I hadn't intended to devote so many posts to Dark Sun, but they've proven quite popular and have generated a lot of discussion, so I thought I'd do a few more that I think have a wider relevance for fans of old school roleplaying games. In its advertising, TSR frequently described the world of Athas as AD&D's "toughest challenge ever." This train of thought can found throughout the boxed set's rulebook as well, such as this paragraph:
This paragraph appears under the section header "Character Trees," which continues:
Since it's been so long since I last read Dark Sun, I'd completely forgotten about the existence of character trees. When I re-read this section, I immediately thought of Goodman Games's Dungeon Crawl Classics Role Playing Game and its "character funnel."
For those of you unfamiliar with a character funnel, it's an adventure for DCC RPG in which each player generates four 0-level characters to throw at its dangers. At the conclusion of the adventure, the player chooses which of these four – assuming any survived – to elevate to level 1 and become his player character. DCC is dangerous, even for characters of levels 1 and above; it's especially dangerous for level 0 characters. Consequently, many of them die during the course of a funnel and it's not at all uncommon for a player to have to generate a second (or third ...) set of four characters to get through the funnel with one still alive at the end.
I've played through several funnels and they're a lot of fun. They're a great way to introduce new players to Dungeon Crawl Classics – not just its game mechanics but also its embracing of randomness as a gateway for unexpected fun. The other thing I really like about funnels is that I never know which of my four level 0 characters is going to be the one that makes it out alive. Often, it's the one I least expect, which I find delightful. Left to my own devices, I tend to fall into the same old ruts when it comes to generating a new character. Leaving the final decision to Fate breaks me free of that.
Now, Dark Sun's character tree concept is actually quite different from DCC's character funnel, but I nevertheless wondered if maybe there'd be some influence. The character tree is intended to provide players with a source of back-up characters whose levels are not too far below those of their current characters. This is a concern because the world of Athas is a dangerous one, player characters will die often. Since no one wants to replace a higher-level character with a 1st-level one, having three others as part of a tree is insurance against that.
A player in Dark Sun may only play one character in his tree at a time. The other three are inactive and may only be activated between adventures, upon the death of the current character, or – rarely – during an adventure. Only the current characters gains experience points. However, upon the current character's gaining a level, one of the other three characters in the tree also goes up a level as well. This happens every time any played character in the tree advances. Ideally, the player will be swapping between characters, thereby ensuring that most of them are within a level or two of each other. Even if he doesn't, at least one of them should be fairly close to the level of his current character, thereby obviating the need to generate a new level 1 character.
I think there's something to the idea of a character tree, though it's really only needed if the referee is a stickler about requiring that a new character enter the campaign at level 1 without exception. It's been my experience that most referees are fairly flexible about this, though strict, by-the-book AD&D, even in the 2e era, discourages this practice. I've generally been more inclined to let replacement characters begin at or close to the average level of the remaining ones, but maybe I'm too lenient. I'd be curious to hear others' opinions about this, especially if they're based on experience born of play in a campaign.
I generally encourage two characters per player, in a new campaign, although only one of them can be actively adventuring at a time (during a session). That’s to say, both your characters may be involved in separate multi-session adventures, but on any given Sunday, you’re only playing one of them.
ReplyDeleteFor one, it helps provide a wider selection of character classes available to a group of players. Need a thief for your next jaunt? No worries, Bill has a Paladin and a thief, see if his thief character wants to come.
It also doesn’t leave a player flat footed if a character dies.
My biggest problem has been getting some players to avoid concentrating on one character, so as to reap more xp and loot, rather than seeing it distributed between two characters.
So far as starting play higher than 1st level: I’m generally opposed to it. Earn those levels! Otherwise the hard work the other players put in seems wasted. Just hang in the back, carry a torch or something. The only thing exception I’ve ever really observed is allowing a player to take active control of a higher level henchman, be it his own, or another player’s.
in DCC, we always seem to name the groups in themes, so Huey Dewey Louie and Stewie, AND Todd, Rod, Grodd, and Nod, AND John, Paul, George, and Ringo, AND April, May, June and September. so they get 3/4 wiped, and your level 1 party is Dewey, Grodd, Paul and June.
ReplyDeletegood times
I’ve never met someone named September.
DeleteMe neither, but I haven't met a Nod or (outside of comics) a Grodd.
DeleteI knew a girl freshman year named (I kid you not) September Bries.
