Dungeons and Dragons

[Bub Bidderskins]

Some real life friends and I are thinking about starting in on D&D. We've already got a designated DM, and he's getting all the material necessary for that. Meanwhile, us players are working on getting the Player's Guide and dice. Most of the people in this group are completely new to table-top RPGs. Does anybody have any suggestions for D&D or table-top RPGs in general that could help us out?

[hitogoroshi]

This thing from the Something Awful forums ought to help:

"The other DM in my group handles this stuff very well. We usually don't start games at first level or whatever the system uses as the usual start point, but this works even then.

Instead of "you're all sitting around in a bar and...", the start works like this:

Pre 1st session, usually via email
1: Discussion of genre and system (Fantasy, D&D).
2: Discussion of plot-driven/sandboxy/dungeon-crawl/hybrid
3: Discussion of general gist of game (wilderness exploration)
4: Discussion of general setting (A town in the woods, near the Northen Frostlands)
5: Discussion of everyone's preferred roles/classes/background, mutual decisions on who's bringing what to the table. Usually, newer players are asked to pick their roles first, so they get to try what they like and the more experienced players pick complimentary roles. If they don't want to, then the experienced players will pick first and suggest (never require) roles for new players.
6: Discussion of relationships between character (old friend from wizard school, fought with him in the second legion, childhood buddy, whatever)

Then everyone goes away and makes a character based on what's been discussed. New players are encouraged to ask for assistance and suggestions, but are never told "do this thing", only ever "one good way of doing it is like this".

First session,
1: DM runs a series of encounter vignettes displaying "how things got to this point", if you die here you are knocked unconscious instead. This usually takes about 2 hours to get through, and is half the first session. Sometimes characters meet up here, sometimes they already knew each other but it's the first time they adventured together. Often, the DM will ask a player "what was the worst thing that happened when you fought the Evil X of Y?" and run the vignette about that, with everyone getting a shot at suggesting part of the backstory.
2: Adventure hook, sandbox information, or dungeon entrance is presented, adventure commences (second half of first session).

I suspect that a lot of "worst experiences" are avoided by doing things like this. I played in a couple of games where the GM went "just show up with a character, use these splatbooks and this setting guide", and they were all clusterfucks."

[Nightson]

Step 5 and 6 are the most vital ones in my experience. Its pretty common for people to make characters that have no business being in the same party together by default.

[Mr. Flay]

Step 5 and 6 are the most vital ones in my experience. Its pretty common for people to make characters that have no business being in the same party together by default.

Agreed, but those are all good rules.

Is there a reason you're playing D&D, Bub? I only ask because it's more complex than a lot of other systems... if you just want to try the "D&D thang", that's great.

[Bub Bidderskins]

Step 5 and 6 are the most vital ones in my experience. Its pretty common for people to make characters that have no business being in the same party together by default.

Agreed, but those are all good rules.

Is there a reason you're playing D&D, Bub? I only ask because it's more complex than a lot of other systems... if you just want to try the "D&D thang", that's great.

No specific reason other than it's the most well known and seems to be easy enough to get into (relatively speaking). If there's another system that's easier/more economical then feel free to give suggestions. We've already done some research but nothing is set in stone yet.

[hasdgfas]

Clearly you should play Maid RPG

[Mr. Flay]

If there's another system that's easier/more economical then feel free to give suggestions.

LOTS of easier, though I admit that I haven't played 4th Ed so if you're going for that it does appear to be easier overall (and 3rd is easier than 2nd, etc).

What are you guys going for? Hack and slash? Drama and pathos? Is the medieval/fantasy setting important? How many players do you have?

A few I would look at:

• Pathfinder
  (like D&D 3, but better balanced/more interesting at low levels; also fewer/bigger books)
  
• Don't Rest Your Head
  (nightmares and insomnia and the secret world behind the world, brilliantly simple mechanics, rough on the DM, doesn't support a large group well)
  
• Wild Talents
  (small cheap book (or just a PDF, fascinating mechanics, better suited to superheroes/mutants/giant robots than fantasy overall)
  
• Kobolds Ate My Baby
  (simplified, good for drinking beer and playing, you will die a lot)
  
• Risus
  (one-sheet PDF download, even simpler than Kobolds, exceedingly silly, works in any setting)
  
• Heroes Unlimited
  (character generation is complex as hell, but gameplay is straightforward; creates anything from superheroes to mutants to robots to aliens to secret agents. These are out of print, but can be picked up at secondhand stores usually for 10-20 dollars)

That's off the top of my head...

[Bub Bidderskins]

We're looking at 4th edition mainly because its easy to get a hold of and simpler than 3rd. Generally, we want more of a serious medieval fantasy type setting. Right now I'm not exactly sure how many people there will be, since some seemed interested but aren't sure yet. Most likely we'll have 3-6 players, not counting the DM.

[Captain Corporal]

(Wild Talents link is wrong)

[Mr. Flay]

(fixed - ArcDream's website has gotten clumsy, so I put in a link to the PDF version and the print)

[chamber]

http://spoonyexperiment.com/category/counter-monkey/

[Andycyca]

Risus

(one-sheet PDF download, even simpler than Kobolds, exceedingly silly, works in any setting)

2nd this one. Risus is dead simple to play rule-wise and encourages roleplaying rather than merely die-rolling. In many ways IMO Risus is better for beginners because players can focus on the story without worrying too much about the rules (we used to have an in-house built-in rule of funny)

I've seen many new players that fall into one of two BIG mistakes (and sometimes never recover): players afraid to do something "wrong" and players who play "to win". They should, above everything else, be aware that RPGs are meant to be fun through the telling of a story and are not about "winning" or paying more attention and importance to the rules than to the story itself. I refer to a question answered by Rich Burlew (author of D&D based webcomic the Order of the Stick):

Q: In Strip #X, why didn.t character Y take action Z? If they had done so, they could have avoided a whole lot of trouble.

