PDA

View Full Version : NPC Tagalongs



Talakeal
2019-01-01, 11:18 AM
Something came up in my last gaming session that I need some advice on how to handle as a GM and a game designer. The system in question was a home-brew based on my Heart of Darkness system, but it is a general question that applies to any "traditional RPG" such as D&D and its imitators.


Basically, my party sorcerer decided he wanted to go full blaster and didn't want to serve as a support / buffer character anymore, but said that it is a necessary role for the party to function and that they were entitled to one.

So he found an NPC with a very high natural charisma and made a few social rolls to convince her to come along with the party, and paid for her to receive basic adventuring training.

Now, he said that as she is adventuring she should gain XP. As he is providing / paying for her training he should determine what classes, skills, and feats she gains as she levels up, and plans on turning her into the ultimate buffbot bard.

I told him that he does not get to simply recruit random NPCs and treat them as if they were his secondary PCs, to which he responded that I let the ranger have an animal companion and so it is only fair that he gets one as well (of course his existing familiar doesn't count because it isn't a combatant).

I told him I would consider it, but if I did I would either require him to take the leadership feat and treat her as a cohort OR simply count her as an additional party member who gets an equal share of XP and treasure, has a mind of her own, and that I would be scaling the CR of encounters for a larger party in the future. The player balked at these suggestions, but said he would consider them.


So in short, how do you or your DMs handle PCs who recruit NPCs into their party, either through charisma or magic? (I have had a similar problem with necromancers and enchanters wanting to bring a horde adventuring with them in the past). When a player takes the leadership feat (which is outrageously powerful imo) do you adjust the CR of encounters to compensate?

Thanks!

Thrawn4
2019-01-01, 11:50 AM
Some random thoughts...

Is buffing necessary in your system? If not the reasoning is not valid.

Do you want to play an additional NPC in every session? If it is not your preferred style or too much work, find another solution.

Can one just pay some money in your system and get an instant mage?

Charisma and spells do not work like permanent brainwashing. Characters still have a motivation, they do not Turm into property. This serves both plausability and balancing.
You can have helpful characters, but they do not help you all the time. They have other goals most of the time.
Now, having an apprentice can be a Lot of fun, but usually also requires time and other resources.

Tldr: If you as a dm like the idea, grant him some help but make the npc believeable and balanced.
But from what you said I doubt the player will accept that.

Talakeal
2019-01-01, 12:01 PM
Is buffing necessary in your system? If not the reasoning is not valid.

Necessary no. But it is useful, and the larger the party is the more useful it gets.

Which I think is the root of problem, they have a five person party, which is just about the break point where having a buffer becomes more helpful than another DPS.

So the player recognizes that if he doesn't buff the party will be weaker as a whole, but he doesn't actually want to play a support character because he finds it more fun to play a blaster and blow the bad guys away.

Thrawn4
2019-01-01, 12:21 PM
Necessary no. But it is useful, and the larger the party is the more useful it gets.

Which I think is the root of problem, they have a five person party, which is just about the break point where having a buffer becomes more helpful than another DPS.

So the player recognizes that if he doesn't buff the party will be weaker as a whole, but he doesn't actually want to play a support character because he finds it more fun to play a blaster and blow the bad guys away.

How about balancing the buffs or just providing everyone with a buff item that does not stack?

Kaptin Keen
2019-01-01, 12:25 PM
NPC's are controlled by the GM. That's really all that needs saying about it. Would a young, attractive person with lots opportunities open chose to follow a random vagrant into life threatening situations for nothing more than the vague promise of training? I'd say no. Never. No matter the dice roll.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-01, 12:39 PM
My party is also fond of making friends. One thing I'm very clear on is that they are NPCs, controlled by me, unless and only unless they came from a "class feature". I'll take suggestions and general strategies (Attack! Back off!) but the NPC decides for itself what it does. I also control how (if at all) they progress.

I'd find "I'm going to offload my responsibilities to this NPC that I'll control and make all decisions for in exchange for a couple Social checks" to be way past my tolerance limit. Social checks are not mind control. That's like letting them get a free, infinite duration, no-concentration dominate person. Nope. Really nope.

Now a NPC mercenary buff-bot may accompany them at your discretion, but he'd require pay and refuse suicidal risks. He'd also make his own choices.


My current "pets" for my 5e games are

Group 1 (level 8)
* Private Eye Guana -- A giant lizard/Warrior (UA) 5 that the party befrended. It follows for the munchies.
* Eyebite the Reformed -- a Tabaxi Seeker of Forms (homebrew class) 5. This one's temporarily attached and probably won't follow any more
* An unnamed pseudodragon quasi-familiar. Doesn't do much. That one's under the command of the wizard PC as her familiar.

Group 2 (level 3)
* Fooz -- an imp serving as a contracted familiar. He'll get UA Expert levels but is still an NPC rather than a true familiar.

Darth Ultron
2019-01-01, 01:37 PM
So he found an NPC with a very high natural charisma and made a few social rolls to convince her to come along with the party, and paid for her to receive basic adventuring training.

Well, like most stories I wonder how they even start. The player has their character make some rolls vs a DM's NPC...and the DM just rolls over and is the best Buddy DM in the world as they fall on the floor and offer the NPC to the almighty player on a silver platter?

WHY?

In ANY sort of normal game, the DM 100% decides what happens at all times. So anything that happens is because the DM lets and allows it to happen. So the question is: why is your game not like that? And if your game does have special Player Dm rules or your play style all about how the players control the game with the DM just watching...then why not just do that, and not have the problem/question.

A player just randomly making a NPC 'Buddy' and then just telling the DM ''tough, I rule and you suck" would never happen in any normal sort of game.



Now, he said that as she is adventuring she should gain XP. As he is providing / paying for her training he should determine what classes, skills, and feats she gains as she levels up, and plans on turning her into the ultimate buffbot bard.

Now, see this is just more of the above. The player is making demands and even being a co-dm or worse and adversarial dm.

Again, in no normal game can any Player just ''make" another character on a whim and add them to the group.




I told him that he does not get to simply recruit random NPCs and treat them as if they were his secondary PCs, to which he responded that I let the ranger have an animal companion and so it is only fair that he gets one as well (of course his existing familiar doesn't count because it isn't a combatant).

It seems this comes a bit late. After the player does all the above then you as the DM wake up and say ''hey, wait, you can't do that".

I don't see how the Animal Companion is even a point: the animal is in the rules as a class feature. Is 'best buddy buff sorcerer' a class feature of the player characters class? If no, they they can't have one.


In general, I don't have any problem with adding a NPC or six to a PC group. Most of the time they will be a support role and 100% always controlled by the DM. Every so often I will let a player that really wants to make or use another character or two. Though note it is always the DM in control.

In general, I don't bother too much to adjust the CR or such unless the game is really effected in a negative way. Mostly the whole 'encounter' math is a joke, and I can adjust things much more with a simple 'couple goblins in a tree with bows' to make a devastating encounter.

Talakeal
2019-01-01, 01:42 PM
:snip:.

