I Hit It With My Axe: Episode 15: Ambush at the River of Despair

[mandymorbid]

Zombies were done to death 15 years ago. I'd be so disappointed in my DM if he did something so unoriginal.

We DO NOT want to be coddled--we're not being "screwed on xp" that's ridiculous--who would benefit in such a situation, the DM? Certainly not. Yes, a year because at first we were not playing regularly and at first I only played in 1e AD&D games.

What fun would starting at a higher level be? What sense of accomplishment from surviving and leveling up, the anticipation of better spells, what do you learn from playing all soft like that? And what's so bad about making poor choices and dealing with the consequences--in a game--dying?

You call it a mess. I call it good fun.

Okay, ouch. Let me first state that much of what I said was meant as a friendly barb at the players. The mess I was referring to was the debacle of being ripped up by a garrison of goblin soldiers, not the game / session entire. As far as the XP goes, I get that the group wasn't necessarily playing regularly for 6+ hour sessions. It's just a little eye-brow raising is all. One year of play time for a lot of groups that I've played with or talked to on forums can lead to a gain of 7 levels, give or take.

On starting at high(er) levels (my group for 4E prefers 6th or so) there really isn't any difference accept for survivability. Every character comes into a campaign with a little background and the more exuberant players can turn it into a short story competition. Just listen to Will Wheaton talk about his characters backstory in the DnD podcast with Penny Arcade. Your average story starts with characters that have already been around the block a few times (Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, whatever). So it isn't too much of a stretch for experienced gamers to want the same.

Which is of course what it really comes down to. For the group you've got, makes good sense to play from 1st level at least a couple of times, but I personally got tired of killing giant rats after my 3rd or 5th time.

On zombies: Would ghouls be better? What about ghasts?

Edit: the friendly barb was also meant with the personalized minis, just cause it seemed snicker worthy especially if they were designed for the exact characters in question.

"Character backround is what happens between levels 1 and 6." -Gary Gygax

 

[deadguynotyetburied]

Gary's gone, Mandy. We have to let him go.

 

[FearlessFelix]

No kidding. His contributions put around 6 editions of DnD under the titles of DnD blue box, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Editions, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition, and so on. A giant in his field which is why he probably tripped up as much as he did. personally miss Arneson more. Role-playing games have always been the opportunity to extend tactical fights via miniatures and the story bound sense of choose your own adventure into a wide open world that might be Baldur's Gate or Fallout. But as far as being the absolute ruling authority on everything DnD, that title was taken from him awhile ago.

And BTW, Mandy, SERIOUSLY, I do not have a hate on for you, I swear! You say tomato, I say tomahtoh. I just threw stuff out there for a group that's not mine, not to trash the way you play or anything, never-been-a-cub-scout's honor.

Edit: I misspelled opportunity and didn't include a hyphen with role-playing, dammit

 

[mandymorbid]

No kidding. His contributions put around 6 editions of DnD under the titles of DnD blue box, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Editions, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition, and so on. A giant in his field which is why he probably tripped up as much as he did. personally miss Arneson more. Role-playing games have always been the opportunity to extend tactical fights via miniatures and the story bound sense of choose your own adventure into a wide open world that might be Baldur's Gate or Fallout. But as far as being the absolute ruling authority on everything DnD, that title was taken from him awhile ago.

And BTW, Mandy, SERIOUSLY, I do not have a hate on for you, I swear! You say tomato, I say tomahtoh. I just threw stuff out there for a group that's not mine, not to trash the way you play or anything, never-been-a-cub-scout's honor.

Edit: I misspelled opportunity and didn't include a hyphen with role-playing, dammit

We roll old school, you don't. That's that.

 

[FearlessFelix]

No kidding. His contributions put around 6 editions of DnD under the titles of DnD blue box, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Editions, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition, and so on. A giant in his field which is why he probably tripped up as much as he did. personally miss Arneson more. Role-playing games have always been the opportunity to extend tactical fights via miniatures and the story bound sense of choose your own adventure into a wide open world that might be Baldur's Gate or Fallout. But as far as being the absolute ruling authority on everything DnD, that title was taken from him awhile ago.

And BTW, Mandy, SERIOUSLY, I do not have a hate on for you, I swear! You say tomato, I say tomahtoh. I just threw stuff out there for a group that's not mine, not to trash the way you play or anything, never-been-a-cub-scout's honor.

Edit: I misspelled opportunity and didn't include a hyphen with role-playing, dammit

We roll old school, you don't. That's that.

Well, congratulations on taking offense where none was meant. I'm sure you'll be very successful. Lates.

 

[MatchesMalone]

With a name like The River of Despair, what did they expect?

 

[Noumenon]

The monsters collectively tend to roll far more attacks than players, and only have to win one fight.

Conversely, the players only have to lose one fight, and fumbles help them do that. The 3.5 DMG argued that both crits and fumbles are bad for the players' survivability because they make for swingier combat. But crits stay in because swingy combat is more exciting combat, and they make both you and the monsters more badass instead of people who can barely manage to go a session without tripping over their own sword.

