I don't have my books yet - any mention of this in the new books?
I loved this mechanic. My DM could go on and on about how brutal the world is - but this made me feel the brutality. I knew that Athas chews up characters. It really gets you into the Dark Sun mindset.
You also get a chance to try out some Athasian roleplaying that wouldn't normally be your first choice.
Thoughts?
I'm going to have the players start unexpectedly start "inheriting" a mercenary group. As players die out, they are "replaced" with other mercenaries in the same group - they can also swap in and out during extended rests or in between chapters. All mercenaries progress at the same rate (while they go off on other contracts).
Im not going to worry about dividing XP up among the characters. When they level I will have the whole stable of characters level.
I am considering using a shared action point pool for all that player's characters, any problems I am not thinking of with this?
Its one of the first things that popped into my head when considering a Dark Sun campaign. I like the idea that life is cheap in Dark Sun. I really wanna waste some PCs. Know what I mean? ;)
The books are due out today; gotta get my copy. I've read about Dark Sun since it first appeared for 2nd edition but this will be the first time I get to actually play the setting. Kinda excited.
/\ Art
I don't see the appeal, but I imagine it would be pretty simple to implement.
The character-tree mechanic is more to promote "team building". Player focus more on the party, rather than their individual character. They grow and role-play as a team, get personally attached to the team, since their individual characters might get swapped out or killed at any moment.
This helps for DMing large groups with both experienced and beginner players. I also don't have to worry about no-shows.
I rarely have players killed in my games. It's not always fun to lose a favorite character. I can get attached to a character concept, just like my players. I'm sure we all have a favorite character. That build we always reach for when starting some new campaign. Includng a character tree mechanic releases some of that attachment to your favorite character. The DM made me roll up replacements. My favorite character might die afterall. Oh no.
It reinforces that brutishness of Dark Sun on a emotional level for the player, which I think is part of that important Dark Sun experience. Your DM could sit there until he is blue in the face describing how dangerous Athas is. Killer plants, desert mutants, and despotic Dragon Kings. It's not until you feel that danger that you know that this campaign is different from the others. Dark Sun is more than just taking Forgotten Realms and turning the difficulty to HARD. This mechanic is about fostering that mind-set for both the players and the DM.
In my mind, the policy of "characters must die to make this world seem harsh" does pretty much the opposite of what I want as a DM: players are less attached to their characters, they spend more time just outright losing instead of overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds, and I intentionally fostered the "DM v. Player" sentiment that kills cooperative storytelling.
There are a million tools for ramping up the difficulty, making the world seem harsh and brutal, and making the players feel insignificant in the grand scheme of a world that hates you (or more accurately, couldn't care one iota about you) without resulting to having the players roll up a six-pack and running them through the meat grinder.
Before anyone pipes in with "you can't have fun without the threat of dying," I urge you (the generic "you" -- that is, no one who has posted in this thread presently) to take a look at what I actually wrote again, and not what you thought I wrote.
This mechanic, though, sets up from the get-go the mentality that things should be a little less attached in Dark Sun. I want my players to feel a bit of fear for their characters safety, even if I am not actively trying to kill them. If it does happen, there are no hurt feelings (or fewer hurt feelings) because everyone came to the game with the assumptions of deadliness. That characters do die. But the game goes on, and you already have a cool new character rolled up.
Thus, a Character Tree at my table would essentially mean character gen would take four times as long to make four characters per player, three of which would likely never see the light of day.
Plus, one of my players is the most indecisive people I have ever met. I cringe at the thought of the amount of time he takes over making one character. Making him make four would be an endeavor that would require me to have food brought in, a suitable space for me to take a nap while he spends 12 hours agonizing over which at-wills to take, and/or a cattle prod.
Character trees are a neat idea, but they wouldn't work at my table.
Uusually you can't go one session without players doing recklessly stupid things that any rational and objective third party observer would tell them would have deadly or potentially deadly consequences. Darksun is just a setting where you stop giving them an infinite number of free passes for those situations.
A player with no power within a city state wants to sass a connected templar for no good reason? Yea, re-roll your character.
A player wants to loot and carry off into the desert a 300 pound stone statue because they think it might be valuable... Yea, make an endurence check and if you fail your character dies of heat stroke.
The players want to keep fighting in a fight they are losing badly without making any attempt to bribe. parley, escape or run away? If they die, they die, and then they re-roll characters.
