Party Help? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Party Help?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
guest1143795465
Apr 12, 2010 11:06:58 So we started a new D&D game with level 6 characters. My DM was pretty intent on eliminating metagaming as much as possible, so he made sure we couldn't communicate our character choices to each other until the game had started. Obviously this prevented us from creating a balanced party.

We are 3 PCs and 1 NPC. We must be the unluckiest people in the world, because we all made Clerics (4th edition). The NPC is a fighter.

Now, in a 'training ground' the DM is allowing us to change up some of our powers and is thinking about letting us change up feats. Any suggestions as to what I could do here?
#2
Breadley
Apr 12, 2010 11:48:34 The DM will probably see the error of his ways, here. I would suggest probably multiclassing into Avengers, Invokers and all that. Really hoping you didn't all make Pacifists or something.
#3
dragonsblood
Apr 12, 2010 12:34:22 Tell him to cut the metagaming parania crap and let you repick classes as a group, as the game is designed. If I were a player in your group I would see that as a big red flag.
#4
Breadley
Apr 12, 2010 13:46:19 Yeah, doesn't sound like he trusts you guys to play maturely. Have you given him reason to be paranoid about that?
#5
guest1143795465
Apr 12, 2010 14:31:42 Well I do admit that metagaming has been a strong inclination for us, and I see the logic behind the idea: he wants us to focus on playing our characters from inside the game, not to hover outside the game strategizing together. I think that his push to avoid metagaming has helped. For instance, at the beginning of a battle, he gives us a few seconds to communicate, whereas in the past we've calmly discussed where everyone would be positioned, who we would target, etc, and that's just not feasible in the heat of battle.

I think the whole cleric thing could work, as long as we eventually have a few more NPCs to balance the party a little, and we try to go in different directions with our clerics. He obviously wants to focus more on the roleplaying than on the battling, which doesn't bother me.
#6
oldguygaming
Apr 12, 2010 15:34:35 Balancing the party isn't metagaming.

If you were a cleric in a fantasy world and preparing to go out adventuring, would you select a number of other clerics as comrades? Of course not. You would seek out characters that play off of each other's strengths. That's just common sense and well within the bounds of character knowledge.

Asking you each to select feats and powers independently of each other might be a more reasonable request, although still overly-paranoid imo.
#7
humanmind
Apr 12, 2010 15:53:37 If the DM is so paranoid about your groups metagaming, I would suggest, instead of the whole "make PCs without knowing what the others are playing", that he gets you each to chose a class role and then each create your character separately.

I think an all cleric party will lead to many problems. You will suck at traps without thievery, and at sneaking without stealth. Without the other roles filled combat will become dull with everyone playing the same class. I would seriously think about asking for new characters.
#8
jgumbyrx
Apr 12, 2010 17:20:04 While I understand, appreciate, and even empathize with your DM, I do believe that he is attacking this problem from the wrong angle.
When it comes to eliminating the issues with which he seems concerned, I have found it best to actually bring the metagame in to the actual game. Let me explain:
For the most part (and yes, there are exceptions), I have the whole group build the party together. I set the premise that the whole party knows each other, and that they need to decided on a party "theme" -- this doesn't have to be anything fancy -- just something that ties the party together and gives them a core reason to be together as a cohesive team. And then they build their characters around that party concept; and if that means that they take a strategic approach to collective character building, then so be it -- it'll actually make more sense as to why they are together as a cohesive party.

There, now there's no metagaming, becase all of the elements are already built in to the game.
#9
cymbeline
Apr 12, 2010 20:27:48 The irony is obviously that by banning party balancing - the DM is the one metagaming.

I think this idea is not a particularly smart one, and the sooner the DM realises this, the better. It's destructive to a critical underpinning sector of the game. I cannot understand what possible benefit there could be from having a party of (say) three bards and an avenger. The silly answer is "Oh, think of the wonderful roleplaying we'll be able to do" Yes, well when you're all bored to tears from the most eye-gougingly tedious encounters because you have too much healing and too little damage - at least you'll be able to roleplay an at-will war of attrition trying to take 80hp off an ogre using 1W at a time.
#10
kouk
Apr 12, 2010 22:30:41 You can stay all holy and whatever. Maybe one cleric becomes a Paladin instead, one to an Avenger and such.