Basically, they encountered an NPC with high charisma. The PC asked her to come with them. I didn't see anything wrong with that, gave him a charisma check DC to pass, and when he did said sure why not.

THEN he started talking about keeping her as a permanent cohort and choosing how she would advance, at which point I put on the brakes until I figure out how to handle the situation.

Talakeal
2019-01-01, 01:57 PM
How about balancing the buffs or just providing everyone with a buff item that does not stack?

IMO there is nothing unbalanced about having group buffs, but the nature of a group buff means that it is going to be more useful in a bigger group. The only solution I can think of would be to only have personal buffs (which would create a lot of drama imo) or figure out some way to have the benefit divided amongst the party (which would be very math intensive and very difficult to balance). Either way I am not really interested in reworking the entire system to solve a very specific problem when it is otherwise working correctly.


As for giving them an item, honestly I think that is really what he wants. He is less interested in having a cohort than just having a floating buff. Simply giving the players a super powerful item because one of the players has a conflict between fun and optimization seems to be a bad solution, and I would still be left with the question of how to balance challenges in accordance with the change.

Draconi Redfir
2019-01-01, 02:02 PM
Personally i would say this:

She requires the leadership feat and counts a a cohort, so will always be a few levels below the rest of the party

She's predominantly controlled by the player in question, BUT the GM provides a base-line personality, some goals, traits, and things she absolutely will not do (E.G. won't fight spiders because she's terrified of them etc) and she has a mind of her own, and may disagree with things the party does at times.

If the player can adequately convey all this and treat her like a separate character shared between them and the GM, then all is good. If they try to turn them into a buff-robot with no thoughts, loot, or rights, then the GM will take control / take them away.

Admittedly i'm not a GM, and the on time i did GM, i played the party's one NPC companion myself as a sort of DMPC since they didn't have any tank-role characters. so i might not have the best opinions here.

Velaryon
2019-01-01, 04:54 PM
It sounds to me like the sorcerer is trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to supply the party with all the cool support magic, but don't want to devote any character resources to it. Basically they're trying to play a second character so that they can have all the offensive magic AND all the buff magic. If I have correctly understood the situation, then Darth Ultron is correct. You need to rein this in and put your foot down.

Is the Ranger's animal companion a class feature, as in regular D&D? You said you're using a homebrew system so I don't want to just assume. If the animal companion IS a class feature, then this is no different than your sorcerer saying "The Rogue gets to add +3d6 when he sneak attacks, so I should get to add +3d6 to all my spells." Not only is it a bad argument, going along with it would be unfair to the other players.

In general I don't think NPC tagalongs are a bad thing, but I absolutely would not just let the Sorcerer just have 100% control of them unless you are having other characters do the same thing. Games where all the PCs have subordinates and assistant characters and such can be cool, though it's very easy for things to get out of hand and the party to become very difficult to challenge. But it can still be a lot of fun. If you want to go this route, by all means give it a try.

If you don't want to go into that, then I'd suggest one of these three options:

1. If your system has something like the Leadership feat, then do as Draconi Redfir suggested. Have the Sorcerer take Leadership and make this NPC the Sorcerer's cohort. He is responsible for paying and equipping her out of his share of the party treasure.

2. Make this character your DMPC. Have them play support and generally assist the party without claiming much of the spotlight for themselves. In this case, she gets a full share of the party's treasure. Make it clear you are open to suggestions how she levels up, but that the final decision is up to you.

3. You don't have to allow this character to come along at all if you don't want to. "That was fun, but now I need to go. [My sick mother is waiting for me/University is starting up again next week/This was fun for a few days but I don't really want to be an adventurer.]" Presumably this NPC had a life before encountering the party. High charisma checks, Diplomacy/Persuasion checks, etc. are not mind control. Maybe she goes back to her regular life and becomes a contact the party can meet again someday or get some assistance from whenever they're in town, but she doesn't join the party or anything like that.

What's not okay is for this player to have a second character who has all the abilities they don't want to spend resources for on their main character. This would be unfair to everyone else, yourself included.

Talakeal
2019-01-01, 05:29 PM
It sounds to me like the sorcerer is trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to supply the party with all the cool support magic, but don't want to devote any character resources to it. Basically they're trying to play a second character so that they can have all the offensive magic AND all the buff magic. If I have correctly understood the situation, then Darth Ultron is correct. You need to rein this in and put your foot down.

Is the Ranger's animal companion a class feature, as in regular D&D? You said you're using a homebrew system so I don't want to just assume. If the animal companion IS a class feature, then this is no different than your sorcerer saying "The Rogue gets to add +3d6 when he sneak attacks, so I should get to add +3d6 to all my spells." Not only is it a bad argument, going along with it would be unfair to the other players.

That is pretty much what he is trying to do.

It isn't a class feature per se, but she did invest in animal handling skills. I let everyone in the group have a companion of some sort at character creation. The ranger has an animal companion, the warrior-princess has a hand-maiden, the rogue has an amulet which allows him to commune with the soul of his dead mother, and the sorceress has a baby shadow dragon as a familiar. The tinkerer chose to have an anachronistic firearm that is far beyond the tech level of the rest of the campaign world instead of a companion.



1. If your system has something like the Leadership feat, then do as Draconi Redfir suggested. Have the Sorcerer take Leadership and make this NPC the Sorcerer's cohort. He is responsible for paying and equipping her out of his share of the party treasure.

Yes, the game does have the equivalent of the leadership feat. I think this is probably the best option. But I know he is going to be extremely pissed if I tell him that she gets a share of treasure AND he needs to train and equip her.

zinycor
2019-01-01, 06:33 PM
I try to avoid having NPCs become members of the party, so my experience on this is very low.

On this situation I would allow the NPC to travel with the party as an extra member, who takes advice of this particular PC in order to level up, but in the end the final decision would be mine as a GM.

As For the ranger argument, that doesn't make any sense, Animal companion is a particular feature of the ranger class.

Talakeal
2019-01-01, 06:34 PM
Question about the leadership feat in 3.5:

Do cohorts count as members of the party for calculating the CR of an encounter?

Florian
2019-01-01, 07:31 PM
Question about the leadership feat in 3.5:

Do cohorts count as members of the party for calculating the CR of an encounter?

Yes.


As For the ranger argument, that doesn't make any sense, Animal companion is a particular feature of the ranger class.

We´re still not talking about D&D. And it is rather uncommon in systems that are not D&D.

zinycor
2019-01-01, 07:32 PM
Yes.



We´re still not talking about D&D. And it is rather uncommon in systems that are not D&D.

Oh! It sounded like D&D. My bad!

EDIT: So the questions about the rues on 3.5 are unrelated to the topic at hand?

Talakeal
2019-01-01, 07:42 PM
Oh! It sounded like D&D. My bad!

EDIT: So the questions about the rues on 3.5 are unrelated to the topic at hand?

I was asking about how 3.5 handled the situation because mine doesn't really have any rules to cover it and 3.5 is the system that is best understood around these parts.

