Poll of the Day > Would anyone be interested in starting a POTD DnD game...weekly?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'd be willing to run it, or happy to be a char is someone else wants to run it.

We could do it on here, and type out stuff, in which case we could like do it all the time (just wait for everyone to respond with their actions before moving forward, so no weekly thing, just ongoing), or we could do a zoom/discord type thing I guess as well.

Just an idea since alot of people on here seem to like DnD and stuff and we all hang out (virtually) together and many of us have for years.

Could be fun.

---

how many rerolls would be considered acceptable during the initial phase of character creation

nesrtkfan posted...

how many rerolls would be considered acceptable during the initial phase of character creation

A smart DM would stick to point-buy or array.
---

I'd probably just have everyone use a slightly altered point buy system to make life easy, unless everyone seriously objected to that. Would let you pretty much set up your character how you want, within some type of limites. You could sacrifice stats though for alternative perks if you wanted (if I'm DM at least).

I like having players able to reach decently high stats if they use PBS, so I'd go with something like the normal system, but you can subtract 2 and add 2 to any stat/s you want afterwards (this also helps prevent being stuck with 15's etc).

So basically if you went with 15/15/14/10/8/8 as your base, you could take 2 from the 14 and have 16/16/12/10/8/8

Then with racial bonus etc, possibly start with an 18.

Nobody would be a god, but everyone starts out fairly similar as far as stats.

For perks etc, it would depend on the perk how big the drop would be on stats.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

A smart DM would stick to point-buy or array.

Lol I as typing out my response while you posted that:)

---

wolfy42 posted...

I like having players able to reach decently high stats if they use PBS

It's not that hard to use a point-buy and just give the players extra points to spend. I've done that before.

I basically decided on what I considered an acceptable array, then back-engineered the points it would take to get to it via point-buy, thus giving players flexibility.

If you're afraid that someone will abuse the extra points to overpower themselves, you can always establish hard caps on traits. Like, say, "Primary attributes can't be higher than 18 before racial bonuses are applied, secondary attributes can't be higher than 16, one trait must be lower than 10" or something like that.

Someone DMing with a group of mostly strangers has to be willing to maintain a stronger bit of control over creation or you tend to wind up with a chaotic mess of PCs that don't necessarily mesh, which can cause games to fall apart more quickly.

Something else you absolutely need to take into account is timezones - that's pretty much what killed the first PotD D&D campaign years ago.
---

Oh damn, didn't know there was a DnD campaign on here already.

Hmm yeah I forgot about timezones, maybe we should just try and play on here, by posting. It's not that much different than doing it through typing on discord, but it might slow things down a bit if everyone isn't on at the same time.

Does mean we could all try and get together every so often at X time though, and still play at a slower pace in between sessions.

---

I'm down! I've only been involved in two DnD groups before and they both fizzled out. First was a bunch of people who weren't "serious" so the game turned into a jokey mess, the second was a group while I was in Sierra Leone and it was bit hard to coordinate meetings and then it fell apart when two of the people started dating and a third person got jealous and left the group.

But yeah, I'm definitely interested. I've actually been looking for a DnD group to join!

What edition of DnD you planning on?

---

While I like the older editions 2.0 being my favorite, I'm used to 5.0 at this point and it's pretty easy to play. I'm willing to help someone make a char more like older versions if they want though.

---

ahhh sorry not interested in 5e.

---

I'd be interested in it as well, but, it really depends on logistics more than anything else.

I also have gotten more and more planing-based for character creation, so I'd like a heavy session 0 to make everything mesh.

---

Persinian posted...

ahhh sorry not interested in 5e.

If everyone wants another edition i'm down with that. I used to have everything for 2nd memorized but my memory blows now. I can pretty much make any edition work. Just up to what everyone wants.

shadowsword87 posted...

I'd be interested in it as well, but, it really depends on logistics more than anything else.

I also have gotten more and more planing-based for character creation, so I'd like a heavy session 0 to make everything mesh.

