|
7 months ago ::
Nov 03, 2012 - 2:07PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2002
|
This is my first impression from Dungeon Mastering a group of eight players through character creation. We went through each stage of character creation in order, in a circle around the table, so that everybody could be a part of everybody else's creation process. First everyone picked a race, then a class, and so on.
On the one hand, the detail and variety of possible characters was nice, even given that it's still a bare-bones system. The combination of race, class, background and specialty captured the spirit of both single-class focus and multi-classing synergy better than I think previous editions did.
But on the other hand -- the practical hand -- I think that each 1st-level PC has too many details in each layer. There are too many different mechanics for some of the newer players, and sometimes even the older players. For example, expertise dice are a neat idea, but are they really necessary, especially when they complicate what is traditionally the simplest and easiest-to-play class? Play gets bogged down because the players don't understand all of their options.
To be fair, some people grasped everything very quickly and easily. But about half of my eight players were pretty confused by an overabundance of mechanics at first level.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 03, 2012 - 2:50PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2007
|
You could start characters at Level 0 and remove their expertise dice and level 1 spells... otherwise I am not really sure how the designers can fix this problem. Looking at how some DMs guide new players, it seems like they gloss over all the mechanics until an opportunity comes up to use them. Have you ever tried "Write this down and we will worry about what it does later"
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 03, 2012 - 4:22PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
I agree with NicolBolas. You can't really get much simpler without completely removing all choice. The lesson here is: know your players.
For example, if you have a player who gets confused at even the most basic of choices (such as the two different maneuvers available to a Level 1 Fighter), don't even give the choice. Just give them a +1d4 to damage, and say that it is a Fighter bonus. Once they grasp that, give them access to the second maneuver.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 03, 2012 - 4:31PM
#4
|
|
|
OP not to sound insulting but Next legitmately has one of the simplest and rules lightest character creation process I have seen in years.
If you had problems with this amount of detail you are not suited for DMing, have you even seen systems like Traveler, Eclipse Phase or Exalted? They all have easily 5-10 times as much work for starting characters.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 03, 2012 - 5:38PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2003
|
I don't know, I think a case could be made for fewer options at first level. More abilities could kick in at level two. Specialty feats, for instance - at least as they are in the latest packet. (If they were still "Themes" then I'd want them at first level as they help define the character.) It's a different way of looking at Level 1, but maybe 2nd level would be more exciting if it was the first time you picked a feat or even a specialty or scheme.
Alternatively, there could be optional quick-start rules for Level 0 (I'm sure this has been done somewhere) that limit options to your basic choices of Race, Class and Background, without schemes or other options within them, and only have level 0 spells, +1 for attack bonuses, etc. Kind of like what NicolBolas describes - no reason why designers can't include rules for it.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 03, 2012 - 6:13PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2002
|
It wasn't so much the complexity as the variety of different mechanics that had to be understood for every class. Yes, some of my players were being a bit lazy about it, but the truth is that we just aren't all number-crunchers and math strategists.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 03, 2012 - 11:31PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2012
|
I did it with 5 people who had never played D&D before.
Everything you say is correct, although they mostly complained about the character sheet in the end. I sorta like making "specialty" a level 2 thing, because the N00bs definitely didn't get it, but as someone more seasoned I'd be a little eager to get there. It might also mess with a lot of math.
I think optional rules for level 0 characters are not a bad solution. Same HP and everything, just simpler. "learners mode" type stuff when it comes to maneuvers and spells. I imagne it wouldn't be hard to do even if such things weren't in the book, but guidlines (especially for wizards and such) would make bringing COMPLETELY new players in smoothly. Especially older ones who maybe like this current trend board games or video game RPGs, but aren't that interested in spending a few hours reading books before they get to play a game. Most games are learned by just playing them, but choosing abilities is frustrating with no compass to guide what they mean.
That said, everyone got really excited about their backgrounds. Even the cook.
A few guidelines for using the internet:
1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart.
2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons.
3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves.
4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health.
5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 03, 2012 - 11:34PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2012
|
I don't know, I think a case could be made for fewer options at first level. More abilities could kick in at level two. Specialty feats, for instance - at least as they are in the latest packet. (If they were still "Themes" then I'd want them at first level as they help define the character.) It's a different way of looking at Level 1, but maybe 2nd level would be more exciting if it was the first time you picked a feat or even a specialty or scheme.