Mr Beer
2019-01-01, 07:55 PM
Various options:

1. Player has a second PC. Cool but only if it's officially announced and everyone else can have one if they want one and if you're OK with that and if the other players are OK with that. Pro: potentially everyone gets what they want. Cons: more work for you, potential for hard feelings all around.

2. You play the NPC because that's how it works. Arguments met with a stony laugh because seriously, that's how it works. NPC gets a full share of loot. Advances as normal but capped below PC level if you like. Pro: that's how it works. Cons: none really.

3. You let Sorc play the NPC but under certain conditions e.g. full share of loot, own personality etc. Pro: less work for you. Con: Can definitely be used as a Trojan horse for Sorc to acquire an extra PC. Seems like Sorc gets an inch and takes a mile.

Other options include no NPC or having someone else play the NPC if you have a trusted back-up DM.

Personally I'd go with option 2, I'd explain it as saying 'no-one else is getting a second character' and I'd be getting ready to tell Sorc to take a walk by now if there was any whining about it.

EDIT

I'd have a couple of hard lines with this whole thing though.

One is that there needs to be a clear distinction between PCs and NPCs. PCs are the property of the player, down to what they think. NPCs are the property of the DM.

Two is that someone who adventures with the players can either committed to the action and take risks with everyone else, in which case they get a share of XP and loot; or they hang back and don't do much, in which case they don't.

No party should expect free help in the form of a fully controllable NPC who doesn't want to do anything or get anything except advance a player's agenda.

TerryHerc
2019-01-01, 11:38 PM
I play in a regular Adventurer, Conqueror, King game where all the players have henchs. The DM treats them as shared control. As a player I can say what I want them to do, but there are certain situations they would act in a certain way. These times are clearly defined in advance and know by both players and DM. As long as the henchs have clear goals or motivations, there are no misunderstandings when they are roleplayed out.

Erloas
2019-01-02, 12:16 AM
Basically, they encountered an NPC with high charisma. The PC asked her to come with them. I didn't see anything wrong with that, gave him a charisma check DC to pass, and when he did said sure why not.

THEN he started talking about keeping her as a permanent cohort and choosing how she would advance, at which point I put on the brakes until I figure out how to handle the situation.
Just because he was able to convince her once to come with them that doesn't give him any more control over the NPC than any other case. It would be like letting a bard dictate the actions of every single NPC you came across in a campaign.


That is pretty much what he is trying to do.

It isn't a class feature per se, but she did invest in animal handling skills. I let everyone in the group have a companion of some sort at character creation. The ranger has an animal companion, the warrior-princess has a hand-maiden, the rogue has an amulet which allows him to commune with the soul of his dead mother, and the sorceress has a baby shadow dragon as a familiar. The tinkerer chose to have an anachronistic firearm that is far beyond the tech level of the rest of the campaign world instead of a companion.


Yes, the game does have the equivalent of the leadership feat. I think this is probably the best option. But I know he is going to be extremely pissed if I tell him that she gets a share of treasure AND he needs to train and equip her.
He got his "free companion" already, he can't just wish up another one. Especially when you're comparing essentially another PC versus being able to talk to your dead mom and a gun.
"He isn't going to like it" isn't a valid excuse for any table and if that is even a potential problem then it sounds like the player might be more trouble than they're worth. (and I don't say that lightly, but this is just over the top, a single player trying to dictate the game).


He may have convinced her to join with you for a while, but if it seems to dangerous or she finds that it doesn't "mesh" with her actual wishes she is free to leave. Even if she has a good reason to want to stay with the party, she is an NPC and under the DM control at all times and the DM gets to make the choices for the NPC based on what the NPC would want to do. If the whole team is basically insisting that you run a DMPC, then run it as a PC with all of it's own agency and actions. And yes, she gets an even split of the loot and XP.

If a "cohort" is really what he wants, then he can get that in whichever way your game system allows and following all of the same rules for it. But even then, it is still an NPC and still will act of it's own best interest. Which is also true of animal companions, though often overlooked.

Malifice
2019-01-02, 12:55 AM
So in short, how do you or your DMs handle PCs who recruit NPCs into their party, either through charisma or magic?

They fade into the background and never do anything. I dont roll initiative for them, they dont get miniatures on the board, and they're largely ignored for anything other than the Social pillar (i.e. the Players can talk/ roleplay to them and vice versa).

They're there, but they're ignored for most game mechanics purposes outside of the narrative.

The players are the protagonists, not the NPCs.

If asked about it, the 'in game' justification is: 'imagine they're doing stuff appropriate to the situation, but outside of the action of your PCs, unless I specifically say otherwise (NPC with secret agenda, cowers in fear instead of fighting, does something evil to show he's not a nice guy etc)'. For example, if the PCs are fighting Orcs, assume the NPC is as well, but it's all happening 'off camera'.

I just dont mechanically worry about it, and run the encounters as normal (PCs vs Monsters), referencing the NPC doing stuff from time to time, to remind them he's there, and to maintain verisimilitude.

I might have a NPC spellcaster or Fighter pop up with a spell or attack from time to time to provide minor assistance when things are going poorly for the PCs or simply to inform the narrative (again; very sparingly used, as the players are the protagonists, not the DMNPC).

For example: 'The Orc towers above you about to bring its axe down on your neck, when an arrow thuds into its chest and it staggers backwards. To your right you see [NPC] smiling a knowing look in your direction, as she draws another arrow and fires in the direction of the other Orcs'

The main exception to this rule, is NPCs gained through class features, feats and similar (familiars, simulacra, animal companions, extras, minions, followers and so forth). While still NPCs (and the DM has veto over their actions) I mostly let players run them as normal.

Pauly
2019-01-02, 02:31 AM
If the party want to have an unbalanced sub-optimal party then I see no readon the DM shoukd wallpaper the dracks for them.

If a player chooses to build a suboptimal character then it’s up to the player to work around those problems. Same goes for the party.

Pelle
2019-01-02, 03:41 AM
Are there any good reasons for simply not letting the player have two PCs if he wants?

There's a reason for why the default is that every player runs one...

Malifice
2019-01-02, 03:52 AM
If the party want to have an unbalanced sub-optimal party then I see no readon the DM shoukd wallpaper the dracks for them.

I disagree, but on a different level.

If the party wants to create a 'suboptimal party', then it is incumbent on the DM to wallpaper the cracks for them.

By toning down the threat of the adventures.

Ditto if the party wants to run a bunch of 'Pun-Puns' (and the DM is happy with that campaign and doesnt veto it on sight). He simply tones up the threat of the adventures.

You tailor the adventure to the party in front of you. Up or down. My mantra is (and the mantra of every DM should be) The players are the protagonists.

Every decision you make in your campaign as DM should revolve around that assumption being not only a truism, but a position to be advanced whenever possible.

Pelle
2019-01-02, 04:13 AM
I disagree, but on a different level.

If the party wants to create a 'suboptimal party', then it is incumbent on the DM to wallpaper the cracks for them.

By toning down the threat of the adventures.


This depends on the players and their intentions. If the players choose to make sub-obtimal characters because they want to be challenged, don't ruin it for them by making the encounters non-challenging. If the players optimize because they want to roflstomp enemies in combat, don't make it more challenging.