Yeah first we need at least 3-4 people who want to play then we can all discuss how to put it together etc. We could even do a combo of Discord/posting on here etc.

---

shadowsword87 posted...

I also have gotten more and more planing-based for character creation, so I'd like a heavy session 0 to make everything mesh.

Too bad I was the only one who thought that way when Nudo was running his game. -_-

Not that it would have helped all THAT much considering the tech issues, but if people had actually discussed what they wanted out of the game and what sort of tone they intended to go with, I might have come up with a character I was happy with from the start, and not had to cycle through three different ones before I hit on one that felt like they actually fit (about 20 minutes before the campaign ended).

But yeah, I've been in the camp of "I need about a week to come up with my character concept, write about 14 pages worth of backstory and setting detail, and then 20 minutes to actually roll stats" for characters for like 25 years now. Which makes it kind of hard to roll characters on the fly or play in ill-planned spur-of-the-moment one-shots.
---

If we get enough people who want to play I may make it a fairly loose campaign that allows the players to interact and progress both on their own, and together, on the fly, so basically have 3-4 players (at least) and then either have players do individual missions towards an over all goal (that over-laps), or work together when more than one is available to handle harder more complicated stuff. Could also have some parts that require one or more players to complete one thing before the other players can continue etc.

But doesn't look like there is alot of interest in this really.

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But yeah, I've been in the camp of "I need about a week to come up with my character concept, write about 14 pages worth of backstory and setting detail, and then 20 minutes to actually roll stats" for characters for like 25 years now. Which makes it kind of hard to roll characters on the fly or play in ill-planned spur-of-the-moment one-shots.

I still wing a lot of character personality things, but, I would like to have a basis to go off of so I don't show up with a badly themed character.

---

I wouldnt mind. I miss my old Shadowrun group. I guess it would depend on what day it would be. And time...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Something else you absolutely need to take into account is timezones - that's pretty much what killed the first PotD D&D campaign years ago.

wolfy42 posted...

Oh damn, didn't know there was a DnD campaign on here already.

Hmm yeah I forgot about timezones,

I remember hearing about this before...
---

shadowsword87 posted...

I still wing a lot of character personality things, but, I would like to have a basis to go off of so I don't show up with a badly themed character.

A character that fits the theme/group is definitely a major factor (and being able to establish pre-existing character ties is nice, because then you don't wind up with "You all meet in an inn/Why the fuck am I still part of this group?" issues), but for me, it's mostly a question of figuring out who my character IS.

I almost never play "myself" when I RP. So I kind of have to get into my character's headspace and figure out how they think, so I know how they react to things. They won't necessarily react to things the way -I- would react to things.

When I try to "wing it", it usually just results in me becoming absolutely passive and reacting to almost nothing. Because I'm not really playing the character at that point, I'm just playing the stats (which is worse, because I find stats and mechanics inherently boring).

For me, the ideal character is one where I get such a strong sense of their personality/identity that the choices "they" make during play can actually surprise me. I've had characters like that, where I've described it more like they're the ones playing and I'm just dictating their decisions. Those also tend to be the ones that are the most fun to play.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

A character that fits the theme/group is definitely a major factor (and being able to establish pre-existing character ties is nice, because then you don't wind up with "You all meet in an inn/Why the f*** am I still part of this group?" issues), but for me, it's mostly a question of figuring out who my character IS.

I almost never play "myself" when I RP. So I kind of have to get into my character's headspace and figure out how they think, so I know how they react to things. They won't necessarily react to things the way -I- would react to things.

When I try to "wing it", it usually just results in me becoming absolutely passive and reacting to almost nothing. Because I'm not really playing the character at that point, I'm just playing the stats (which is worse, because I find stats and mechanics inherently boring).

For me, the ideal character is one where I get such a strong sense of their personality/identity that the choices "they" make during play can actually surprise me. I've had characters like that, where I've described it more like they're the ones playing and I'm just dictating their decisions. Those also tend to be the ones that are the most fun to play.