DeleteI knew a september. but really, I did not see that being a sticking point for people :)
Delete“September Bries” sound like a witness in an Ace Attorney game. Speaking of which, how about a group named Phoenix, Miles, Maya, and Mia?
Deleteabout 30 years ago I met a Goth dude ata gaming store named September. He didn't care for my cowboy hat and U2 t-shirt. About 15 years ago I found out that he was a friend of mines HS boyfriend, and a total creep.
DeleteThis is fascinating. I played in a Dark Sun campaign, but never read the books.
ReplyDeleteOur DM didn't implement this rule, although to be fair our general group approach to losing characters was to roll a new one up at much the same level.
Character death (or retirement) was fairly uncommon in my games, but we would always start a new character at close to the levels of the other characters (eg the lowest XP needed to match the lowest level among the others).
ReplyDeleteIn our D&D campaign, the DM let's new player's entering the campaign, and new characters of current player's (because their previous one died), all start at the same level as the other player characters in the campaign (which all leveled at the same pace, so everyone in the party has the same level). I'm not sure of the exact reasoning, but I fully assume (but you know what happens when we assUme) that it's just both more enjoyable for the players, and more enjoyable/easier for the DM. If for example the majority of the party exists of 5th level characters, and a new 1 level player joins in, how are you going to create/enjoy encounters that are not either 'far to easy for the 5th level chars', or 'way too hard for the 1st level chars' ?
ReplyDeleteI'd always assumed this was the most straightforward way of dealing with character death and a lot less cumbersome than trees or funnels or whatever. I can understand some existing players might feel hard-done-by (because the new character didn't 'earn' the levels) but that ultimately that's a childish attitude to have; the game's about having fun, not a competition
DeleteIf I'm not mistaken, 2E DS characters started at 3rd level , too. I'm not a fan of DCCRPG's funnels, but I like this Character Tree idea.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, as mentioned in another post, I always wanted to dive into this setting, so I'm enjoying all the discussion lately here.
You aren't mistaken, PCs started at 3rd.
DeleteHowever, the other characters in the tree start at 1st level, according to the rulebook, which is odd.
DeleteGood read. And since you asked:
ReplyDeleteWe've used funnels to good effect. As you noted they tend to break players out of a class/species rut. They also build quirks and relationships from the get-go.
Then, as a PC moves up a tier the player creates a new PC to serve as a follower of their PC. Player can then make the choice of how much to put them at risk. And in our somewhat gritty game when PC1 gets laid up and needs some lengthy recovery time PC2 comes to the fore. PC1 needs to spend some research/crafting time? Play PC2. And when PC2 advance a tier then THEY get a follower!
We have a lead party (several of whom are about to get a second follower) accompanied by their followers, two of whom have their OWN followers who are frequently tasked with lesser quests - running errands, retrieving spell components, solo adventures, etc. Players are never at a loss for a character to play and player absence can easily be covered by shifting the focus from one contingent to another.
This is pretty close to how we assembled a ready-pool of contingent adventurers. It was somewhere along this path that we realized that three of the pack animals had adventured more than any single PC. We should have given Dolly the Myull a merit badge. Maybe a nice decorative scarf.
DeleteSo if you want to level your wizard stash him in a charchter tree and play your thief.
ReplyDeleteIn my games when you PC dies your new PC starts at half the XP of your dead PC. This keeps them close enough to the average party level.
I like the idea of setting the character tree/funnel/secondary characters' advancement to experience points instead of level.
DeleteNew characters start at a set XP total IMC, not a set level. They will have lower XP than the older characters, but not be a drain on party resources that dies in the first fireball/dragon breath/what have you.
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong, but I think this is a simplification of a similar idea from Ars Magica (1987). In AM your mages doesn't want go out, because you get more powerful studying, so you have a pool of character that can help you. Your mage obtains in every adventure resources or solve problems, so it gets more competent.
ReplyDeleteI haven't looked at Ars Magica in years, but I always liked the multi-character system. In AM, though, it wasn't about having backup characters ready to go; rather, it was in service of the narrative. The "main" characters are a conclave of Mages, but it didn't make sense to have the whole gaggle of wizards adventuring all the time.
ReplyDeleteSo each player, IIRC, had a Magus, a Companion (thief/healer/knight/specialist/whatever), and then 1 or 2 Grogs (basically 1st-lvl henchmen/men-at-arms). On any given adventure, you'd have a Magus who was leading, the other players would play Companions, and then the pack of Grogs would be played collectively.