The DM doesn't have to be 'out to get' the players. Players are out to get themselves and the DM usually does all the work to save them from themselves. Once the players figure out that "oh, hey, I really will have to re-roll if I keep putting zero effort into avoiding death", then it is mission accomplished.
I'm not sure I'd go with the 'roll three characters' version of the character tree. Rolling a 1st level 4E char with the char builder is FAST unless they are over-optimizing, at which point they can just roll a new one fast and then spend their re-trains to make it "perfect". For latter levels, I think it might be a good idea for players to nominate support NPCs that they like, and have them roll up stats for the NPCs, and have them become characters if a player's character dies. So that way there isn't musical characters constatly going on, yet at the same time you can slay the heck out of a character for doing something stupid and have a replacement lined up to fit in quickly and maintain the plot.
Dark Sun should be a change of pace for me. I'm so used to the idea that PCs are not average joes (no matter what else they might be). Dark Sun sorta turns that idea on its head I think. Life is cheap. Dirt cheap, as in 'hope ya find water for the day.' 'If yer lucky the slave catchers won't get there first.' Uh, why do I hear bees in my head-- its starting to hurt-- and why is that big lizard looking at me like that?
As harshly beautiful as the setting might be, the most important thing is survival. With 'traditional' settings (like Forgotten Realms, Eberron), its fun to explore the world through the eyes of a single PC. I imagine Dark Sun as being more alien. Playing a common man doesn't normally appeal to me but I plan on having some fun with the idea this time out.
See ya when I get back with my books ;).
/\ Art
www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...
It's a whole lot less fiddling around with a build.
Minor Detail from Players Strategy Guide,
monsters are -2 to hit, compared to PCs.
Assuming PCs are able to build at Level instead of the 1/2 level mechanic.
Build an easy build, and give it +2 to hit.
Houserule, but equals to underlying game math.
... And then they die !!
(evil grin)
1. I'm not one to kills characters, for many reasons. I didn't even use the character tree idea in my original DS games back in the day. BUT one of the reasons character don't die in my games is because I (like many other DM's) sometimes fudge things to make sure our characters don't die. I told my group if we did the character trees then i wouldn't fudge things to make sure they all lived. I a character dies then he/she dies.
2. The tree isn't just for dead characters. There were/are options to switch characters out. so if you wanted to switch characters then you could. Ifter playing a while, a player decided that he didn't really like being a Warlock, then he could just switch to his Bard, or whatever.
Ultimately i left it up to them. We rolled characters tonight and they decided to do the tree. So that's what we are doing.
Each character builds 3 characters. All players and DM talk to entwine this characters backgrounds to form a mercenary group.
Each mission the player chooses a character to perform it. while the others go do something else
If a player don't play a character for 3 or 4 times in a row that character dies during a 'something else action'
'Something Else' action ideas:
Perform a distraction for the characters being played
Infiltrate a War Camp to unlock it from the inside
Hold on a Caravan full of enemies by saboutaging their water support
Shopping, debauching and tavern brawling (AKA time off)
Be held prisoner when the actual mission is to save them before the gladiatoral games begin.
This way a player CAN be fond of a single character, and not having 'extra lifes' (backup characters)
I loved the Character tree mechanic, although I feel that a 4-pc tree would be overkill in 4e
A) Characters are much tougher at 1st level 4e, than they were in 2e.
B) Dark Sun 4e PC's still get a free Wild Talent equivalent (with upgrade options), so all is right with the world
C) 4e PC'scan still fill multiple roles for different campaign requirements (Sneaking/Fighting/Diplomacy/etc)
However, one of the most tantalising elements for Dark Sun, for myself and my groups, was the constant threat of death.
My Dark Sun worlds were not fair. My encounters were not all balanced. MY PC's (both as Player and DM) sometimes kicked it due to the bad luck of wrong place, wrong time.
- You interrupted a templar in the street (or just criossed his path without apologising), and he called in the half-giants. The PC group decides to fight instead of run
- You peer over the edge of the sand skimmer, and get pulled in by a silt horror. You'd be very lucky if someone can save you
- Your party went out into the desert, unprepared. As a lesson the DM let's one of you die before the rest are saved by the friendly Dune Trader
- etc
- etc
- etc
This did not foster ill will in my group.
- They grew stronger, and smarter
This did not slow down game play.
- They had other PC's ready to switch in at the drop of a hat
This did not make the GM's life harder.