A: You just answered your own question. The strip is ABOUT the trouble these characters get in; if a tactic would result in an effortless solution to their latest problem, there would be little point in showing it, see? The characters are woefully inefficient as a result, and often take actions that are rarely seen in a real D&D game, like running away from moderate danger or .forgetting. major abilities for the sake of a joke. But their foibles are what fuel the humor.

Writer and Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski had a standard answer for overzealous fans who would ask him obscure questions like, .How fast does a Starfury (the show.s standard fighter ship) fly?. He would say, .They travel at the speed of plot,. meaning that if the script called for them to get somewhere in a certain amount of time, they could.and if the script called for them to get there too late, they couldn.t. The Order of the Stick travels almost exclusively at the speed of plot.

TL;DR: the story is more important and the players (specially the new ones) must know this.

[xRECKONERx]

Heh, strangely enough, me/Grimmjow/Jovian/Pie/Untrod Tripod/another dude are starting a DnD campaign next week. Only UT & the other guy have ever played before. I'm excited.

[mb53]

TL;DR: the story is more important and the players (specially the new ones) must know this.

Well... from my personal experience I disagree. I've only play D&D with one group of people, but we cared much more about the combat and exploring than the story. We avoided being in town as much as we could because we weren't really the roleplaying type, we would rather be smashing skeletons than talking about who stole some guy's staff.

I think it depends on who you play with

[SpyreX]

Do you enjoy grid-based tactical combat? As in very, very much devoted to the grid?

If yes 4e can be a lot of fun (and as a DM I enjoy it a billion times more than other editions). If no, abort now.

[Bub Bidderskins]

Heh, strangely enough, me/Grimmjow/Jovian/Pie/Untrod Tripod/another dude are starting a DnD campaign next week. Only UT & the other guy have ever played before. I'm excited.

Sweet. Could you keep me updated on how you're doing so I can learn/avoid obvious mistakes that you make.

[xRECKONERx]

Will do.

My DM apparently runs things a little bit differently than other DMs. And I'm pretty sure we're using 3.5, but I could be wrong.

[hitogoroshi]

Do you enjoy grid-based tactical combat? As in very, very much devoted to the grid?

If yes 4e can be a lot of fun (and as a DM I enjoy it a billion times more than other editions). If no, abort now.

I wouldn't quite say this. A lot of people complain because 4e is much more of a tactical miniatures game than 3.5. But I don't think it makes the GAMES grid-focused. It means that there are lots of rules where there should be lots of rules (combat) and lots of DM freedom where there should be (out of combat). I've had entire 4e sessions without combat.

Some people will whinge that 4e is 'rollplaying, not roleplaying' but all that means is that it's up to the DM to invent the non-combat rules, which imo is how it should be.

[Bub Bidderskins]

I've always enjoyed strategy games and wargames, so I don't think the tactical combat will be much of a problem.

[gorckat]

If you're doing 4e, have your DM check out Masterplan.

I haven't done anything on paper (other than brainstorming) in 18 months. It is awesome stuff and free as in beer.

[Bub Bidderskins]

Nice, I'll tell him to check it out.

[SpyreX]

I wouldn't quite say this. A lot of people complain because 4e is much more of a tactical miniatures game than 3.5. But I don't think it makes the GAMES grid-focused. It means that there are lots of rules where there should be lots of rules (combat) and lots of DM freedom where there should be (out of combat). I've had entire 4e sessions without combat.

Some people will whinge that 4e is 'rollplaying, not roleplaying' but all that means is that it's up to the DM to invent the non-combat rules, which imo is how it should be.

That's why I said combat - the roleplaying part you can make work well (and will be the memorable bit) in almost any system. I've just had the most fun combat wise in 4E of the editions of D&D. Hell I played the crap out of that facebook app and I'd still give my right eye for a turn based SRPG based on the 4R mechanics.

I think the idea of skill challenges was a solid one but the inception didn't pan out the way they wanted but its a step. I dont ever want a full fledged non-combat system BUT having some metrics is a decent idea.

[Kcdaspot]

You guys stop making me miss [Low Key]

[xRECKONERx]

What's a good starting class for a newbie? I think we're going to have 4-5 players and a DM, but four of us haven't really played before and the fifth won't be around that often.

Our DM is sending out a blast e-mail this week including key important historical events, important people in the world, and a general overview of locations/places.

[Yosarian2]

Do you enjoy grid-based tactical combat? As in very, very much devoted to the grid?

If yes 4e can be a lot of fun (and as a DM I enjoy it a billion times more than other editions). If no, abort now.

I wouldn't quite say this. A lot of people complain because 4e is much more of a tactical miniatures game than 3.5. But I don't think it makes the GAMES grid-focused. It means that there are lots of rules where there should be lots of rules (combat) and lots of DM freedom where there should be (out of combat). I've had entire 4e sessions without combat.

Some people will whinge that 4e is 'rollplaying, not roleplaying' but all that means is that it's up to the DM to invent the non-combat rules, which imo is how it should be.

The thing is, though, with second or third edition, you can do combat without a grid just fine. The DM just describes the situation, the players respond, and you role some dice. Much more imaginitive and fun, IMHO; you can use a grid and tactical minitures in earlier editions, but you really don't have to. 4th edition pretty much requires a grid; the combat rules don't work without one really. The system in generally really isn't as cool, anyway; they basically threw away everything that really makes D&D distinctive and interesting.

I'd go with 3.5 or pathfinder, if you want to play a D&D type game.