Also, AM was not really interested in "game balance" among the different types of characters, which was kind of novel at the time.
I don't think game balance was in the mind of any publisher in 1987. AM was more extreme with its unbalanced parties, I give you that, but AD&D didn't try to solve the power gap between classes either. I believe (and I could be wrong, of course) that balanced games are a "modern" sensibility.
DeleteYou might be right about game balance in general; I'm probably projecting my personal interest in it. I was very interested in game balance and "fairness" ever since the mid '80s when I discovered Champions/Hero System. That was the first point buy system I had encountered, followed by GURPS. It really clicked with teenaged me that games should strive for balance. AM made me think about it differently.
DeleteI've never actually played Ars Magica, but I've been using some version of its 'troupe system' I read about, all the time, for a good twenty years now. I've run into a couple other people who made the same move themselves, without being A.M. players.
ReplyDeleteEspecially for what I think get called 'culture games' it's great! (IMO)
With which genres have you used this? I was thinking of trying it with a Mutants & Masterminds campaign, with the main superheroes, their sidekicks or somewhat lower powered associates, and then the horde of minor affiliated characters (staff at the HQ, unpowered family, friends, and colleagues, etc.).
DeleteAlso curious if in your games you used the restriction of only one “Mage” equivalent out in a single adventure. That seems particular to A.M. and unnatural in many other settings.
In Gamma World, if you had a mutated character who died, you got to introduce a sibling with the same set of mutations, save one, which was replaced at random. And Hopeless mutants were never set aside - they became significant NPCs in your life, for good or ill.
ReplyDeleteI was able to play a DCC funnel for the first time last weekend at the Pittsburgh Gaming Expo. It was a load of fun, and the creativity that people ended up putting into their deaths was hysterical, and it was wonderful to play a character that was created from soup to nuts randomly.
In the DS campaign I played in when DS came out - we didn't use the tree. Single character/Re-Roll on death. And when playing in the RPGA tournament at Gencon that same year which used Dark Sun - we just used a single character (which makes sense for tournament play).
ReplyDeleteWonder how many people actually used the tree.
I require all players to start their FIRST character at 1st level, regardless of the level of the party. However, I allow replacement characters to start at around the same level as the deceased PC.
ReplyDeleteIf a character dies in my campaign, someone wants to replace a character, or a new player joins I usually have them start at the same level of the PCs but with the minimum XP for that level. Not sure why I decided on this methodology but my players find it reasonable. Given the size of the party I will sometimes play a GMPC to complement a missing role in the party and have had players swap the GMPC for their PC as a change of pace.
ReplyDeleteI was in a 3e campaign years ago where the GM would have players always start over at 3rd level with minimal equipment no matter what level the party was at (i.e. we rescued the new PC but his equipment is missing). So the party would have to give up some of their equipment to make sure he had armor, weapons, etc. He would also target the lower level PC in combat with the reasoning that the enemy could sense that they were the weakest link. Consequently the new PC often spent most of the combat face down in the dirt or sucking up vital healing resources, and not making much of an impact in the combat. And there was a lot of combat. I quit the campaign after a while but for all I know they are still working through his megadungeon...
I usually let new characters join 2 levels below the lowest in the party, weaker but not frustating for the player.
ReplyDeleteAs for replacements for dead PCs, i let they have the same level as the dead character. Guess Ive gone soft since my teenage years.
I have had players roll up several PCs, and pick their favorite, then having the others as ready to go backups though we've never actually used them.
ReplyDeleteSo far in my RuneQuest campaign every PC has started with the previous experience from the back of the book (1978 1st edition). The campaign has been running long enough now it's time to consider letting new PCs start with a bit of a boost, though we did just have a new PC join. However, they decided to give the new PC the treasure share the deceased PC had been due, which was quite a haul so the new PC is starting off not too bad. Plus, the previous experience system can produce skills in the 70%+ range.
With class and level systems, my inclination is to start new PCs either at the original starting (with Cold Iron, I start them with 12,000 XP) or a level or two behind.
Back in the 70s, we started new PCs at 0 XP, but often a few players would also generate a new PC and we'd do some low level adventures, usually chaperoned by some higher level PCs, which allows for pretty quick catch up.