- Understanding that the players knew the risks of stupidity or more importantly NOT RUNNING AWAY, the GM was free to play according to the theme of the world.
Dark Sun is brutal, unfriendly, and unforgiving.
Players should have the expectation that death can be much more sudden and common in such a place.
If as a DM, you're a bit more gentle, then at least have NPC's kick it regularly in front of the PC's to set an example fo the harsh world in which they live.
Discretion needs to be the better part of valour in a lot of Dark Sun fights, especially if you're from a slave background.
Make sure the PC's have an option to flee when they know they're outclassed.
Make them suffer.
Make them wish they were stronger.
Make them strive.
I hated dying. I especially miss my beloved halfling ranger/illusionist (good old 2e Multiclassing). He was seperated from the group and dropped by a roc from a great height.
It was upsetting, but when the Mul Psionicist/Ranger came looking for his mentor, nobody in the group blinked an eye. Gaming continued (and the Mul had a vicious hatred of Rocs (ie Favoured Enemy) for the rest of the campaign).
A Dark Sun campaign should not just be Heroic fantasy. Read the books.
It requires sacrifice.
- The halflings of the forest demand tribute in the form of blood. You have an elf in the group. This will not end well...
It requires hard decisions in a grey moral area.
- The templar will sacrifice those three slaves to summon /\insert bad creature here/\. Your daily wizard power to take him down just missed. Do you now Defile the area, for the greater good?
It requires sometimes killing off the competition because resources are NOT abundant.
- You and the Merchant House convoy can't share the oasis. They need to feed their Inix or their cargo rots in the sand. Do you think your life is more precious than their water?
Now, as for the last mechanic on the Character Tree, the swap out.
I love the extended rest version, although I think that's a bit too common. Although it would work well in the mercenary approach someone suggested. Very clever, but means you are always travelling in large groups. Not necessarily the Athasian way....
Also:
- if you've just spent the last few sessions cleaving your way into the belgoi tunnels, to find it's actually a city (not just a tribe), probably an idea to switch into a rogue and stealth your way through
- if you know your campaign is about to travel through the forest ridge. I think everyone in the group would be happier if you didn't bring the elf... Just a suggestion ....
It's also great fun to have your regular party swap in a specialist crew for the next few sessions.
One of the most memorable quests from my campaign involved some mass battles, bloodshed and wizardry to reach a tower of rogue Psionicists (not The Order, an offshoot). The whole party switched into Rogues, Bards (the original Athasian assassin) and Rangers, so the entire party then stealthed and backstabbed their way through the following sessions.
It was a great shake-up from their normal campaign, everyone enjoyed the break, all the characters reaped the benefits of XP and loot, everyone was happy (even though one rogue bit it painfully on the way through, buying time for the others to flee that sceanrio, and exact gruesome vengeance later in the tower).
Was a great series of sessions. All thanks to the Character tree swapout and hideous death of a party member.
Go Athas!
I don't expect to use this to allow me to kill of characters, though. Instead, I'm declaring 'dead' to really mean 'badly injured enough to require more than just an extended rest to get better; out for weeks if not months.' This lets the player swap to his other character, and the injured character can be out of the action for quite some time.
It also lets me run the game with 'dice-as-rolled'; my usual style is 'cheat for narrative tension and drama', which is a lot less brutal. I can freely 'kill' a PC, knowing that 1) he's probably not really dead and will return, and 2) the player isn't going to be out of the game for very long, and will be playing a character he knows, likes, and presumably is interested in.
If a character tree works for the entire group, then by all means use it. But a lot of people had a problem with constant death in DS back in 2e and it seems people are still opposed to it. Encounters didn't do well when it came to easy pc death. The death penalty mechanic is perfect (IMO) because if a pc dies, they sit out the rest of the encounter, but after the encounter they can play their character again.
They suffer a -1 penalty to attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks and ability checks until they gain a milestone. This is great because the player doesn't have to bring in a new character, the game doesn't grind to a halt while things get worked out and the player isn't waiting to rejoin the game while the dm works in the new character. Death isn't a joke with the penalty.
Personally, I would not want to participate in a character tree method as a player and I absolutely would not if we were not using CB, as I'm not going to write out two characters worth of powers, feats and features. I'd rather find a different game and avoid arthritis acting up.
Unfortunately I'm having a hard time thinking on how it will work in 4e. Characters are tougher and require roles to function. The defender dying in the group would more than likely have to have another defender in reserve. Most players would want several different classes in reserve.
