experience with him, and based on the responses here in this thread, I trust him. Trust is not something I give freely. I'll play in the next game. I'm back. I have expressed my thanks to my DM, and have told him I trust him. Thank you everyone. Mea culpa.