Malifice
2019-01-02, 04:31 AM
This depends on the players and their intentions. If the players choose to make sub-obtimal characters because they want to be challenged, don't ruin it for them by making the encounters non-challenging. If the players optimize because they want to roflstomp enemies in combat, don't make it more challenging.

I disagree, but again for different reasons.

Every encounter should be challenging, but designed for the PCs to win. A game where there is no challenge isn't very fun (why bother with rules at all, and just free form it at the end of the day) and a game that is too challenging invariably results in a TPK and a feeling of frustration and inability to change anything or progress the story.

Your group might be used to steamrolling pushover encounters and never bothering to think about how to deal with a challenge (likely due to a pushover DM) but I'm pretty sure with a better DM and challenging encounters, they'll be a lot more engaged and entertained.

Players will tend to prefer Goldilocks campaigns; where the difficulty is just right - not a constant fantasy underground Vietnam, where every encounter has a chance of TPK, and not a cakewalk either. Their actions matter, it's clear that they're the protagonists of the story, they're challenged without being constantly overwhelmed, and are making progress towards some final goal or story arc.

There might be exceptions to the rule, but (anecdotally) for every group that I've DMd for that has come from one of those extremes, they've all much prefered the 'just right' approach when it's done well.

Knaight
2019-01-02, 04:32 AM
I mostly avoid these, but this sounds like a player issue. Talking an NPC into coming with the party for a while is entirely reasonable. Thinking you get a secondary PC out of it where you not only control their actions but their advancement? Not so much. You want one of those, you pay for the advantage or take the feat or whatever it is in the system, and you probably do it again every time you want them getting stronger.

The exception to avoidance is support staff, but those are designed to fit particular roles. They're usually either noncombatants or close enough to count (a marine component on a starship that fights boarders isn't going to get in the way when the PCs are all fighter pilots, and would fit in the close enough to count), they tend to show up in campaigns where there's some sort of moving group the PCs are a part of, and they're fundamentally NPCs. Keep them that way and they work fine, even allowing for players bringing them in to scenes that by rights should be just PC scenes.

Pelle
2019-01-02, 04:43 AM
Players will tend to prefer Goldilocks campaigns; where the difficulty is just right - not a constant fantasy underground Vietnam, where every encounter has a chance of TPK, and not a cakewalk either. Their actions matter, it's clear that they're the protagonists of the story, they're challenged without being constantly overwhelmed, and are making progress towards some final goal or story arc.


What I am saying, what is "just right" also depends on the players. Maybe you should push the challenge lever a little up or down depending on what they prefer. And the players can also express their preference when creating their characters.

geppetto
2019-01-02, 05:57 AM
Seems pretty straightforward really. He wants another PC. So easiest is to let him have one. Of course the XP, CR, loot etc etc all get adjusted accordingly. If he doesnt like it well tough, explain that life is a series of compromises.

Or its an NPC and YOU control it. Period.

Or drop the whole idea.

Let him pick since its his idea. But dont tolerate any whining or complaining. He can choose A, B or C. And thats it.

GloatingSwine
2019-01-02, 08:46 AM
Seems pretty straightforward really. He wants another PC. So easiest is to let him have one.

It sounds like what he wants is a bunch of extra spells per day that cast themselves, rather than another PC.


Since this is in a homebrew system, it sounds like you've found one of those cases where a playtest brings up something you hadn't thought of players trying and you need to write some new rules for follower characters and/or henchmen.

What does a Sorcerer's Apprentice look like in your game system, what can and can't they do, and what does the Sorcerer have to do extra to manage them.


(Please be aware that soon they will all want one).

Malifice
2019-01-02, 09:54 AM
It sounds like what he wants is a bunch of extra spells per day that cast themselves, rather than another PC.

(Please be aware that soon they will all want one).

Both of these points are spot on.

The answer for me as DM is a soft 'Nope'.

I mean, yeah he can get an NPC, but it's played by the DM and the assistance it gives out mechanically is minimal (and even then based on the way the PC roleplays with it and treats it, and works with that NPC to further the NPCs goals and ambitions).

The NPC largely sits in the background, occasionally having its actions narrated and providing the odd bit of help (no more than once per session, and never to bail out the PCs and take away from them as the protagonists).

Quertus
2019-01-02, 12:22 PM
I would either require him to take the leadership feat and treat her as a cohort OR simply count her as an additional party member who gets an equal share of XP and treasure, has a mind of her own, and that I would be scaling the CR of encounters for a larger party in the future.

So in short, how do you or your DMs handle PCs who recruit NPCs into their party, either through charisma or magic? (I have had a similar problem with necromancers and enchanters wanting to bring a horde adventuring with them in the past). When a player takes the leadership feat (which is outrageously powerful imo) do you adjust the CR of encounters to compensate?

Thanks!

So, I wanted to reply before reading anyone else's response. Personally, I'm a fan of game where everyone is allowed to run multiple characters. And, in those games, those characters absolutely have a mind if their own, earn their own shares of XP and treasure, etc, just like any other PC.

However, scaling the encounters is unrealistic Gamist CaS BS, IMO. Don't get me wrong - a stronger party should be looking for stronger challenges - but The King's Army should not be as likely to TPK marching through Skeleton Pass as a lone blind cripple. Support Player Agency, and let their decision to run more characters mean something.

So, yes, IMO, you should let everyone run multiple characters if they want to, but should not scale the encounters.

Oh, and if you want to keep the NPC an NPC, that's fine, too. Same rules as above, and, if the PC doesn't take Leadership, you have final say over the NPCs development, whether they stay or leave, no guaranteed replacement, etc.

I had a party that was probably over 2/3 NPCs once, because some very charismatic PCs just kept recruiting, and the players just wouldn't let me get rid of the NPCs. But I can't recall a PC/player ever trying to micromanage an NPC's development, so I've no experience on that front.

Malifice
2019-01-02, 12:42 PM
So, I wanted to reply before reading anyone else's response. Personally, I'm a fan of game where everyone is allowed to run multiple characters. And, in those games, those characters absolutely have a mind if their own, earn their own shares of XP and treasure, etc, just like any other PC.

Be honest.

Have you ever seen a game where the players are competently roleplaying multiple characters? Or does it simply become an exersize in force multiplication where it becomes 'the Barbarian is guarding the Wizard' over and over again.


However, scaling the encounters is unrealistic Gamist CaS. So, yes, IMO, you should let everyone run multiple characters if they want to, but should not scale the encounters.

Why on earth should a DM not scale encounters to challenge the party without overwhelming them? Where is the fun to be had in constantly steamrolling encounters (boooring) or constantly getting your backside handed to you in a TPK (rage quit that campaign due to suckage)? Either option sounds awfully cruddy compared to entertaining challenges that engage the players.

Do you throw goblins/ kobolds/ skeletons at your party at low level, then an Ogre, then trolls and ghouls and then vampires and giants as they advance to mid levels, then a large dragon, then fiends, a lich and finally a really big dragon or a demon lord or similar as they reach end game?

Or is it just some random chart of the above, and if they die they die.

