Limerance comments on Meeting

Meeting (pawb.social)

submitted 6 months ago by ThefuzzyFurryComrade@pawb.social to c/rpgmemes@ttrpg.network

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Source (Tumblr), alternate frontend

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Limerance@piefed.social 53 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I love playing in a group where the characters have a common backstory. It enables so many opportunities for role playing and storytelling. A married couple with in-laws or other relatives, family connections have great dynamics. A group of former slaves, who bought their freedom. A troupe of artists on tour. Delegation of athletes. All from the same village. Fans of the same football team.

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 24 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Yeah I don't think I would happily play another "and then you all meet for the first time and work together" game unless it was like intentionally subverting the trope. It adds so many problems and suspension of disbelief problems.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Limerance@piefed.social 23 points 6 months ago (1 child)

The last game I played started with one party member‘s birthday party. Everyone gave a little speech reminiscing about past experiences they had together.

The adventure began, when the party was interrupted by the bad guys.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 10 points 6 months ago (1 child)

I think the best game I've done started as "it's a DND world and you're a band on tour".

It started with a simple "the bridge is out on the way to your next show", then there was a battle of the bands, a sketchy record label, and then the players organized a recall of the mayor that was in bed with the capitalists. That game went great places.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 child)

Oooo! Reading recommendation for you, if you're not aware of the title: Kings of the Wyld by Nicholas Eames. The author said that he envisioned the various roles musicians tend to take in a band, and he mapped those stereotypes onto an adventuring party. So, the hot-headed character wielding an enchanted axe is the lead guitarist, the sword and board tank is a bassist, the rogue dual-wielding daggers is a drummer, the mage is a keyboard/synth player, and so on. The conceit is moreso for flavor and world-building than actual plot motivation, so these analogies aren't necessarily explicit, but it's still a fun set of character dynamics to hang an adventure story on.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

The tank is more typically the drummer, from what I've seen. The bassist is a nerd.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

It's been several years since I read it, so I'm fuzzy on the exact characterizations, but the notion the author seems to lean into is that most bassists are (as you say) nerds who aren't interested in the spotlight, but they provide a fundamental bridge between melody and rhythm that enhances the other performers without necessarily standing out on its own. Meanwhile, the "drummer" character in this book is less Ringo Star and much more Jon Bonham or Neil Peart. He's got, if not an active desire, at least no aversion to the spotlight.

Of course exceptions to every stereotype exist, and there's a very valid argument to be made that a rock drummer ought to be the archetypical support class, but the division of stereotypes made sense to me while reading.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I meant that the drummer is more physically active, compared to the bassman who's diddling the strings with two fingers. See e.g. Klaus Dinger, Brian Chippendale, Max Sansalone.

parent

[–] Eufalconimorph@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 6 months ago (1 child)

I think it depends on why you all meet for the first time.

You've all seen an "adventurers wanted" poster, gone to the listed address, passed the interview, and been hired? Fine.

You all randomly meet in a tavern, hear a rumor from one of the locals, and decide to work together with complete strangers? Stupid.

You're all agents of the authoritarian wizard king "Friend Wizard", assigned to enforce their authority. You're also all members of different prohibited secret societies with secret missions to steal from & sabotage Friend Wizard. If you die Friend Wizard will resurrect you, the first 6 resurrections are free and more 6-packs can be purchased. Your DM is running Paranoia in D&D, wacky hijinks will ensue. Silly.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 7 points 6 months ago (1 child)

No disagreement here.

I realized when reading one of the other comments that my similarly sized complaint is it creates a lot of potential for problems at the game level as well as narrative when people make their characters in isolation. I kind of assumed that comes packaged with "and you all meet in a tavern".

Like, everyone makes a fighter and shows up to session 1. The dm's going to have a head scratcher thinking about balance, and some players might be annoyed they don't really have a niche of their own. A weird party like that can work, but it'll be a happier experience if folks talk about it ahead of time.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 months ago

A group of fighters is actually not a half bad setup, but requires a group that enjoys a focus on combat tactics. I played a few bits of a no magic campaign before. We all started with shields and spears as a military unit and then were allowed to multiclass from there without penalty into another martial class.

It was all agreed upon beforehand though.

parent

[–] Zoomboingding@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

A few months ago my wife and I were on vacation in Peru and we got kicked off our flight through no fault of our own, along with 5 other strangers. We spent hours in the airport working out logistics of getting home, getting reimbursed, getting hotels/meals, etc. At one point, they suggested to one of the women to take an uber to the hotel (this was around 3 am) and she said "I'm not going out into the city without anyone I know, you're going to send me with someone I can trust." We had only met hours ago, but our shared predicament gave us unity.

A D&D party trauma bonding over some initial catastrophe is honestly realistic. So, if you meet up for a job and it goes badly enough, you're essentially family!

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 3 points 6 months ago

It can work, as clearly shown by your rather wholesome example and many people's games. But it's also leaving a very large surface area for problems. Unlike real life, you can just avoid that by making your characters together.

Maybe I should have said in my previous thread that while the "you all meet for the first time" is kind of cliché, there are more serious problems at the game level. And like it can work if everyone makes a fighter, but you can also make everyone's lives easier if you discuss up front.

parent

[–] macmacfire@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago

This is part of the reason I love Monster of the Week. Unlike in many TTRPGs, the default expectation is that you all have a common backstory.

parent

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 6 points 6 months ago

This is why in every game I am a part of now, if the GM doesn't take the initiative to do so, I message the other players to figure out who my character has connections with, why, for how long, etc. I can't stand to have another "you meet in a tavern".

parent