I honestly have no problem winging a personality, because I tend to be ok making something up, and sticking with it for a long time. While actual improv I'm bad at, using improv in non-improv stuff I'm golden at.

The difference is that I like to wait a bit before putting things in stone, because I'd rather figure out what sort of personality the group needs than just bolt in Another Leader no matter what. We need a leader, a moral compass, a go-getter, a clown? I'm comfortable doing that with any class/race combination. What the group needs can be handled a lot easier if I have time to figure out where the pieces lay first, rather than suddenly realizing that the warlock with a high charisma doesn't really want to be a talker because they're too busy being broody.

---

I like making a full personality early. The thing is, I can basically have a character evolve overtime into the personality we need... sort of...
---

I would if I had the time.

---

shadowsword87 posted...

I honestly have no problem winging a personality, because I tend to be ok making something up, and sticking with it for a long time. While actual improv I'm bad at, using improv in non-improv stuff I'm golden at.

My problem is, when I wing it, I almost invariably wind up regretting my spur-of-the-moment decisions, so I either wind up hating the character in very short order, or I get paralyzed into non-choice as a sort of self-defense mechanism (which can trap me in the loop of "I'll be more proactive when I figure out who this person is" and "I can't figure out who this person is because they never do anything", which then makes me hate the character out of frustration).

Having a solid framework to start with makes it easier to make the important decisions, which in turn means I'm more satisfied with the results of those decisions, which sort of allows me to settle in to the character and come to like them. It starts to make me interested in their story.

It's kind of like the difference between buying an ill-fitting suit off the rack without even looking at the size and trying on a bunch of suits until you find one that mostly fits pretty well and then buying it. Sure, you could tailor the first suit to fit you just as well as the second one, but you're more likely to get what you want and feel more comfortable if you just buy the second one (and you can tailor that one as well, so, you know, bonus).



shadowsword87 posted...

The difference is that I like to wait a bit before putting things in stone, because I'd rather figure out what sort of personality the group needs than just bolt in Another Leader no matter what.

See, I sort of see that as not really being a problem for me. Because pre-establishing a personality for a character isn't the same thing as locking in that character forever.

The key is, when you work out the backstory, you know who the character IS (when you start), and you know who they were and where they come from, but that's not the same thing as who they BECOME. If you're playing in a group where literally everyone is trying to be "GROUP LEADER", you can always allow your character to evolve, accepting in-character that it might be better for them to follow someone else's lead than always push their own agenda. Or, conversely, if you're in a group where literally everyone is terrified of ever speaking to NPCs, your character can evolve into the party spokesperson simply by virtue of realizing no one else is going to do it. But it's harder to know where you're going if you don't know where you've been (at least for me).

Also, it helps that I tend to gravitate to playing support roles/characters anyway. So I'm usually primed going in to be relatively easy-going and group-centric, as opposed to the sorts of "I AM GRIMDARK EMOKID WHO MUST ALWAYS BE THE CENTER OF ATTENTION, LOOK AT MY BLEAK BLACK OUTFIT THAT LOOKS LIKE IT CAME FROM FANTASY HOT TOPIC" characters that your average teenager (or munchkin) tends to make. I'm going to be the Heal Chick or Utility Wizard long before I declare myself the group tactician or spokesperson.

And I do try to gauge what the group needs in advance, and then steer my ideas towards that (which is why I agree Session 0s are awesome). I'm not just OC-wanking out a unique special snowflake who basically HAS to be the center of attention (the sort of silver-haired violet-eyed fairy princess sort of character that certain RP circles used to dread). I don't really make "The entire plot has to revolve around me constantly or my character would leave the group" characters. I try to wedge myself into the nooks and crannies that other people overlooked.

When Nudo was running his game, I pretty much straight up asked him what everyone else was playing so I could do the old "Okay, so the group needs a Thief" trick. He was mostly unhelpful - and that, combined with him saying it was going to be a fairly serious game, is part of why my first character really didn't fit at all.