Because if you're doing the latter we're playing very different games.

Quertus
2019-01-02, 12:51 PM
OK, read the thread quickly, and took a step back.

Talk to the player. Find out what he wants. Enumerate the options as you see them, ask him to choose one *or* provide alternatives:

* The character is a cohort. The PC needs to take Leadership (if that's a thing in your homebrew), and can make all choices for the NPC. The cohort follows the rules of being a cohort (do take this opportunity to make your homebrew rules better than 3e's rules).

* The character is a PC. It follows all rules of being a PC. Other players can choose to have a second PC, too.

* The character is an NPC. Yes, you hit the DC to make them agree to go with you, but they have their own personality, and they'll evaluate every decision accordingly. Maybe they see the value in being a team player, or maybe they just want to blast things, too.

* The character is a Gamist "item". They don't exist on the battlefield, the party just gets X buff(s) Y times per day, plus can choose the "talk to NPC Z" option from the drop down menu.

* Scratch the character, get an item / "blessing". Allow the player to retroactively apply their "hit the diplomacy DC" to getting someone to craft them an item / tell them where to find an item that will fulfill the "party buff" role.

Also - and this is important - list all options, including ones you hate / won't allow, and explain why you hate / won't allow them. This provides a firmer base for the player to understand what alternatives you will / won't allow.


This depends on the players and their intentions. If the players choose to make sub-obtimal characters because they want to be challenged, don't ruin it for them by making the encounters non-challenging. If the players optimize because they want to roflstomp enemies in combat, don't make it more challenging.

Just wanted to agree with this. Carry on. :smallwink:

Koo Rehtorb
2019-01-02, 01:08 PM
Be honest.

Have you ever seen a game where the players are competently roleplaying multiple characters?

Yes. Just like the GM does every day.


Why on earth should a DM not scale encounters to challenge the party without overwhelming them? Where is the fun to be had in constantly steamrolling encounters (boooring) or constantly getting your backside handed to you in a TPK (rage quit that campaign due to suckage)? Either option sounds awfully cruddy compared to entertaining challenges that engage the players.

Because options other than "fight to the death" exist. I suppose if you're running games as a series of unavoidable combat encounters then making sure they're balanced combat encounters would make sense. But that sounds awfully dull to me.

Quertus
2019-01-02, 01:17 PM
Be honest.

Have you ever seen a game where the players are competently roleplaying multiple characters? Or does it simply become an exersize in force multiplication where it becomes 'the Barbarian is guarding the Wizard' over and over again.

I've rarely seen games where players competently roleplayed *one* character. But, yes, I've seen games where players competently roleplayed multiple characters. In fact, I'll do you one better - I've seen games where the player playing multiple characters actually improved the acting / role-playing experience, by providing appropriate contrast between their characters.


Why on earth should a DM not scale encounters to challenge the party without overwhelming them? Where is the fun to be had in constantly steamrolling encounters (boooring) or constantly getting your backside handed to you in a TPK (rage quit that campaign due to suckage)? Either option sounds awfully cruddy compared to entertaining challenges that engage the players.


Here's the challenge. Now build a party that you will enjoy engaging that challenge.

The GM builds the road, it's on the players to build a car that can drive on that road.

The adventure should be written as a module, complete with sample characters which the GM knows will provide X level of challenge when played with their personal level of competence. Then the players have the agency to build characters for the level of challenge that they desire based on their personal competence.

Back to the road example, the PCs might build family sedans, trucks, sports cars, or even motorcycles. But if they build tricycles or helicopters, the GM should point out that there may have been a communication failure, and they may not have the best experience here. If they build a purple crayon, a bouncy ball, or an alien race, it's definitely time for a talk. (Although the former could roll down the road if it were all downhill, and the latter might be from Cybertron, so it's possible that they understood the road).

Why the **** would you ever pull the road out from under your players? That's "bait and switch" tactics, which have morality and legality issues in many venues, and certainly shouldn't be acceptable RPGs. Now, sure, if the party is all like, "but I love my tricycle, please Mr GM, can't you fix the road so that I can ride my beloved tricycle on it?", that's one thing, but it's quite another to change the road when the players want the challenge of trying it out with bikes.

I may never be able to climb Mt Everest, but that doesn't mean I want someone chopping off a mile or so to make it easier for me.

Static challenge, dynamic response. That's my role-playing religion.

Malifice
2019-01-02, 02:14 PM
The GM builds the road, it's on the players to build a car that can drive on that road.

Im not sure I entirely agree with that analogy.

I tailor my adventures to my party. Indeed at the start of a campaign Im often flexible with ideas.

Before kicking off a new campaign, Ill discuss with my players what system they want to play, what themes they want it to feature, and few different campaign ideas I have kicking around in my head, and I'll ask them if there is anything from that list that sounds like something they would be intrested in, or if they have something else they'd really like to play (and i also would be OK with DMing).

It should be collaborative.

Most recently I gave the option of 'Ultra hard mode' ToA in 5E, Savage Worlds Rifts, or a Star Wars Saga edition campaign (all heroic themed). There was some player initiatied discussion of a dark side SWSE campaign (which I was happy to run for them) before we settled on ToA (one player wasn't comfortable with an 'evil' or dark side campaign). The overarching plot was dicussed as were the themes (Island of Dread meets Tomb of Annhilation - think Indiana Jones... with a zombie apocalypse and dinosaurs. You'll be working to find a cure to a nasty plague to a ticking clock in a jungle themed hexcrawl.)

From there the players work together to create compatable characters, with backstories I can work with and into the plot. I'll offer some suggestions to align them with the plot a bit more (e.g. Chris; is it OK if your Fighter comes with the Soldier background? I have an idea to tie him into the story if you're leaning that way, by making him a Flaming Fist ex mercenary. If you have another idea let me know, and I can work with it).

I guess we kind of reach a consensus on the track and a consensus on the vehicle we're using to navigate it as a group. I dont want to dictate to my players what they play, and its a lot more fun and focussed when everyone is on the same boat and working towards the same goal (have fun playing the game).

Jay R
2019-01-02, 02:21 PM
The DM runs NPCs. As long as she's an NPC, the DM controls her. She will choose spells with an eye to surviving with the current group, but also with an eye toward her ultimate goals when she decides to leave,

Cohorts are (mostly) run by the player. If he wants to run a secondary character, he knows the cost.

Morgaln
2019-01-02, 02:42 PM
Im not sure I entirely agree with that analogy.

I tailor my adventures to my party. Indeed at the start of a campaign Im often flexible with ideas.

Before kicking off a new campaign, Ill discuss with my players what system they want to play, what themes they want it to feature, and few different campaign ideas I have kicking around in my head, and I'll ask them if there is anything from that list that sounds like something they would be intrested in, or if they have something else they'd really like to play (and i also would be OK with DMing).

It should be collaborative.

