Get ready to die!

[squeen]

Thinking about it some more...especially in a party with a cleric high enough to cast raise dead, I think it's important to enforce (what Huso pointed out is the mechanic for 1e) that these higher level spells only come when the PC petition's their deity (or emissary). With MU, it's just memorization and time to study, but with clerics, anything about 3rd level starts to involve a (un)holy entity's favor.

If the cleric thinks he/she is just going to casually casting raise dead every session, then I imagine a rumble in the heavens is an appropriate "nuh-uh" in reply.

@The1True: My preference for the low-level I don't think has a lot to do with frequent death---I think of that more like enforcing risk vs. reward---instead, what I like about the low-level campaign is that even meager rewards are meaningful. I like the you-are-nothing-scrabbling-to-make-it situation, were every 500 gp gem is a celebration, and when 30 orcs running at you is time for a hasty retreat. It's the deep, deep party resources that make it hard to offer challenges (or rewards), and the sheer volume of moving pieces to track in domain-level actions they become embroiled in.

Last April, in the Illusions thread, I mentioned how happy I was that my almost-name-level party was scared to go into the Tapestry Maze --- because of (only!) lurking skeletons. The small DM-victory there was that the ambiance and invisible danger had them jumpy even though they were fairly over-powered for the dungeon.

 

[squeen]

We never bothered with backstories (as you know), and they kind of conflict with the whole you-are-nothing-scrabbling-to-make-it situation which is one of the greatest bits of low-level play IMO.

As the campaign continues, the "back story" writes itself.

 

[Johann]

As the campaign continues, the "back story" writes itself.

Yes, but once you have bought plate armor and polished your +2 sword, maybe you want to visit home again to shower your family with gifts or see if the neighborhood bullies still want to come after your scrawny Str 9, Cha 7 ass... I think systematically fleshing out some parts of a character's mundane backstory later on is a cool idea.

 

[squeen]

Sure. So long as it leads to more adventure!

I was think more "you are of noble birth...blah blah blah"

 

[The1True]

I guess I was thinking of it as a (very late to the party) bridge between the no-backstory and lots-of-backstory schools of thought...

As the campaign continues, the "back story" writes itself.

-I'm proposing to formalize that in a way, I suppose...

I was think more "you are of noble birth...blah blah blah"

I get it, and much as I would love to go back to the 'don't be afraid to let your players have nice things' argument again , I respect that that's how you like to run your game. What I'm suggesting is that around 6th level or something the player's 4th son of a noble family (determined with a Parentage roll at, say, 3rd levelish) has paid his dues out on the battlefields and may be let in on some kind of legacy to draw on; a title or deed or an heirloom item or just cold, hard cash, and along with that would come some family history which could offer useful plot hooks.

 

[squeen]

I think that sounds perfectly fine. If you think it makes things click, then good. But if you formalize it---and the players know about it---then it's repeatable and expected, right? That's where pushing this kind of stuff into the PHB started "breaking" the game IMO.

Why not just leave it to DM creativity? Tome of Adventure Design/DMG style?

By 6th level (in a continuous campaign/world), my experience is that the PCs have gotten embroiled in so many bubbling kettles-of-fish, that they have a massive backlog of things on their "to do" list. I'd just throw this in the mix as another hook for them to follow or ignore based on whether or not I had some interesting content I'd prepared for them to sink their teeth into.

FWIW, my players have too many nice things.

 

[Beoric]

Sure. So long as it leads to more adventure!

I was think more "you are of noble birth...blah blah blah"

Noble birth comes with obligations. Someone mentioned recently, rightly I think, that incurring obligations at low level from training costs can drive adventures. Well, so can being born into a situation where you don't have to worry about training costs, but you already have commitments.

EDIT: And if the son of the duke starts throwing his weight around, maybe the duke decides that its time for him to settle down and stop having the adventuring life, and the PC needs to run away to avoid being packed off to a monastery for the education he needs to run the duchy, or he is to be married off, or the duke is going to have the "rabble that you call friends" arrested as a guarantee of his good behaviour, or hung so they will no longer be a "bad influence". That's all assuming the duke isn't just giving him missions so he can prove himself and raise his standing at court.

 

[squeen]

Sure. I could see where that might be fun once in a while.

Not my cup of tea in general...and not interested in having players ask for/expect it.

 

[squeen]

What about Backstory as chievos or class abilities that you earn at certain levels like:

Parentage: Immediate family that can be relied on for shelter or advice.
Inheritance: A legacy (monetary, property or otherwise) that can now be accessed.
Contacts: A small number of pre-existing contacts in the vicinity of your home.
Backstory: Important formative event(s) that may inform future decisions/events.
Death: Glorious/Heroic/Spectacular/Tragic/Ignominious/Macabre/Grizzly/Unlikely etc.

They can be rolled for or written up by the player, each coming with one or two small advantages.

Thinking a bit more on this. I'd much prefer:

• all of this is totally in the DM's wheel-house, players don't even know there's a chance of this happening
• there's a small random chance (each level? each return to town?) of anything happening---most often nothing happens
• the DM concocts the backstory (event) based on the table rolls or any brilliant idea that he/she has that fits the moment

 

[Beoric]

Sure. I could see where that might be fun once in a while.

Not my cup of tea in general...and not interested in having players ask for/expect it.

It doesn't come up often. My players know how I run this, and I think they prefer their characters to be poor and independent.

 

[Hemlock]

Furthermore, it is beneficial to cultivate the right attitude for this type of gaming, i.e. acknowledging and praising, at the table, risk-taking and sportsmanship. Players being overly cautious for fear of losing a character not only slow down the game, but may even diminish it.