LinkPizza posted...

I like making a full personality early. The thing is, I can basically have a character evolve overtime into the personality we need... sort of...

Yeah, basically this.

I feel like the key is, you don't want to irrevocably spell out every facet of your personality and intentions. But if you figure out where you came from, a significant reason why you'd be adventuring in the first place, through what sort of lens you see the world (Shadow's hated Alignment-system actually helps here), you develop a hard core around which you can build. Then some embellishment, and if you're feeling frisky, a few barbed hooks for your GM to use against you later, and you start to get a more fully actualized character.

For me, it's the difference between this:

"Chaotic Neutral Female Human Shadow Sorcerer with the Inheritor Background".

And this:

"The young woman (barely more than a girl) who stands before you stares back at you with dark, shadowed eyes. Her jet-black hair hangs in somewhat unkempt strands, framing her pale, thin face.

When you question her about her background, she responds in a quiet yet unexpectedly strong voice. She tells you of her parents, who were adventurers themselves many years ago. And then she tells you of how her wizard mother was slain in battle and revived through a priest's magic - but what no one knew at the time was that her mother was pregnant. Having to unexpectedly restore two lives instead of one, the spell didn't quite work - she herself was left forever touched by Death's influence, while her mother slowly weakened and died after giving birth. Her father grew distant and aloof, his heart dying with his beloved wife, until he too passed away some years later. Now orphaned at the age of 7, she likely would have died herself, had she not been taken in by an eccentric "uncle" (one of her parents' former adventuring allies), who retired to run a roadside inn halfway between Daggerford and Waterdeep, where he raised her as if she was his own blood.

Raised on tales of adventure told to her by her "aunt" (a traveling bard, and another former companion of her parents) that were tempered by her uncle's cynical way of seeing the world, she grew up with fantasies of eventually traveling herself - perhaps to better understand the parents she never really knew by following in their footsteps. This desire was only bolstered when she began to develop arcane powers of her own, which came dark and unbidden without formal training or study. Upon reaching adulthood, her uncle gave her the same staff her mother once wielded, a powerful relic the group had discovered on one of their adventures. It was that very day that she set out, confident in her ability to defend herself, and hopeful for what she might find waiting out there in the wider world.

You, of course, already know the story of how she came to be part of your group, and of her willingness to help you achieve your own goals. It is her hope that in helping you to seek your destiny, she will hopefully find her own as well."

Basically, the sort of character biographies they used to have in games like Baldur's Gate, only with a bit more embellishment:

http://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Minsc#Biography
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It's kind of like the difference between buying an ill-fitting suit off the rack without even looking at the size and trying on a bunch of suits until you find one that mostly fits pretty well and then buying it. Sure, you could tailor the first suit to fit you just as well as the second one, but you're more likely to get what you want and feel more comfortable if you just buy the second one (and you can tailor that one as well, so, you know, bonus).

I disagree with that analogy. My method is more not knowing how your body is, and instead getting the different parts of the suit, that you then stitch together. Will it look weirder than if you just designed everything from the ground up? Yeah probably. Does it work, and allow more flexibility? Yeah.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The key is, when you work out the backstory, you know who the character IS (when you start), and you know who they were and where they come from, but that's not the same thing as who they BECOME. If you're playing in a group where literally everyone is trying to be "GROUP LEADER", you can always allow your character to evolve, accepting in-character that it might be better for them to follow someone else's lead than always push their own agenda. Or, conversely, if you're in a group where literally everyone is terrified of ever speaking to NPCs, your character can evolve into the party spokesperson simply by virtue of realizing no one else is going to do it. But it's harder to know where you're going if you don't know where you've been (at least for me).

Which would be fine, if everyone followed what they said they were going to damn well play, Ed. Someone can be the leader mechanically, and politically (like the captain of the ship), but, they can just absolutely refuse to make a decision.
So if everyone shows up, with them wanting to be the captain, but they suck shit at it, someone needs to re-tailor their character so they're the grizzled old second who everyone goes to when there's a problem. It's still functional, but, not everyone plays what they agreed on.