I suspect your characters' personalities could easily transition to something else.
#11
palomon
Apr 13, 2010 10:22:58 A lot of my advice has already been said, but I'd encourage you to read on since I kinda present it in a different light.

I'd talk to your DM and bring up the point that blindly choosing your classes isn't very logical from an RP aspect. The only logic reason for a group of clerics staying together as an adventuring party is if they is if they are all chained together (literally or methaphorically). An adventuring party would usually have a chance to pick and choose from who they would adventure with. Think about the party as a team. You wouldn't make a basketball team out of short, fast guys who are perfect forwards. You'd want a tall guy for the jump ball, rebounding, and defense as well as a couple guys who can pass and set up plays for the guards. Just like no professional basketball team is going to draft a bunch of forwards, no adventuring party is going to go off exploring without at least a majority of the roles covered. Try explaining it in this way to your DM (politely, of course) and maybe he'll see the light.
#12
holocaustdisciple
Apr 13, 2010 15:48:28 Your GM is plainly the kind of idiot who believes someone's sophistication as a roleplayer can be directly measured by how little fun they're actually having with the game. You cannot force someone to enjoy a game. The idea of "forcing" anyone to play demonstrates a profound ignorance of what a "game" is supposed to even be. The way your GM is handling this is a huge warning sign and you can expect him to make your experience miserable at every turn if you begin the game by showing him this behavior is acceptable.

Don't approach him delicately. Don't be polite. Drop the hammer and tell him the group are going on strike if he doesn't stop treating you like his captives.
#13
Ranko
Apr 13, 2010 19:21:38 Well, thing is - not metagaming and playing D&D kind of doesn't work, especially in combat. Oh, sure, you can cut down on table chatter and all that, but the fact remains that you still get 100% insight into power effects (example: Monster X attacks you with specific daily Y. Specific daily Y deals Z amount of damage and Z² damage if you move afterwards as well as stunning you in that case. You don't get told "You have a bad feeling about moving." - you get told "You'll take Z² damage and get stunned if you move.").

From your - albeit brief - description I think that your DM does not really have a clear idea as to what actually constitutes metagaming. Ask him to clarify his idea of it and be prepared to tell him he's being an idiot. Use more polite words, though.
#14
chaosturtle
Apr 14, 2010 14:03:16 You can't metagame before the game has even started unless you do something like read the dms notes and then base every decision of your character off of those. In regards to the combat stuff...I can see where the DM is coming from, but its generally assumed the party will bring up tactical conversations in their travel, mechanically describing it once combat actually starts takes a bit of time though, but ICly the characters would need at best a few words before knowing where they should be going. If it becomes a back and forth of "should we go there" or "well if they do X we can do Y, but if they do A we'll do B then prepare for C etc." that would be less acceptable. One of the things that I would always do when I played is prepare key phrases with the rest of the party. It works for both in and out of combat situations, like having a certain phrase for when you want to use an area effect spell and need people to move, or having one when you suspect a npc is lying but want to play along anyway. As long as you don't try to make a phrase for every possible scenerio it works out well.
#15
Breadley
Apr 14, 2010 19:52:24 I could suggest an idea I've been meaning to try: everyone makes 2-3 PCs, you put them in a hat or the like and draw, or you roll a die to see who plays as who. This works better with players of similar skill, since a player getting stuck with a poorly made PC could ruin this.
#16
warrl
Apr 20, 2010 23:30:28 Well, I'll sort of disagree and sort of agree.

There are a LOT of good in-game reasons for a party to be primarily or exclusively clerics.

The catch is, they would either know each other in advance from originating in the same monastery/school (and be clerics of the same deity/pantheon/concept), or be hand-picked by their superiors to form an effective party (and be clerics of at least allied deities/concepts).