Most recently I gave the option of 'Ultra hard mode' ToA in 5E, Savage Worlds Rifts, or a Star Wars Saga edition campaign (all heroic themed). There was some player initiatied discussion of a dark side SWSE campaign (which I was happy to run for them) before we settled on ToA (one player wasn't comfortable with an 'evil' or dark side campaign). The overarching plot was dicussed as were the themes (Island of Dread meets Tomb of Annhilation - think Indiana Jones... with a zombie apocalypse and dinosaurs. You'll be working to find a cure to a nasty plague to a ticking clock in a jungle themed hexcrawl.)

From there the players work together to create compatable characters, with backstories I can work with and into the plot. I'll offer some suggestions to align them with the plot a bit more (e.g. Chris; is it OK if your Fighter comes with the Soldier background? I have an idea to tie him into the story if you're leaning that way, by making him a Flaming Fist ex mercenary. If you have another idea let me know, and I can work with it).

I guess we kind of reach a consensus on the track and a consensus on the vehicle we're using to navigate it as a group. I dont want to dictate to my players what they play, and its a lot more fun and focussed when everyone is on the same boat and working towards the same goal (have fun playing the game).

I agree wholeheartedly. If we stay with the road analogy, at the very least the DM should tell the players what kind of road they should tailor their car to; a high-speed race track has quite different requirements than a dirt road through the jungle.

I always give my players a rough outline what kind of story to expect so they don't show up with something completely unsuitable. Of course I've had players create characters that weren't perfectly suited, but always knowing they would be playing "fish out of water", which is fine as long as they do it willingly and knowingly. At that point, it is up to me as a DM to make that experience enjoyable to everyone. Interestingly, there was one time I was on the verge of vetoing a character for being unsuitable; I decided to allow it after long deliberation and in the end, that character turned out to be the most memorable character in the whole campaign. That taught me not to be too narrow-minded and trust my players to deliver the same way they trust me.

Quertus
2019-01-02, 02:46 PM
Im not sure I entirely agree with that analogy.


It should be collaborative.

Most recently I gave the option of 'Ultra hard mode' ToA in 5E,

its a lot more fun and focussed when everyone is on the same boat and working towards the same goal (have fun playing the game).

So, here's the thing: you say "hard mode ToA", and the players agree. So you build the encounters for hard mode ToA. But player X and player Y build characters with different ideas of what that means. Player X dies every few seconds, while player Y roflstompes everything. None of the three of you are "wrong", you're just calibrated differently.

But if you've pre-built the road, and a few sample vehicles, you can get everyone on that same page/boat you talked about to get everyone to that collaboratively working together you talked about to have that fun you talked about.

Malifice
2019-01-02, 02:55 PM
So, here's the thing: you say "hard mode ToA", and the players agree. So you build the encounters for hard mode ToA. But player X and player Y build characters with different ideas of what that means. Player X dies every few seconds, while player Y roflstompes everything. None of the three of you are "wrong", you're just calibrated differently.

But if you've pre-built the road, and a few sample vehicles, you can get everyone on that same page/boat you talked about to get everyone to that collaboratively working together you talked about to have that fun you talked about.

Well no, hang on. By hard mode, I created a (detailed) set of house rules and showed that to the Players before hand. The rules make the game a bit harder (limiting certain resource usage, restricting rests and resource recovery, and setting out and OSR '3d6, in order' stat generation.

Id had them kicking around for a while, and put it to them as an option. It wasnt foisted on them. We had just finished an Age of Worms campaign converted to 5E (set in Golarion, seeing as I had done the work converting it to Pathfinder initally) that had been going for over 3 years where they had all reached 20th+ level (several epic boons were handed out).

I broke both feet jumping off a wheelie bin while intoxicated (dont ask) and during my month off killed time on the couch writing a set of detailed house rules for a 'hard mode' 5E to challenge my (experienced) players.

They had an option of running it core, or using the additional rules, and they universally wanted to try them out as a challenge.

You might not trust your DM, but my players trust me, and I repay that trust with respect for them as players, and a commitment to conduct my campaigns in a fair and fun way that puts them at the center of the action, with narrative input into the campaign.

LibraryOgre
2019-01-02, 05:19 PM
NPCs can and should be XP sinks for a party. They might be useful, and might result in a net gain of XP, but using them extensively should usually cost you a bit.

The default from AD&D was half a share for henchmen. So, if you earn 100XP with 3 players and 2 henchmen, the players would each get 25 XP and the henches would each get 12 XP (certain interpretations say that you would divide the XP 5 ways, and the PCs would get 20 and the NPCs would get 10, and the remainder would just disappear; I dislike that method).

As for CR computations, I think they make a lot more sense if you calculate them by adding the CR of every character on the team (so, PC level or NPC class level -1), and then dividing the total by 4, not the number of characters in the party. If you have one level 8 character, they're likely going to use up a portion of their resources on a CR 2 encounter about like a group of 4 2nd levels, or 8 1st levels.

Florian
2019-01-02, 05:54 PM
Be honest.

Have you ever seen a game where the players are competently roleplaying multiple characters? Or does it simply become an exersize in force multiplication where it becomes 'the Barbarian is guarding the Wizard' over and over again.


Try Ars Magicka, when you want the full experience. Each player creates one personal character, the collaborate to create more or less a full chantry of secondary and tertiary characters. Could be well up to 500 or so, depending on initial campaign setup. You pick and chose whatever character is either entangled to or best fitting with the story, whatever that might be right at the moment.

Quertus
2019-01-02, 06:41 PM
Well no, hang on. By hard mode, I created a (detailed) set of house rules and showed that to the Players before hand. The rules make the game a bit harder (limiting certain resource usage, restricting rests and resource recovery, and setting out and OSR '3d6, in order' stat generation.

Id had them kicking around for a while, and put it to them as an option. It wasnt foisted on them. We had just finished an Age of Worms campaign converted to 5E (set in Golarion, seeing as I had done the work converting it to Pathfinder initally) that had been going for over 3 years where they had all reached 20th+ level (several epic boons were handed out).

I broke both feet jumping off a wheelie bin while intoxicated (dont ask) and during my month off killed time on the couch writing a set of detailed house rules for a 'hard mode' 5E to challenge my (experienced) players.

They had an option of running it core, or using the additional rules, and they universally wanted to try them out as a challenge.

You might not trust your DM, but my players trust me, and I repay that trust with respect for them as players, and a commitment to conduct my campaigns in a fair and fun way that puts them at the center of the action, with narrative input into the campaign.

We're talking past each other, I think.

Creating rules does not set a power level. Rolling 3d6 certainly does not create a power level.

So, the original question was about scaling encounters to match the PCs. One player makes a straight 18s "Wizard" (or whatever is the best build in 5e), while another makes a straight 3s "Commoner" (or whatever is the corresponding worst build). OK, create challenges appropriate for that. That sounds like a lot of work, tbh - and I've seen lots of threads with GMs complaining that that's too hard.

Or, instead, you could create the challenges first, showcase some sample characters, and ask the players to bring characters appropriate to that challenge level.

And, since the challenge is created ahead of time, if they bring a Diplomacer to an all-constructs game, you can let them know that they might not enjoy the character as much they'd hoped, and suggest that they bring someone else.