I find that one of the key factors that can make me play "too cautiously" is roleplaying: getting into the head of the character to the point where the character asks, "Is this really the hill I want to die on?"

And a good adventure hook is one that makes the character kick himself for his own stupidity, mutter "I'm too old for this nonsense," and risk his life anyway in order to save the hostages, rescue a child who fell down a troll hole, prevent a murder, etc. I want a scenario that motivates my character to do the things that are risky but fun-for-the-player.

 

[Malrex]

I find that one of the key factors that can make me play "too cautiously" is roleplaying: getting into the head of the character to the point where the character asks, "Is this really the hill I want to die on?"

And a good adventure hook is one that makes the character kick himself for his own stupidity, mutter "I'm too old for this nonsense," and risk his life anyway in order to save the hostages, rescue a child who fell down a troll hole, prevent a murder, etc. I want a scenario that motivates my character to do the things that are risky but fun-for-the-player.

Bolded--I found that interesting because usually roleplaying causes me to do the exact opposite!
However, there is a fine line where "that's what my character would do!" can be annoying, and doing something with your character that you as a player may think unwise. I've been pleasantly surprised sometimes, and dead sometimes, but I enjoy the randomness and agree that a good adventure hook can be key.

 

[Hemlock]

Bolded--I found that interesting because usually roleplaying causes me to do the exact opposite!
However, there is a fine line where "that's what my character would do!" can be annoying, and doing something with your character that you as a player may think unwise. I've been pleasantly surprised sometimes, and dead sometimes, but I enjoy the randomness and agree that a good adventure hook can be key.

RE: "doing something with your character that you as a player may think unwise", IMO, the most fun happens precisely when the character does something unwise. To draw an example from The Dresden Files, when you're facing a nest of vampires plus a vampire sorceress, the smart thing to do (in the words of Kincaid the mercenary) is burn it down:

“So we get a plan," I said. "Any suggestions?"

"Blow up the building," Kincaid said without looking up. "That works good for vampires. Then soak what's left in gasoline. Set it on fire. Then blow it all up again."

"For future reference, I was sort of hoping for a suggestion that didn't sound like it came from that Bolshevik Muppet with all the dynamite.”

But the book is more entertaining because the author gives Harry reasons not to do it Kincaid's way. (And there are consequences for that decision: a handful of children are saved from the vampires, and Harry suffers a long-term crippling injury, both of which are good for the story.)

BTW I still owe you a writeup for Ascent of the Leviathan, but apropos of this thread the hooks for that adventure were good enough that the players didn't object to risking their lives per se. It turns out that the penalties for underwater combat are harsh enough in DFRPG that the players wanted to solve the problem by ambushing the pirates in a night assault, but some GM pleading plus the "bonus" two pirate meatshields to help them with underwater spelunking at least got them to explore the jellyfish first instead of after. If I had to do it again I'd start with a harder frame where they're already deep in the jellyfish at the start of the session, with some flashbacks to explain how they got here.

 

[Beoric]

But the book is more entertaining because the author gives Harry reasons not to do it Kincaid's way. (And there are consequences for that decision: a handful of children are saved from the vampires, and Harry suffers a long-term crippling injury, both of which are good for the story.)

I think this is the key. The character and the player need a reason to take risks. Originally, I believe this motivation was assumed to be greed. Greed for gold for the character, greed for XPs for the player, and greed for magic items for both. It might also be altruism, power or more complex objectives, depending on the players.

 

[Hemlock]

I think this is the key. The character and the player need a reason to take risks. Originally, I believe this motivation was assumed to be greed. Greed for gold for the character, greed for XPs for the player, and greed for magic items for both. It might also be altruism, power or more complex objectives, depending on the players.

I've experimented with letting players choose an advancement archetype as part of character generation: treasure-hunters means you gain XP based on gold/magic item acquisition (e.g. 10% of a level for every adventure you end 1000 gp richer than you started; 25% if you end it with a novel magic item); monster-hunters gain it based on kills (25% at the end of the adventure if you killed a new monster in single combat that the GM rates as genuinely dangerous to you; 10% if you did it as part of a group); benefactors gain XP based on permanently changing lives for the better, while protectors get it for saving others from harm (e.g. if you try to rescue two orphans from slavery, and one dies in the process while the other is smuggled to freedom and a good adoptive family, a benefactor would likely count that as a success and get 25% of a level while a protector would likely count that as a failure; if the party saves a princess from a dragon, the protector would gain XP but the benefactor wouldn't).

XP for gold is good because it's an objective advancement criterion with positive effects on players' feelings of freedom/agency; but there's no reason all players HAVE to be tied to the same objective criterion.

It worked pretty well and I should probably import the system to DFRPG.

 

[Hemlock]

I think this is the key. The character and the player need a reason to take risks. Originally, I believe this motivation was assumed to be greed. Greed for gold for the character, greed for XPs for the player, and greed for magic items for both. It might also be altruism, power or more complex objectives, depending on the players.

Apropos, I saw the movie Violent Night on its opening night yesterday, and I think they do a good job of giving Santa Clause this exact same motivation. At first, Santa just wants to get out of the house alive, but at a certain point you can see him deciding to go back in there for a good reason, all the while he's kicking himself for being dumb enough to risk his life against what's waiting for him. My expectations were low but it's a surprisingly good movie--David Harbour's acting absolutely makes Santa into a genuine dramatic character who undergoes meaningful change, not just a spoof.

 

[Johnny F. Normal]

If the players don't take risks we have a tea party.
A quote that I have stolen, and cannot remember the source, nails things - "To win the game one must simply play the game".
Let them fall as they may.