---

shadowsword87 posted...

Which would be fine, if everyone followed what they said they were going to damn well play, Ed. Someone can be the leader mechanically, and politically (like the captain of the ship), but, they can just absolutely refuse to make a decision.

So if everyone shows up, with them wanting to be the captain, but they suck shit at it, someone needs to re-tailor their character so they're the grizzled old second who everyone goes to when there's a problem. It's still functional, but, not everyone plays what they agreed on.

Yeah, but that's basically exactly what I said.

1) If someone wants a role but then doesn't actually fulfill that role in play, characters can easily evolve to fill it. You can bring an anti-authority rebel character with no intention of leading anything to a game where everyone else clearly craves a leader, and essentially evolve into the role of leader by sheer necessity (ie, events will force SOMEONE to make a decision, if no one else will, it might as well be you). In-game, it would essentially become a plot-point (has your perception of the world matured, or are you just a hypocrite?), making an even more robust story than you'd have if you just want "Okay, nah, I'm totally retconned into being a general now."

2) If everyone wants to be Captain, you're going to end up with arguments that no amount of improv are going to fix, and which are going to ruin your game regardless. But the entire point of a pre-session is to detect those sorts of problems before they happen in the first place. So either those pre-game discussions work and the need for pure on-the-fly improv isn't entirely necessary, or they don't and you're probably going to have problems no matter how good at improv you are.

3) As much as some groups/players have the mentality that you can only have specific archetypes in every group and that every slot has to be filled and no one can overlap, that's not necessarily true at all. Sure, the classic Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric combo became a classic for a reason (and became the default party in FFI as well!), but there's literally nothing stopping a group from deciding to be all Bards and overlap the shit out of each other's spheres of influence. Hell, the idea of a group of Bards who are basically traveling musicians who go on tour and solve mysteries? Fucking gold. So if you come up with a somewhat elaborate backstory for your Cleric character, only to find the guy who said he wanted to play a Fighter showed up with a Cleric of his own instead, you can always keep your Cleric, and then explore how your two characters learn to synergize or specialize down different paths to better serve the group - maybe one of you leans more into healing and the other is a Trickster priest mostly using debuffs and illusions. But it's the overlap in-universe that causes that evolution, not players sitting at a table deciding they need to respec because the group needs a DPS Striker or Tank.



shadowsword87 posted...

I disagree with that analogy. My method is more not knowing how your body is, and instead getting the different parts of the suit, that you then stitch together. Will it look weirder than if you just designed everything from the ground up? Yeah probably.

Yeah, but that's s also how you get clothes like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2INBe_qZFo

Plus, I'd argue that it doesn't necessarily allow for more flexibility, because you're still constrained by the stats you've established and whatever concepts are intrinsic to the build (ie, if you took the Sailor Background, you've spent at least SOME part of your life near and on boats). Unless you're suggesting you reroll a new character on the spot completely, at which point you're sort of falling back into the 1e trap of treating characters as little more than numbers on a page that can be swapped out at will, with very little personalty or purpose.
---

wolfy42 posted...

While I like the older editions 2.0 being my favorite, I'm used to 5.0 at this point and it's pretty easy to play. I'm willing to help someone make a char more like older versions if they want though.

Ive never played but with the free time atm it sounds fun.

---

I can barely get my irl friends over once a week to play. We're a 2-3 times a month kinda group.

---

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

Ive never played but with the free time atm it sounds fun.

That is what I was thinking but I forgot about time zones etc. I like the idea, but it sounds like it might be hard to get everyone set on a specific time. Might still be able to do it though.

---

wolfy42 posted...

That is what I was thinking but I forgot about time zones etc. I like the idea, but it sounds like it might be hard to get everyone set on a specific time. Might still be able to do it though.

Well Im in PST. Think you said you used to be in it. Dunno you might be right though.

---