-----

To hit this from yet another angle, I've watched too many GMs fail by trying to create games based on X's moment to shine. ShadowRun is the paragon of shiny, because no one else can contribute to most of the minigames. But trying to enforce that in D&D, you get the fireproof undead dragon, the magic immune NI DR golem - in short, encounters that are designed to be immune to all but one character's schtick, and it feels really a) artificial, and b) antagonistic.

Alternately, you get the still artificial "well, I threw you a bone in this one encounter" encounters (a random, out of place sentient being for the Diplomacer to talk to), that, if they aren't what the character/player were looking for (say that the party decided that they hated that NPC, and decided to murder them), then you still get hard feelings all around, where the GM feels like they did something special for the player, but the player doesn't appreciate it.

Maybe I've just gamed with a lot of horrible people over the years, but I've just come to view "tailoring the adventure" as synonymous with "failure and hurt feelings".

To look at that from another angle, give me a static GMing style, and I can aim to create a character I'll enjoy under that style. Try to adapt your style, and we may both be upset at how the other person is being intentionally difficult.

-----

So, I've tried explaining my "don't modify the adventure" stance. What are you trying to get across again?

Darth Ultron
2019-01-02, 10:41 PM
Be honest.

Have you ever seen a game where the players are competently roleplaying multiple characters? Or does it simply become an exersize in force multiplication where it becomes 'the Barbarian is guarding the Wizard' over and over again.

Yes. Basicaly it's the diffrance between a Good Player and a Bad Player.

The typical Bad Player will play both characters as just ''themselves", a bit like a single unit. And for the Bad Player, more characters is all about 'super cool combat'. Often they will pick a ''primary" charter and a ''support" one. And they will do things like ''my support character hurls themselves in the path of the bolt of slaying to save my super special cool character, wink wink".

The typical Good player will role play both characters as real people in the game world. Very often they will play two very different characters. And more often the characters won't be mindless combat drones. They might even role play two charters that don't get along and are not 'super best buddies 4 evers".




Why the **** would you ever pull the road out from under your players? gion.

It makes for a more fun game.


I agree wholeheartedly. If we stay with the road analogy, at the very least the DM should tell the players what kind of road they should tailor their car to; a high-speed race track has quite different requirements than a dirt road through the jungle.

I don't really agree with this road idea at all. I think this is the sort of thing that ruins a lot of games.

The DM makes a race track...so the players must make race cars to do anything in the game. If a players makes say a Greyhound Bus or '79 line green Gremlin, they might not even be able to play at all in the game. And it's only worse when the players ask for a race track so they can use all race cars. This is the classic pointless game: the race cars WILL finish the race track no matter what, so lets just have the non-race to see how they automatically finish the race.

I'm more for letting a player make any character they want....just short of the sea elf in a desert.

Pelle
2019-01-03, 05:21 AM
Or, instead, you could create the challenges first, showcase some sample characters, and ask the players to bring characters appropriate to that challenge level.


Even if buying into giving players full responsibility for the challenge level, the above is not feasible for many tables (and I would guess most of them). Personally:

1. The players want continuity, they want to see what happens next with the characters and the party. So bringing new characters for every session, and all the time paradoxes and world-hopping that entails, is out of the question.
2. Only the general world is created beforehand, and loose plot hooks are dropped on the players. Any adventure isn't really prepped in detail until they grab one.
3. IMO, most published adventures I've seen suck. Badly written, and doesn't fit with the setting and plots I've got. It's more work to make them work for my game than make one from scratch.
4. Having prepped an adventure, how do I know what is an appropriate character? That's entirely subjective and depend on what the players want to do. One could playtest, but that's going to take a lot of prep time, and it's a moot point anyways since the party is already selected.

I much rather prep a fair enough adventure, and let the players actions and decisions in the game dictate the challenge level, rather than their character selection.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-03, 08:13 AM
Even if buying into giving players full responsibility for the challenge level, the above is not feasible for many tables (and I would guess most of them). Personally:

1. The players want continuity, they want to see what happens next with the characters and the party. So bringing new characters for every session, and all the time paradoxes and world-hopping that entails, is out of the question.
2. Only the general world is created beforehand, and loose plot hooks are dropped on the players. Any adventure isn't really prepped in detail until they grab one.
3. IMO, most published adventures I've seen suck. Badly written, and doesn't fit with the setting and plots I've got. It's more work to make them work for my game than make one from scratch.
4. Having prepped an adventure, how do I know what is an appropriate character? That's entirely subjective and depend on what the players want to do. One could playtest, but that's going to take a lot of prep time, and it's a moot point anyways since the party is already selected.

I much rather prep a fair enough adventure, and let the players actions and decisions in the game dictate the challenge level, rather than their character selection.

To add to this excellent answer: my players, at least, don't want real challenge. They want the illusion of challenge (by which they mean one PC going to 0 HP or even getting close every 5+ fights but no one really ever in serious danger of permanent character loss) and for their actions to make lasting changes in the game world. The first means that fights have to be carefully calibrated for that particular group. The second rules out pre-written adventures from the get go--they don't follow scripts well at all. For my groups, planning any details more than a session or two ahead just means wasting all that work because they go in different directions. I can plan large-scale setting things (conflicts, personalities, etc), but creating encounters or locations is senseless waste--even random encounter tables (which both I and they hate anyway) won't make sense when they go left instead of right.

At least for my players, the chance to change the setting for other groups is a primary draw. Interacting with former PCs (now retired as NPCs), figuring out how to leave their mark, hearing what their old characters are doing now--that gets them fired up. And this requires an ongoing world that can't be module-ized.

Other groups may be content with regurgitating pre-written material or playing a rogue-like game on the table-top. Others may thrive on nothing but super-deadly fights with very little continuity or "plot". Others may rebel against any constraints. Each group is different. Any kind of "this is the way to play" will never satisfy everyone.

Quertus
2019-01-03, 09:31 AM
Even if buying into giving players full responsibility for the challenge level, the above is not feasible for many tables (and I would guess most of them). Personally:

Run a module. Works for every table.


1. The players want continuity, they want to see what happens next with the characters and the party. So bringing new characters for every session, and all the time paradoxes and world-hopping that entails, is out of the question.

This not only has nothing to do with anything said so far, it also contradicts itself. How can you have continuity if you bring new characters every session?


2. Only the general world is created beforehand, and loose plot hooks are dropped on the players. Any adventure isn't really prepped in detail until they grab one.

That's fair - and, in fact, not entirely unlike the way I have run several of my sandboxes. Although, if it doesn't have stats yet, the Dragon of the North will not be statted out differently if you approach it at 7th vs 19th level.

That having been said, once the quest is selected, statting it out, running the sample party/parties that was/were created at the beginning of the sandbox against it, can help inform the party what their "weal/woe" (or better) Divinations say about their chances.


3. IMO, most published adventures I've seen suck. Badly written, and doesn't fit with the setting and plots I've got. It's more work to make them work for my game than make one from scratch.

Well, two things. One, I agree that published modules are usually terrible. Two, you probably shouldn't run them if you have to change them - it defeats the whole "shared experience" if you've run the party through "Star Wars", but had to change it into Battlestar Galactica.