I do know that I would not allow "swapping" out during an extended rest. If I implemented the character tree, I would use it to replace characters that fell during battle. The ones in reserve would level alongside the active party. If the defender has a level 3 magic item, his reserve character had one as well. This would instill the harshness of the world with no resurrection.
On roleplaying, I mean that having a stable of PCs might diminish attachment to any particular one. It's an element one might expect in a board game, but it doesn't seem suited to roleplaying itself, especially in the "slot in whoever" style
It makes it very hard to believe in the game as a real world. Where, exactly, are the alternate PCs stashed while not adventuring? Is their an Athasian Quantum Leap power shared by the 15 different PCs, and they never talk about it? When someone dies, how exactly does his back up teleport in?
Granted, there are some campaign premises which might make the system plausible, such as a merchant house game, in which the dozen+ characters are variously house members, guards, agents, or slaves. Even that, though, runs into trouble. What if the caravan is attacked? Unless you're willing to run an eight-hour battle in which each player runs three or four characters, it's not going to turn out well.
It makes it very hard to believe in the game as a real world. Where, exactly, are the alternate PCs stashed while not adventuring? Is their an Athasian Quantum Leap power shared by the 15 different PCs, and they never talk about it? When someone dies, how exactly does his back up teleport in?
The alternate PC's are in other parts of the world dealing with other adventures which would explain why they gained levels as well. In the original idea for the tree, the player would move his alternate character to a particular city or area so that he may be "nearby" if his main died or whatnot.
The alternate PC's are in other parts of the world dealing with other adventures which would explain why they gained levels as well. In the original idea for the tree, the player would move his alternate character to a particular city or area so that he may be "nearby" if his main died or whatnot.
Indeed, but how is that different from simply running multiple campaigns, or from having a rough backstory for a new character?
I think I'm worried about the moral hazard of having multiple PCs: Each PC after the first is like having insurance. Since players and the DM know there's a spare, it's not a big deal to kill off the first one, so it happens more (and this very much was the original design of Dark Sun).
How, though, do you plausibly and meaningfully explain the entrance of an alternate? Joradax the Mul arena fighter covered the escape of his fellows and got eaten by a beast giant, and six hours later Lady Hunenar, ex-templar of Kalak, shows up to take his place? Why is she welcomed by the others in party? How did she know to arrive just then? How is their meaning in Joradax's sacrifice if everyone knows he's going to be immediately replaced?
Indeed, but how is that different from simply running multiple campaigns, or from having a rough backstory for a new character?
I think I'm worried about the moral hazard of having multiple PCs: Each PC after the first is like having insurance. Since players and the DM know there's a spare, it's not a big deal to kill off the first one, so it happens more (and this very much was the original design of Dark Sun).
How, though, do you plausibly and meaningfully explain the entrance of an alternate? Joradax the Mul arena fighter covered the escape of his fellows and got eaten by a beast giant, and six hours later Lady Hunenar, ex-templar of Kalak, shows up to take his place? Why is she welcomed by the others in party? How did she know to arrive just then? How is their meaning in Joradax's sacrifice if everyone knows he's going to be immediately replaced?
It is assumed that they are all part of one large adventuring group. Think of it in terms of comic book super hero teams. There may be twelve members on the team but only six are active at any given time. Players control which ever character might seem optimal at the time or as a preference of what they want to play (Sorry Aquaman, you're sitting out this battle).
All the characters share a connection with each other as members of the same group. Though characters controlled by the same player follow the same rules for sharing magic items. Joradax isn't going to lend his magic bracers to Lady Hunenar just like Player 1 is not going to lend his magic bracers to Player 2. This could open up plenty of character backstories and plot hooks.
Alternate characters waiting in a particular city allow a player to swap or have a replacement ready just in case. A player might be tired of playing Joradax who is currently adventuring near Tyr and knows Lady Hunenar is in Tyr. The swap there is easy. Joradax dies near the city of Tyr, the player has Lady Hunenar waiting. I "think" word reaches Lady Hunenar somehow but I can't remember how exactly as I don't have the books with me right now. I do remember there being a penalty in how many days it took for the new character to reach the party (which I think includes the time it takes for a message to reach Lady Hunenar). Running multiple games seems excessive honestly. You would just have the alternates level with the active characters.
Personally the Character Tree option seems ideal for 2e where I mentioned that characters were a dime a dozen. In 4e, I don't see characters dying that often.