For the group you've got, makes good sense to play from 1st level at least a couple of times, but I personally got tired of killing giant rats after my 3rd or 5th time.

Try Goodman Games' Dungeon Crawl Classics, "The Adventure Begins," for a bunch of first-level adventures with monsters like zombie grigs, killer crab swarms, tiny animated figurines, rust spiders, electrostatic bats, "spellsnakes"... and those are just the ones I've run myself.

I bet first level adventures in general would be more interesting if everyone had watched this series. My friend told me he once gained a level in AD&D by killing 200 orcs and not a single thing else, but Zak is showing you can play old-school "1st level fighting man" style without getting repetitive.

 

[deadguynotyetburied]

The monsters collectively tend to roll far more attacks than players, and only have to win one fight.

Conversely, the players only have to lose one fight, and fumbles help them do that. The 3.5 DMG argued that both crits and fumbles are bad for the players' survivability because they make for swingier combat. But crits stay in because swingy combat is more exciting combat, and they make both you and the monsters more badass

Agreed, both crits and fumbles have the effect of shortening PC lifespans, and no DM worth a damn is going to allow fumbles for the monsters only, or crits only for the players. While I keep them in to give the game its flavor and splash, I don't like death spells, I don't like insta-kills, and I don't like crits -- I have no problem incrementally grinding my players into nothing but when they go from full health to dead in one shot, it's fair, it's consistent within the reality of the game world, but it's also a gaming experience the players aren't likely to want to repeat.

 

[Rick Marshall]

"Character background is what happens between levels 1 and 6." -Gary Gygax

Mandy Morbid, your Gygax quote makes me so happy. There's so much old-school bound up so neatly in those few words.

 

[Rick Marshall]

And BTW, Mandy, SERIOUSLY, I do not have a hate on for you, I swear! You say tomato, I say tomahtoh. I just threw stuff out there for a group that's not mine, not to trash the way you play or anything, never-been-a-cub-scout's honor.

We roll old school, you don't. That's that.

Well, congratulations on taking offense where none was meant. I'm sure you'll be very successful. Lates.

Fearless Felix, I could be reading this wrong, but it reads to me as if she was agreeing with you about tomato-tomahtoh, not taking offense, that she was saying they play more old school, you play more new school, no harm no foul. Ironically, if true, that would make you the one taking offense where none was meant. If so, my sympathies; been there, done that, myself too in public discussions.

 

[Keevel]

You call it a mess. I call it good fun.

Fun and the mess you all got yourselves into at the River of Despair are not mutually exclusive.

 

[mandymorbid]

You call it a mess. I call it good fun.

Fun and the mess you all got yourselves into at the River of Despair are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed, that was exactly my point.

 

[shlominus]

We roll old school, you don't. That's that.

how many other ways have you rolled?

Zombies were done to death 15 years ago. I'd be so disappointed in my DM if he did something so unoriginal.

are goblins the next big thing? nobody told me...

"Character backround is what happens between levels 1 and 6." -Gary Gygax

so what/who do you play during these first levels? a blank sheet? do you care about this... i don't know what to call it as it's obviously not a "character"? is she a peasent, or maybe a noble? developed during play? her family, developed during play? personality, likes, dislikes, what drives her, what made her become an adventurer? all developed during play?

in what way is having a background for a character from the start a bad thing?

and last, but not least, considering your character is now lvl5, what does her "backstory" look like now? i'd be interested to see how this might work out.

 

[Zak Sabbath]

so what/who do you play during these first levels? a blank sheet? do you care about this... i don't know what to call it as it's obviously not a "character"? is she a peasent, or maybe a noble? developed during play? her family, developed during play? personality, likes, dislikes, what drives her, what made her become an adventurer? all developed during play?

in what way is having a background for a character from the start a bad thing?

Hey look, it's Shlominus, who comments on my blog all the time.

Shlominus--we've been through this drill a thousand times by now--I make an assertion (or, in this case, Mandy does) and you go "Really? I don't think so" and then I go "No, actually, I meant what I said. This is the way we do it and this is the way we like to do it and we have fun. And fun is good and not bad, so it is good." and then you usually go "Ok, fair enough, what I meant to say is..."

So instead of going through ALLLLLL that, why don't you just start off this time by assuming Mandy meant what she said and then say what YOU meant to say, which is something like "I, Shlominus, prefer to roll in the following way: _______ because of my own psychological make-up. I recognize that my personal endorsement of a way of pretending to be a wizard does not make that way objectively 'better' or 'worse' than any other way and realize you are smart enough to know the same thing."

How does Mandy like to play? Mandy likes to play like in the videos that are posted here on this website that we are commenting on.

Does Mandy like to play this way? Yes, Mandy does.

What kind of character does she play? She plays the character that you see in the video.

Is that enough of a "character" for her? Apparently so.

Really really? Yes.

Are you sure? Yes.

Are you absolutely certain that you are enjoying doing the thing we are watching a video of you enjoying doing? Yes.

