I originally had this post typed up, with all my ramblings and thought-processes, on the history of the creation of this module... But when I submitted it, all was lost when the site asked me to log in again.
So, I'll keep to the basics.
Den of Thieves is a concept game designed for players to be immersed into a different type of game. One that requires critical thinking and being crafty, as opposed to your more traditional brute force methods.
The premise is heavy-handed, like the previous campaign module discussed, and perhaps even more so when it comes to character creation: I am forcing the players to be either a Thief, or a Jack-of-all-Trades. (Both classes are from the Black Company Campaign Setting.)
This might seem quite limiting, but with the Black Company Backgrounds, a lot of variety can still be present. With either taking the Dabbler feat, or Mage's Apprentice Background, one can still cast spells, and at least two of the backgrounds allows for Knowledge skills (something always useful). Several help with combat.
The limiting factor is a bit of the point, actually. Let us see the wits of a party and its members when confronted with a variety of problems. A band of Thieves, once they reach a certain level, may be able to handedly whittle down a group of your average brawlers, but a good fighter is still something to be wary of - moreso a Barbarian/Berzerker (something that can not be flanked or sneak-attacked).
It's more than just the combat, though. Let us see how they handle having to steal a relic from a renown collector, or kidnap (or rescue) someone, or just talk themselves out a situation.
Could your more traditional party do this? Sure. DnD is all about seeing how people interact with one-another with their characters, but this is a concentrated effort. Hopefully, it works.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I've run this idea past a couple people, and they have asked, "So why are you not allowing a Fighter, or Scout?"
I can see their reasoning, a Fighter could just simply be a Thug. In the future, I don't think I would have an issue with allowing a Fighter as a selectable class for this module. The way some parties are, though, don't be surprised if you end up with nothing but fighters.
As for the Scout, it is a bit too specialized in its purpose, I think. Perhaps this is a personal bias, since I have yet to see the Scout truly shine, but I do think it would be more at home with another campaign module. Maybe, after an initial run-through of this module, I'll allow it, and see how that goes.
As a note to character creation, especially towards stats: the high turn-over rate for Ability scores might be a bit much for some players. Be sure to warn people before you attempt it.
If you think your players might be easily annoyed, or deterred, by this, I'd suggest go ahead and use 4d6, drop lowest, but keep them natural/genetic.
Hi! New to Blogger, was going through looking for DnD ideas and came across your blog.
I've thought before of having the likes of all-thief or all-evil campaigns, and wonder what your thoughts are on keeping the party from murdering each other, collapsing into complete inter-party war?
That seems it could be a problem in a game like this, if everyone is likely to role play at least.
I think we've been doing ok.. mostly.
@ Andrew F - Sorry for taking over half a year to reply. I have actually never had another person, outside of friends, reply before. That said, I have mostly used this blog as a type of notebook to sketch down ideas to share with my friends. I will make an effort to check Blogger on a basis that is more regular.
Anyway, back to your core question of how to prevent stupi---err, I mean, party in-fighting. The blunt answer is that that you can't; people will be people, and will make their own choices, and you can't stop them from making their choices.
That is not an answer that everyone likes to hear, though.
The next answer isn't too much better: get players that are either more mature, or understand that DnD is a group endeavor and strive to have cohesion. This is actually the best, and most effective answer. Sadly, we don't always have the liberty of cherry-picking, and that's actually how a lot of my campaign/modules ideas develop - how to I help people break the mold, or have a new mindset? More on this later.
The last answer is the most common I've heard given: play to their character wants and goals. (Carrot on a stick, essentially.) Failing that, the more heavy-handed approach can be tried, like the spell Geas, but that doesn't work for everyone. Indeed, any heavy-handed approach can leave some players jaded. (I, personally, am jaded by games that have a more "rail road" story-line because of heavy-handedness.)
All of these work, it just depends on the individual. Returning to my previous point (How do I help people break the mold/mindset?) this is why I structure my modules around an over-arching idea. If I get a group of gamers together and say, "hey, this is about going on an expedition," most of those people are going to prepare in that manner. In a campaign, or module, where the idea is a lot more open-ended and less-specific, you could add the caveat of "hey, by the way, you guys all have known eachother for a while." Doing this both adds and subtracts from party gameplay elements, but overall it helps with cohesion, and almost always weeds out that "chaotic-neutral rogue."
The "Den of Thieves" idea is a lot more tricky, and while the above tactic of having the party start as a pre-formed group would work, I don't think it's absolutely necessary. Why? A number of reasons:
1) Everyone else is roughly as skilled as you are. That makes it a lot harder to steal, cheat, and sneak around your teammates. This makes people a bit more reluctant to test out those skills.
2) Being a thief/rogue does not mean you're necessarily bad. As an example, Lawful Good rogues can and do exist. The inverse is also true, however, and maybe a deeper story-line can be built around that if both exist within a party. (The Black Company Campaign Setting does not use the traditional alignment system, and instead relies more on a variety of allegiences. That both helps and hinders the point.)
2a) Alignment/allegiances aside, the backgrounds provided, paired with the stats being forced on the character really are elements of a forced variety for the player characters. While this doesn't explicitly stop players from "Chaotic-Neutral Rogue Syndrome" it does force them to think more about their character and character build (which helps.)
For a more by-the-book and traditional all-thieves/rogues DnD campaign, without going into specific cases, it's hard to make a proper reply. I will say this though, it's harder than it looks because there are some fundamental gameplay balance issues; an encounter with some minor undead can spell a party wipe.
As for all-evil campaigns, everyone knows, secretly, that they mostly suck. Parties more chaoticly aligned are likely to amount to just wanton slaughter, which is fun for a bit, but wears thin. Lawful Evil parties have the most promise, but that is a tricky alignment to play. That's really all I can say, because my experience is limited, in that regard.
I hope that all this isn't too much of a blorb of information to make a reply to.
Post a Comment