I kind of like that idea. At first level you gain your background skills and trait, and your first specialty feat at 2nd. Then at every even level you gain a feat and at every odd level you gain a round of skill advancement. The only exception would be the levels divisible by 4 (4, 8, 12, etc.), which grant the +1 bonus to two ability scores). It eliminates dead levels that way too, which is nice, while keeping the same number of feats as in the current playtest.
Or another idea would be, as an optional rule, we could have players create their characters with Class/Race at first level and save background for 2nd level and specialty for 3rd level (easing them into the mechanics a bit), though since such things are kind of defining what your character is/does, some would certainly see that as awkward at the very least. Still, it could be an option for those that want to use it. You would be behind one level's worth of Skill Advancement and feat though.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 04, 2012 - 1:17AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jul 15, 2008
|
I am going to jump on board with the Specialty @ Level 2 movement here. In considering what specialty means, what it adds, and the specificity it brings to a character, level 2 really works well. It sort of reflects an apprenticeship period where the character is learning what it does best, what suits it most, and how it's adventuring personality is developing.
As for the overwhelming process of creating characters that hits some people... I put a little onus on the DM there. You need to have a decent grasp of the game rules to make it so much easier on the players. The reason for this is because you can eliminate mechanics and get right to the heart of the character - the role. Armed with knowledge, a DM only has to ask the player one simple thing: "What do you want to play?"
Don't ask them for specifics, just generalities.
"Want to play a weapon weilding combatant? A champion of a god? A clever thief or nasty thug? A spell invoking mage?"
Then you break it down a little further each time.
"So, Fighter it is! Do you see yourself a a protector who guards others from harm with weapon and shield, a brutal combatant who lashes away with fury, an archer who strikes foes down with deadly ranged accuracy, or a ..." etc.
When you make it about the role, the imagination, the rest comes easy. All you are doing, as a DM, after that is filling in the numbers... but the majority is done for you by the player's vision of what their character should be.
Even with Veteran players who know all the rules and are completely comfortable with character creation are started that way by me. I want characters to be thought of as personalities... as more than the numbers on their character sheets first... and the best way to promote that is by getting players to think about the character as a "person" first, then letting the die roles and rules fill in the details after that.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 04, 2012 - 8:13AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2012
|
I am going to jump on board with the Specialty @ Level 2 movement here. In considering what specialty means, what it adds, and the specificity it brings to a character, level 2 really works well. It sort of reflects an apprenticeship period where the character is learning what it does best, what suits it most, and how it's adventuring personality is developing.
As for the overwhelming process of creating characters that hits some people... I put a little onus on the DM there. You need to have a decent grasp of the game rules to make it so much easier on the players. The reason for this is because you can eliminate mechanics and get right to the heart of the character - the role. Armed with knowledge, a DM only has to ask the player one simple thing: "What do you want to play?"
Don't ask them for specifics, just generalities.
"Want to play a weapon weilding combatant? A champion of a god? A clever thief or nasty thug? A spell invoking mage?"
Then you break it down a little further each time.
"So, Fighter it is! Do you see yourself a a protector who guards others from harm with weapon and shield, a brutal combatant who lashes away with fury, an archer who strikes foes down with deadly ranged accuracy, or a ..." etc.
When you make it about the role, the imagination, the rest comes easy. All you are doing, as a DM, after that is filling in the numbers... but the majority is done for you by the player's vision of what their character should be.
Even with Veteran players who know all the rules and are completely comfortable with character creation are started that way by me. I want characters to be thought of as personalities... as more than the numbers on their character sheets first... and the best way to promote that is by getting players to think about the character as a "person" first, then letting the die roles and rules fill in the details after that.
I totally agree in theory, but sadly in my experience with completely new players. Most say, "I don't know" or "I don't care" if I ask them what type of character they want to make, because not everyone is like me and fantasized about that sort of crap as a kid. 
This time around, reading a bit of the fluff and flavor to people seemed to help and backgrounds really engaged people. For example, two players really liked the idea of halflings' culture, but their "lucky" mechanic really intrigued them too.
Meanwhile, another guy would just roll his eyes at the fluff and wanted to just know how to play. He named his character Elfman1986 BTW.
Reading through the backgrounds really engaged people though. I've always had trouble getting people to engage on the RP side of things when it comes to skills and stats and stuff. I was kinda bummed they changed the specialty packages to be less flavorful.
A few guidelines for using the internet:
1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart.
2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons.
3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves.
4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health.
5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
|
|
|
