Getting a new group all set up for a campaign next Thursday using the Starter Set. 2 of the 5 are 100% new to D&D, all coworkers of mine. They had me help them with their characters the other day, and here are my observations.
Character Creation:
- Concept before Mechanics: both of the new players had a concept in their head before ever looking at the book. One of them never even opened the PDF before choosing he wanted to play a Dwarven 2-handed Fighter who lived in the mountains. The other skimmed the PDF for ideas, and made a Greatsword High-Elf Fighter. Only mechanical consideration was the Cantrip of the High Elf (for "style points" as it were)
- I Can Do That?: They asked me a whole bunch of different scenarios, and gave them some examples of stuff they could try. They asked where those things were on their sheet. I simply told them to ask and I'll let them know what to roll as long as it was reasonable. You could hear the gears turning and they kept bouncing ideas off each other after I was done.
- Ideals/Bonds/Flaws a Big Hit: This really helped them get a handle on their character. It gave them a very intuitive way to build out a character that was more than a Race/Class/Skills combo.
- Anti-Hero Syndrome: I have decided that I hate whenever I mention the Alignment section of the process. For some reason, people who are ~20 years old seem to always want to play a villian/anti-hero. Both players immediately asked to be Evil aligned in some way. Finally talked them into "Neutral" alignments but I'm worried that one of the players will attack an ally "for the lulz" or worse "my character would do that because he's an asshole". Had the whole "don't grief the party" speech, which was annoying. The older players seem fine playing heroic characters for whatever reason.
- Ability Score/Ability Modifier Confusion: Was minor, confusion over what the modifier was. Only took about 5 min to explain, but it was a snagging point in a couple of places (determining Skill modifiers mostly).
- Interesting Composition: Party comp looks to be 3 Fighters (2 Greatsword, 1 Bow), 1 Wizard and 1 Rogue. Cleric got no love. The Bow-Fighter wanted to be a Druid (w/healing) or Ranger (w/a healing spell or 2) but didn't want the Cleric due to issues with religion. Was open to me reflavouring, and still might (dedicated to/reveres Nature and not a God, "holy" abilities flavoured to naturistic abilities etc)
Will add more later when we get further in....
Thanks for the recap. I have had a similar experience sorting out the various modifiers for skills during character creation. It is one aspect of the game that is a little clunky - pick a couple, get a couple from your class - it was a little confusiing. Look forward to hearing more.
spelley wrote:
spelley wrote:
akaddk wrote:
The teenager in my group is playing a half-orc necromancer, and he's not being a dork about it either. He's pretty good about being a team player.
spelley wrote:
Nausicaa wrote:
TheZigZagist wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Nausicaa wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
pukunui wrote:
My experience with new and under-30 players (not in 5ed, generally in D&D) is that they like using weapons. Instead of being interested in the different schools of magic, they like to define their character concepts by different kind of weapon schools: big weapons, sharp daggers, longbows, garrottes, and more. They're pretty okay with being magic-users, provided it's magic-users with deadly weapons (Paladins, Warlocks and Sorcerors whose magical daggers channel their power, etc.).
Nausicaa wrote:
pukunui wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
spelley wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Emanuele_Galletto wrote:
Nausicaa wrote:
akaddk wrote:
akaddk wrote:
spelley wrote:
I've had some interesting evil parties along my D&D years. They weren't very common but the ones that we've played turned into interesting games.
In all those cases the evil characters were generally either selfish, ambitious and/or people who didn't measure consequences to achieve their ends. Sometimes they were also lawful and loyal to an "evil" cause. They weren't "mad berserking maniacs who wanted to spill the blood of every man in front of them, including other players". And they knew the value of teaming up with others to further their goals, even if doing so meant showing more restraint than usual.
It's not impossible to play an evil party if your players are reasonable in what it means to be of evil alignment. I've even had single evil characters mingle with non-evil parties without much problem. Your character doesn't need to be a murdering psycopath for you to play evil. Unfortunately, some players tend to think that "going evil" is like being a PK in an online video-game where your only objective is to cause grieving to other players.
So maybe talk with your players and ask what they intend when they say they want their characters to be evil. If their view of an evil character is reasonable, why not?
When I was a teen in the 80's a lot of us played evil characters. I used to relate a lot to Raistlin in Dragonlance and had plenty of evil asshats that I used to play in the games. I remember even one game where me and other player were assassins hired to kill the other characters. Which we did during the first night out camping.
I think it's less of a "young kids these days" and more that as you get older you learn more about working with the team and conforming for that. I think if you honestly looked back at your own beginning rpg days you'll probably find you went through a lot of "you should never do that" phases of rpgdom.
Last year I DM'd a Conv Game and it was clear who was mature and who wasn't. Some players were quite spastic and wanted to attack everything that moved. They did not use teamwork at all and just tried to "win D&D". Not surprisingly, all of these players were young and in their teens. I'd say it's a phase. Also, many of the games nowadays are about instant gratification. I think many young kids these days don't appreciate a challenge. GET OFF MY LAWN!
Nausicaa wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
pukunui wrote:
akaddk wrote:
[quote="pukunui"]
akaddk wrote:
Alex_ wrote:
TheZigZagist wrote:
akaddk wrote:
*le sigh*
Old coots just can't understand the kids these days. 
Paraxis wrote:
If the rules allow PCs to be god-like, it is not cheating. Cheating implies doing things the rules do not allow. Writing a 5th level spell on your 3rd level spell-list, and winning tough battles with it, is cheating. Choosing a spell you are allowed to receive is not cheating. There is a difference between observing the rules of the game, and observing the rules of social interaction in your gaming group.
akaddk wrote:
akaddk wrote:
Alter_Boy wrote:
akaddk wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
akaddk wrote:
I dont really see what kind of failure cheating at a computer game sets you up for. Nor do I see why investing a lot of effort into raiding makes the fun "better". Each to his own I say. If we were talking about the social aspects of a raid guild/gaming group you might have a poing. But if we are just talking "a soldier gotta earn his stripes" then that just reeks of "get off my lawn" tbh. Its a game. We play it for fun, and noone has to earn anything.
Ashrym wrote:
Let it happen. Let the inter-party bloodbath and inevitable adventure fail happen. After the griefer player kills another character, have the rest of the party kill them. And do it quickly.
Then hand out a new set of pregens and say "Right. Shall we try something differemt then?"
Telling people they can't do something = especially younger people - can often have the perverse effect of making them want to do that one thing more than anything else. No, I take the age qualifier back, it's pretty much universal amongst gamers. We're a contrary bunch.
So it's best to let it happen, get it over with, and show that it's not really all that fun.
Nausicaa wrote:
spelley wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Nausicaa wrote:
akaddk wrote:
Nausicaa wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
kalil wrote:
Nausicaa wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
JediCass wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Nausicaa wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote: