Ug, not again!

We've got our next Pathfinder session tomorrow. I finally got around to completing my backup PC this afternoon while my son and I watched sumo and played with toy dragons. All I had left to do was buy equipment, so it didn't take that long.

But now, despite all the fun I'm having playing Elwood the Paladin, this new backup (made only in case Elwood doesn't make it in the big coming dust-up) is looking really fun, too. And Jeremy's got the same itch, judging from his posts about his backup PC on Facebook.

Back when we played Classic D&D, this feeling would hit us too. We'd get some idea, or read some book, or watch some movie, and want to make a PC from that inspiration. And then we would. All of us had a large 'stable' of PCs, and living in really rural Illinois, whenever we would play there's a good chance it would just be the DM and one player, so we'd run a small squad of PCs (even the DM would bring a few along). So having plenty to choose from was never an issue. But then with the more episodic nature of those old games, it didn't matter. We'd almost always leave the dungeon at the end of the session, so if a different lineup went in next time, there were no problems.

But these days, when a player gets that itch to play a new character, not only does the character building process take longer with the newer editions, there's also the more 'literary' (to use a kind word) plot lines of modules or DM created adventures. That makes it a lot harder to work new PCs into things.

What's usually called "Gamer ADD" is mostly referring to game masters getting the itch to start new campaigns or run different rule systems, but it's a problem for players, too. Someone (sorry, can't remember exactly who, and can't find the link) was pointing out the other day that they read about LOTS of people starting Pathfinder Adventure Paths, but never reads about anyone finishing them.

Have we gotten that bad, both as players and as DMs, that we can't stick with something to the end? Granted, high level d20 play is a pain in the ass, but still, I think it's the fact that both players and GMs have ALL THESE OPTIONS staring them in the face that it's hard to avoid a "grass is greener" feeling when considering them.

Yes, Elwood is an awesome character, but Hogan the Red may be cooler! Still, I'll do my best tomorrow to keep Elwood alive, even if that means Hogan never ever gets to see the light of play.

Dungeons and Dissenters

A couple days ago, Eldrad Wolfsbane over at Back to the Dungeon blogged about those gamers who think dungeons suck.  Not the troll who thinks YOUR dungeon sucks, just gamers, like my buddy Alex in the Board Game Group, who dislike the dungeon as a setting for adventures and dismiss the genre as simple and lacking in RP elements.

Bear with me, folks.  His post is a couple days old, but it's been on my mind since I read it the other day.  It's been a busy 3-day weekend (so no post since last Saturday's rundown of the Gamma World Game).  We were busy taking our son to the beach, a picnic, the beach again...  Thanks, Japan, for surrendering to the U.S. on what was a Monday this year, instead of a Sunday!  Not so good for blogging, good for the family.  But I digress.  Majorly.  Back to dungeons.

So Eldrad gives some good advice for spicing up dungeons and making them feel like living places, where you can roleplay to your heart's content.  Still, though, I get the feeling that those gamers he decries, who sniff at the very thought of entering a dungeon, wouldn't give it a chance.  Or they'd be pretty hard to convince, at least.  I've blogged about the phenomenon before.

I really don't see a dungeon adventure, let alone an entire dungeon campaign set in a megadungeon, as any less worthy of providing role play opportunities than a city campaign, or a grand save the world quest (cue Tolkien/Brooks/Eddings/Jordan/Goodkind reference here).  It's got the same opportunities for RP as an urban cyberpunk game.  As a space opera.  As a stone age survival game.  As a 20's/30's gangster game.  As any other genre.

Because that's the point.  It's its own distinct genre, but it's not that different from the games the 'dungeon haters' want to play.  A dungeon game supposes certain forces will motivate the PCs.  Exploration, treasure finding, and monster slaying. 

What does a grand quest to recover the McGuffin of Pelor, in order to slay the evil overlord Drolrevo suppose?  Exploration, treasure finding, monster slaying.

What does a city campaign of rival factions and backhanded politics involve?  Exploration (social often more than geographical, but exploration no less), treasure finding (maybe not gold, but secrets or alliances are a form of treasure), and monster slaying (come on, this is an RPG...are you really gonna let the evil mastermind behind the grand plot to steal the city's chamber pots walk?).

Yeah, a lot of us, when we were young and inexperienced, just drew rooms, populated them randomly with monsters and treasure, then let our friends wander aimlessly until they had filled their bags or exhausted their spells and hit points, fighting any old monsters they came across.  But most of us, especially those of us in the OSR who've been doing it for a long time (or are newer but have the wealth of knowledge provided by the OSR blogs/forums/wikis) aren't doing it like that any more.

We're also not creating dungeons the way the old TSR modules were created, for the most part.  I know I'm spending a lot of time working on special treasures that would be worthy of searching for, special monsters that would make one legendary to slay, and also populating the dungeon with factions that aren't always hostile to the PCs.  They can be bargained with, fooled, allied with, double crossed before they double cross you, ignored, or even helped.  I'm trying to come up with trap and "special" encounters that will lead to role playing, not just problem solving.  I'm trying to make my megadungeon a cool place where fun things can happen, and players don't just need to kick in doors and roll initiative.

Too bad those anti-dungeon players will probably never give it a chance.  Oh well, their loss.

Heroes and Zeroes

You all know the two schools of thought on RPG characters.

One says random character generation is more realistic. You never know what you're gonna get--Superman, or Pee Wee Herman. Usually something in between. And those random die rolls can get your creative wheels turning, as you ponder just who such a character is, and why they'd be adventuring.

The other says semi-random (skewed high) or non-random character generation is more realistic. People with mental retardation or cerebral palsy don't get to join the Navy SEALs, so why would any sane group of adventurers take them along? It's unheroic to have low stats because people with low stats wouldn't go dungeon delving where it's near certain death for them.

But what if we turn that thinking around? What if, for whatever reason, Society at Large has rejected these poor slobs, and the ONLY way they've got a chance to be more than just a burden on their families and community is to go seek adventure or death? And the fit, strong, intelligent people know they can easily rise to the top without risking getting turned to stone or dissolved in a pit of green slime, so why would they even consider setting foot into a dungeon?

Probably not what most people would want to play long term, but might make for a fun one-shot. Gamma World is good at producing some random hopeless characters. Go into it with the right attitude (like competing to see who has the most interesting character death, or to see who can actually overcome their limitations and actually thrive), and that could be a real fun game.