And the right three clerics could rock. A devpted cleric (aka laser cleric, ranged/area damage, supplement with debuffs for your enemies and buffs for your allies and a *little* extra healing) and a couple of battle clerics (almost entirely melee), perhaps. With only 3 PCs you don't want a pacifist cleric, and with an all-cleric party you seriously don't need that much healing in one character.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 guest1143795465 Apr 12, 2010 11:06:58	So we started a new D&D game with level 6 characters. My DM was pretty intent on eliminating metagaming as much as possible, so he made sure we couldn't communicate our character choices to each other until the game had started. Obviously this prevented us from creating a balanced party. We are 3 PCs and 1 NPC. We must be the unluckiest people in the world, because we all made Clerics (4th edition). The NPC is a fighter. Now, in a 'training ground' the DM is allowing us to change up some of our powers and is thinking about letting us change up feats. Any suggestions as to what I could do here?
#2 Breadley Apr 12, 2010 11:48:34	The DM will probably see the error of his ways, here. I would suggest probably multiclassing into Avengers, Invokers and all that. Really hoping you didn't all make Pacifists or something.
#3 dragonsblood Apr 12, 2010 12:34:22	Tell him to cut the metagaming parania crap and let you repick classes as a group, as the game is designed. If I were a player in your group I would see that as a big red flag.
#4 Breadley Apr 12, 2010 13:46:19	Yeah, doesn't sound like he trusts you guys to play maturely. Have you given him reason to be paranoid about that?
#5 guest1143795465 Apr 12, 2010 14:31:42	Well I do admit that metagaming has been a strong inclination for us, and I see the logic behind the idea: he wants us to focus on playing our characters from inside the game, not to hover outside the game strategizing together. I think that his push to avoid metagaming has helped. For instance, at the beginning of a battle, he gives us a few seconds to communicate, whereas in the past we've calmly discussed where everyone would be positioned, who we would target, etc, and that's just not feasible in the heat of battle. I think the whole cleric thing could work, as long as we eventually have a few more NPCs to balance the party a little, and we try to go in different directions with our clerics. He obviously wants to focus more on the roleplaying than on the battling, which doesn't bother me.
#6 oldguygaming Apr 12, 2010 15:34:35	Balancing the party isn't metagaming. If you were a cleric in a fantasy world and preparing to go out adventuring, would you select a number of other clerics as comrades? Of course not. You would seek out characters that play off of each other's strengths. That's just common sense and well within the bounds of character knowledge. Asking you each to select feats and powers independently of each other might be a more reasonable request, although still overly-paranoid imo.
#7 humanmind Apr 12, 2010 15:53:37	If the DM is so paranoid about your groups metagaming, I would suggest, instead of the whole "make PCs without knowing what the others are playing", that he gets you each to chose a class role and then each create your character separately. I think an all cleric party will lead to many problems. You will suck at traps without thievery, and at sneaking without stealth. Without the other roles filled combat will become dull with everyone playing the same class. I would seriously think about asking for new characters.
#8 jgumbyrx Apr 12, 2010 17:20:04	While I understand, appreciate, and even empathize with your DM, I do believe that he is attacking this problem from the wrong angle. When it comes to eliminating the issues with which he seems concerned, I have found it best to actually bring the metagame in to the actual game. Let me explain: For the most part (and yes, there are exceptions), I have the whole group build the party together. I set the premise that the whole party knows each other, and that they need to decided on a party "theme" -- this doesn't have to be anything fancy -- just something that ties the party together and gives them a core reason to be together as a cohesive team. And then they build their characters around that party concept; and if that means that they take a strategic approach to collective character building, then so be it -- it'll actually make more sense as to why they are together as a cohesive party. There, now there's no metagaming, becase all of the elements are already built in to the game.
#9 cymbeline Apr 12, 2010 20:27:48	The irony is obviously that by banning party balancing - the DM is the one metagaming. I think this idea is not a particularly smart one, and the sooner the DM realises this, the better. It's destructive to a critical underpinning sector of the game. I cannot understand what possible benefit there could be from having a party of (say) three bards and an avenger. The silly answer is "Oh, think of the wonderful roleplaying we'll be able to do" Yes, well when you're all bored to tears from the most eye-gougingly tedious encounters because you have too much healing and too little damage - at least you'll be able to roleplay an at-will war of attrition trying to take 80hp off an ogre using 1W at a time.