Are you certain? Yes.

For reals? Yes.

Is it ok if I do it a different way? Yes.

 

[shlominus]

um... ok. what brought this on?

i think you are missing my points here. where am i challenging anything she said?

when mandy states she rolls a certain way i think its a legitimate question to ask if she has any experience with other styles of play. obviously her views mirror yours (and why wouldn't they? she has plenty of reasons for this. the question is still reasonable.).

when she says she thinks zombies were done to death and something so "unoriginal" would dissapoint her but she has been fighting goblins for the last few sessions i think this is funny. so i made a joke about it. nothing to get mad about, right? right?!

and the questions about characters? whats wrong with them? i want to find out how someone who does stuff differently then i do sees a certain issue. mandy posted something about the issue so i asked her. you get mad about that? so mad that you make up a posting style to make me look bad (i mean, come on, my post is right above yours... )?

most of my posts on your blog have been "great stuff!" cause i like most of your stuff. ah well, you made it quite clear you don't want me posting there so i will stop.

i've got no idea why you would attack me over this. i just asked a few questions.

maybe someone else (who believes character background is lvls 1-6 or something similar) can answer them instead.

 

[Zak Sabbath]

um... ok. what brought this on?

i think you are missing my points here. where am i challenging anything she said?

when mandy states she rolls a certain way i think its a legitimate question to ask if she has any experience with other styles of play. obviously her views mirror yours (and why wouldn't they? she has plenty of reasons for this. the question is still reasonable.).

when she says she thinks zombies were done to death and something so "unoriginal" would dissapoint her but she has been fighting goblins for the last few sessions i think this is funny. so i made a joke about it. nothing to get mad about, right? right?!

and the questions about characters? whats wrong with them? i want to find out how someone who does stuff differently then i do sees a certain issue. mandy posted something about the issue so i asked her. you get mad about that? so mad that you make up a posting style to make me look bad (i mean, come on, my post is right above yours... )?

most of my posts on your blog have been "great stuff!" cause i like most of your stuff. ah well, you made it quite clear you don't want me posting there so i will stop.

i've got no idea why you would attack me over this. i just asked a few questions.

maybe someone else (who believes character background is lvls 1-6 or something similar) can answer them instead.

I'm not attacking you, I'm just saying all your questions are answered right there in the show. To the degree that they have answers.

Except this one:

"in what way is having a background for a character from the start a bad thing?"

Which is just a weird question, because nobody ever said it was.

 

[shlominus]

"in what way is having a background for a character from the start a bad thing?"

Which is just a weird question, because nobody ever said it was.

well, you don't "use" backgrounds like i am used to, so you obviously think starting a character without one is in some way beneficial, right? that's what i am asking: "what is the benefit?" i just worded the question the other way around... whats wrong with having a background, to make you dismiss them?

weird?

 

[Zak Sabbath]

"in what way is having a background for a character from the start a bad thing?"

Which is just a weird question, because nobody ever said it was.

well, you don't "use" backgrounds like i am used to, so you obviously think starting a character without one is in some way beneficial, right? that's what i am asking: "what is the benefit?" i just worded the question the other way around... whats wrong with having a background, to make you dismiss them?

weird?

Nothing's "wrong" or "bad" about it, just like there's nothing "wrong" with ketchup. Everybody just puts as much on as they feel like that day. Sometimes you want to make up a lot of crap about your character before you roll and sometimes you just want to get out there and play.

Why'd you put a teaspoon of ketchup on your sandwich today instead of a tablespoon? Who knows, it tastes good, that's all. Wouldn't you prefer a tablespoon? Not now, obviously, I'm busy eating.

 

[shlominus]

Nothing's "wrong" or "bad" about it, just like there's nothing "wrong" with ketchup. Everybody just puts as much on as they feel like that day. Sometimes you want to make up a lot of crap about your character before you roll and sometimes you just want to get out there and play.

Why'd you put a teaspoon of ketchup on your sandwich today instead of a tablespoon? Who knows, it tastes good, that's all. Wouldn't you prefer a tablespoon? Not now, obviously, I'm busy eating.

i think you are deliberately missing my points, so i guess we should stop.

could have been a nice discussion though.

 

[Slycne]

Your average story starts with characters that have already been around the block a few times (Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, whatever).

I would argue that's quite not that case. "The Heroes Journey" isn't a journey if the character is already a hero, even your examples adhere to this. In Lord of the Rings, the story is told largely through the eyes of the hobbits. Martin's writing has more experienced characters like Ned Stark, but it begins to favor the coming of age of it's other ones.

Even the heroes from these stories are not level 20 epic characters if you tried to apply the D&D rule set to them. Aragorn(scroll down to the bottom) [http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html] is likely the equivalent of a level 5 or 6 character, and wow, Ned Stark is maybe at best a level 3.

There's fun to be had and valuable character development available in those first few levels, if you give it a chance. Though, is it wrong to start with a few levels under their belts and a back-story to rival an encyclopedia? Certainly not.