When I've got a cool world that's too customized for any modules to work, I don't run modules. I save the module experience for worlds that are designed with modules in mind.


4. Having prepped an adventure, how do I know what is an appropriate character? That's entirely subjective and depend on what the players want to do. One could playtest, but that's going to take a lot of prep time, and it's a moot point anyways since the party is already selected.

Yes, one could playtest. I used to run at least 3 parties through each of my adventures, to help familiarize myself with the content, to see what questions I came up with, and to verify the appropriate level range.


I much rather prep a fair enough adventure, and let the players actions and decisions in the game dictate the challenge level, rather than their character selection.

? Their character selection is their first action...

Otherwise, I think you're saying exactly what I'm saying.


To add to this excellent answer: my players, at least, don't want real challenge. They want the illusion of challenge (by which they mean one PC going to 0 HP or even getting close every 5+ fights but no one really ever in serious danger of permanent character loss) and for their actions to make lasting changes in the game world. The first means that fights have to be carefully calibrated for that particular group. The second rules out pre-written adventures from the get go--they don't follow scripts well at all. For my groups, planning any details more than a session or two ahead just means wasting all that work because they go in different directions. I can plan large-scale setting things (conflicts, personalities, etc), but creating encounters or locations is senseless waste--even random encounter tables (which both I and they hate anyway) won't make sense when they go left instead of right.

At least for my players, the chance to change the setting for other groups is a primary draw. Interacting with former PCs (now retired as NPCs), figuring out how to leave their mark, hearing what their old characters are doing now--that gets them fired up. And this requires an ongoing world that can't be module-ized.

OK, so I love the "change the setting" bit - I really can't say that strongly enough. And I fully grok the notion of parties that you can't plan ahead for. And, yes, for such groups, I rarely bothered mapping anything out until they decided to go there.

But why would that prohibit the use of random encounter tables?

You've got X regions on the map, you've got X random encounter tables. What's the issue?

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-03, 09:46 AM
The following is an off-topic response to Quertus. I'll take further discussion to a new thread.




OK, so I love the "change the setting" bit - I really can't say that strongly enough. And I fully grok the notion of parties that you can't plan ahead for. And, yes, for such groups, I rarely bothered mapping anything out until they decided to go there.

But why would that prohibit the use of random encounter tables?

You've got X regions on the map, you've got X random encounter tables. What's the issue?

Because such tables are static. And the situations my players create rarely are static. Random tables preclude a living world that responds in real time to their actions.

For example, one party just finished an arc that will change how 4 factions in a small area act, both towards each other and to the party. So any table made previously would be inapplicable now, in ways that could not have been predicted ahead of time. And those new actions will be dynamic on the scale of days, so making new ones is senseless.

I call my parties catalysts, because they're always agents of change. Even if they don't do big things, they're positioned at the right point and time to cause big snowball effects. That's not because they're PCs and thus special, they're PCs because they're the ones who ended up at the tipping points in history.

Pelle
2019-01-03, 10:10 AM
This not only has nothing to do with anything said so far, it also contradicts itself. How can you have continuity if you bring new characters every session?


I think you misunderstand. Because players want continuity, they don't want the possibility of bringing a new character each session. So therefore it's pointless to bring sample characters for the new adventure, since which characters will go on the adventure is already given. So being able to choose an appropriate character (who may be time traveling or world hopping given your previously described playstyle) for the adventure is unwanted.



That's fair - and, in fact, not entirely unlike the way I have run several of my sandboxes. Although, if it doesn't have stats yet, the Dragon of the North will not be statted out differently if you approach it at 7th vs 19th level.


I can't guarantee that much, but I generate the adventure based on the established setting facts, the creatures I know populate the area, and general threat level etc. Maybe it was established that the dragon was a certain CR, or maybe I just decide on something when there is room for new details. In prepping, I may even not decide if the total number of bandits is 19 or 20, but leave it specifically for improvisation.



When I've got a cool world that's too customized for any modules to work, I don't run modules. I save the module experience for worlds that are designed with modules in mind.


That's the case for many (most?) tables, though. Hence why modules with sample characters are unfeasible there.



Yes, one could playtest. I used to run at least 3 parties through each of my adventures, to help familiarize myself with the content, to see what questions I came up with, and to verify the appropriate level range.


If you want, that's ok. But for me it's a waste of time. I don't care if 30 orcs are too tough for the party to fight or not, it's the party's responsibility to decide not fighting them if so. I just try to judge what would be fun or not and include enough variety and space for exploration of the situation. And if it's a
non-linear adventure, with multiple things the party may decide they want to accomplish, what is your metric for testing?



? Their character selection is their first action...


But that happened long before the adventure was made, at the beginning of the campaign.




Otherwise, I think you're saying exactly what I'm saying.


It was the provision of appropriate sample characters and expectation of new characters all the time I meant was unfeasible for very common playstyles.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-03, 10:15 AM
I think you misunderstand. Because players want continuity, they don't want the possibility of bringing a new character each session. So therefore it's pointless to bring sample characters for the new adventure, since which characters will go on the adventure is already given. So being able to choose an appropriate character (who may be time traveling or world hopping given your previously described playstyle) for the adventure is unwanted.


I think the disconnect here is as to the scope of the "adventure". You're speaking of an adventure as one small arc of an ongoing campaign--episodes 235 - 238 of a long-running TV show. Quertus is speaking of what you'd call the campaign level and (it seems, correct me if I'm wrong) thinks of each "adventure" is a separate show. It's the difference between an ensemble show where the characters change from episode (or 3-5 episode arc) to episode and one where the same cast continues for the entire run.

Pelle
2019-01-03, 10:38 AM
I think the disconnect here is as to the scope of the "adventure". You're speaking of an adventure as one small arc of an ongoing campaign--episodes 235 - 238 of a long-running TV show. Quertus is speaking of what you'd call the campaign level and (it seems, correct me if I'm wrong) thinks of each "adventure" is a separate show. It's the difference between an ensemble show where the characters change from episode (or 3-5 episode arc) to episode and one where the same cast continues for the entire run.

Possibly, yes. Still, when the challenges are prepared only a couple of sessions before, it's not feasible to provide sample characters and expect new PCs for each new set of challenges. Regardless of if they are called an adventure or not.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-01-03, 10:57 AM
Possibly, yes. Still, when the challenges are prepared only a couple of sessions before, it's not feasible to provide sample characters and expect new PCs for each new set of challenges. Regardless of if they are called an adventure or not.

Agreed. Unless you're running one/two-shot adventures separated widely in time (months between "adventures").

Knaight
2019-01-03, 12:00 PM
Agreed. Unless you're running one/two-shot adventures separated widely in time (months between "adventures").

If you're running one/two shots and swapping out characters you might as well swap settings as well, and not just push the continuity forward a bit within one. I'd even swap systems, where by "even" I mean "have done so for the past year of one shots".

I'm not saying the campaign structure of a bunch of unrelated characters all involved in tiny corners of a big setting with a lot going on isn't an intriguing one, but it's certainly deeply unconventional.