#10 kouk Apr 12, 2010 22:30:41	You can stay all holy and whatever. Maybe one cleric becomes a Paladin instead, one to an Avenger and such. I suspect your characters' personalities could easily transition to something else.
#11 palomon Apr 13, 2010 10:22:58	A lot of my advice has already been said, but I'd encourage you to read on since I kinda present it in a different light. I'd talk to your DM and bring up the point that blindly choosing your classes isn't very logical from an RP aspect. The only logic reason for a group of clerics staying together as an adventuring party is if they is if they are all chained together (literally or methaphorically). An adventuring party would usually have a chance to pick and choose from who they would adventure with. Think about the party as a team. You wouldn't make a basketball team out of short, fast guys who are perfect forwards. You'd want a tall guy for the jump ball, rebounding, and defense as well as a couple guys who can pass and set up plays for the guards. Just like no professional basketball team is going to draft a bunch of forwards, no adventuring party is going to go off exploring without at least a majority of the roles covered. Try explaining it in this way to your DM (politely, of course) and maybe he'll see the light.
#12 holocaustdisciple Apr 13, 2010 15:48:28	Your GM is plainly the kind of idiot who believes someone's sophistication as a roleplayer can be directly measured by how little fun they're actually having with the game. You cannot force someone to enjoy a game. The idea of "forcing" anyone to play demonstrates a profound ignorance of what a "game" is supposed to even be. The way your GM is handling this is a huge warning sign and you can expect him to make your experience miserable at every turn if you begin the game by showing him this behavior is acceptable. Don't approach him delicately. Don't be polite. Drop the hammer and tell him the group are going on strike if he doesn't stop treating you like his captives.
#13 Ranko Apr 13, 2010 19:21:38	Well, thing is - not metagaming and playing D&D kind of doesn't work, especially in combat. Oh, sure, you can cut down on table chatter and all that, but the fact remains that you still get 100% insight into power effects (example: Monster X attacks you with specific daily Y. Specific daily Y deals Z amount of damage and Z² damage if you move afterwards as well as stunning you in that case. You don't get told "You have a bad feeling about moving." - you get told "You'll take Z² damage and get stunned if you move."). From your - albeit brief - description I think that your DM does not really have a clear idea as to what actually constitutes metagaming. Ask him to clarify his idea of it and be prepared to tell him he's being an idiot. Use more polite words, though.
#14 chaosturtle Apr 14, 2010 14:03:16	You can't metagame before the game has even started unless you do something like read the dms notes and then base every decision of your character off of those. In regards to the combat stuff...I can see where the DM is coming from, but its generally assumed the party will bring up tactical conversations in their travel, mechanically describing it once combat actually starts takes a bit of time though, but ICly the characters would need at best a few words before knowing where they should be going. If it becomes a back and forth of "should we go there" or "well if they do X we can do Y, but if they do A we'll do B then prepare for C etc." that would be less acceptable. One of the things that I would always do when I played is prepare key phrases with the rest of the party. It works for both in and out of combat situations, like having a certain phrase for when you want to use an area effect spell and need people to move, or having one when you suspect a npc is lying but want to play along anyway. As long as you don't try to make a phrase for every possible scenerio it works out well.
#15 Breadley Apr 14, 2010 19:52:24	I could suggest an idea I've been meaning to try: everyone makes 2-3 PCs, you put them in a hat or the like and draw, or you roll a die to see who plays as who. This works better with players of similar skill, since a player getting stuck with a poorly made PC could ruin this.
#16 warrl Apr 20, 2010 23:30:28	Well, I'll sort of disagree and sort of agree. There are a LOT of good in-game reasons for a party to be primarily or exclusively clerics. The catch is, they would either know each other in advance from originating in the same monastery/school (and be clerics of the same deity/pantheon/concept), or be hand-picked by their superiors to form an effective party (and be clerics of at least allied deities/concepts). And the right three clerics could rock. A devpted cleric (aka laser cleric, ranged/area damage, supplement with debuffs for your enemies and buffs for your allies and a little extra healing) and a couple of battle clerics (almost entirely melee), perhaps. With only 3 PCs you don't want a pacifist cleric, and with an all-cleric party you seriously don't need that much healing in one character.