Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 pringles May 23, 2005 14:29:40	After killing half the party, we decided to use the character tree since now, we have a two 3 level character hanging out with 9 level character. Do you havce any advice concerning the character tree or how you use it.
#2 Sysane May 23, 2005 14:40:33	After killing half the party, we decided to use the character tree since now, we have a two 3 level character hanging out with 9 level character. Do you havce any advice concerning the character tree or how you use it. Back in 2e I always found that it was or could be abused. A player could start off as a thief ( which had the lower exp table in 2E) and could advance a character that had to earn higher amounts of exp at a quicker rate. In 3e it can't really be abused as such. I'd suggest not letting the players pass items from one tree character to another. I'm pretty sure that was a staple rule in the 2e mechanic already.
#3 xlorepdarkhelm_dup May 23, 2005 14:56:26	After killing half the party, we decided to use the character tree since now, we have a two 3 level character hanging out with 9 level character. Do you havce any advice concerning the character tree or how you use it. I'm unfamiliar with this term. What does it mean?
#4 pringles May 23, 2005 15:00:01	I have no problem with player exchanging item or abusing the system since my player are role-play oriented and dont really care about powering there character by abusing the system. The only way you can get powerfull in my game are by role-playing. There no min/maxing or whatever. The only thing i'm worried about is that the system have some flaw that can affect my campaign.
#5 Pennarin May 23, 2005 15:00:14	Xlor, I presume you're refering to the "tree"? (You quoted the entire post, not any particular word...) The Character Tree was found in the first DS Boxed Set. It allowed you to run 3 characters at once, so that if your main character died you automatically switched to another. Check it out.
#6 Sysane May 23, 2005 15:07:06	I'm unfamiliar with this term. What does it mean? The character tree? The old 2e DS system advised that players roll up three separate characters. As one of those characters advanced in level the player could advance one of the other non-played characters. A player could switch between or activate characters between adventures or sessions at the DM's desertion. The main point behind the mechanic was that character life expectance was low and if one died the player had a high level character replacement in waiting.
#7 dawnstealer May 23, 2005 15:21:31	I still use the Character Tree. Like you, unless there's a really good reason, I do not let my players transfer items. Unless their character is real giving (always tossing magic items and treasure to other players), I don't let them "cross-pollinate." I'll let them load up with things "in reason," like a metal weapon if they're over 5th level and so on, but all items in their inventory is up for GM approval. Works pretty well.
#8 sithis May 23, 2005 15:25:47	Why not just have them create a higher level character when their character died? The tree always seemed like a waste of time to me.
#9 Sysane May 23, 2005 15:43:16	Why not just have them create a higher level character when their character died? The tree always seemed like a waste of time to me. If the tree was used properly it was suppose to allow players the chance to play 3 multiple characters at once during the course of a campaign. You'd be able to switch characters anytime the DM was willing to let you. You didn't necessarily have to wait for a character to be pushing up esper weed before activating another one.
#10 pringles May 23, 2005 16:05:50	Why not just have them create a higher level character when their character died? The tree always seemed like a waste of time to me. Cause we dislike starting at high-level. We like our character begin lower-level and weak and then, you build your character personna and power as the campaign evolve.
#11 sithis May 23, 2005 16:53:26	If the tree was used properly it was suppose to allow players the chance to play 3 multiple characters at once during the course of a campaign. You'd be able to switch characters anytime the DM was willing to let you. You didn't necessarily have to wait for a character to be pushing up esper weed before activating another one. Ahh. Sounds like that would be extremely hard to accomplish in a realistic manner. Does circumvent the problem of people wanting to try out something new for a bit though.
#12 sithis May 23, 2005 16:55:18	Cause we dislike starting at high-level. We like our character begin lower-level and weak and then, you build your character personna and power as the campaign evolve. Are they going to be swapping in and out? Otherwise it seems like it would just be a slow method of making a high-level character. No more or less development.
#13 dawnstealer May 23, 2005 17:45:58	I'll go over the original rules of the character tree, since it seems this is a bit of a mystery for newer players and GMs. Under 2e Dark Sun, players would create four characters using the normal system (used to be 5d4, it's back to 3d6 or point-system now). In 2e, they'd all be 3rd level, but in 3e+, they're 1st level. Once all the characters are created, the player chooses one that will be their primary. That character then goes out and roams the world. When that character gains a level, the player can then give a level to a character in the character tree. In other words, a character would have to be 4th level before all three of his "tree characters" could be 2nd. Of course, a player can choose to give levels to whatever character he wants, even dumping them all on one. For example, with his primary character at 4th, the player could have one "tree character" at 4th, and then two others still stuck at 1st. There were a few ways that this could work. In 2e, the death of a character was pretty common on Athas (3e, too, if you're doing it right). Within a day or so (relatively speaking; if the PCs were in the middle of Ur Draxa, for example, it might be a few more days) a character from the character tree will show up. The characters in the character tree are related somehow and do know each other. Whether this means they were the same race and in the same tribe/pack, or whether it's some other tenuous connection, these characters know each other. At the end of an adventure, or if a GM says it's okay, a player can trade out their primary character for one in their character tree. For example, if a player wanted a "tree character" to level up a bit more, they could switch in that character. If they felt the current adventure called for a wizard, and their primary character was a fighter, they could switch in the wizard character. All in all, it was a pretty good system. Instead of waiting a few hours killing time while the player rolls up a new character and (eventually) thinks up a backstory, they immediately (kind of) join the action with a character that's already related to the group and there's no waiting. Good idea.
#14 crazy_cat May 23, 2005 18:33:41	I'm playing in my first ever DS campaign at the moment, having been introduced to the setting by Mark, our current DM. We have a party of 5 PC's, and I'm the only one to have switched PC's within my character tree. Having started at 1st level and seen PC's come close to death on several occasions it gives the player the feeling that if death hits them they aren't excluded from teh campaign and gives continuity to the player (more so than just rolling up a new PC would) I actually switched Lokar out after a climatic (plot critical) battle, when for purely IC reasons he ended up fighting with the NPC mage who was aiding us as she had used defiling magic. In the aftermath of this it seemed most appropiate to RP out his leaving for personal reasons, disgusted by the actions of our supposed "allies" I spoke to our DM and the introduction of my new PC (and the departure of Lokar) was then worked into the plot - and teh option is left open that Lokar may possibly return in future. Character trees - good thing IMHO.
#15 the_slayer_of_heroes May 23, 2005 18:55:02	i tried writing up a varient of the character tree for my group, but, unused to athas as they are, it confused the heck out of them. They didn't see the point of having multiple characters until around 6th level when Dougie died twice in one session... hehe anyway, here it is: 3.5 Character Tree for use in Dark Sun [and other worlds] Campaigns. "0th Teir: The Trunk" A Player roles up their main character, 5d4 or 3d6, whichever, at first level of their respective class as normal. ECL is then calculated. "1st Teir Branches" The player then roles up two more characters at first class level as normal. ECL is then calculated. "2nd Teir Branches and onward" The player may then choose to role up more characters, two for every one on the previous teir, as normal, and calculate ECL. The player then runs their "Trunk" or main character as normal. As experience is rewarded to the main PC for encounters, the characters on the 1st teir receive experience at CR's two below what the main PC is receiving. Characters on the 2nd teir receive CR's two below the 1st teir, 3rd at two below 2nd, and so on. For CR1 or below, calculate "two below" by deviding by two twice. So two below CR1 is CR1/4 and two below CR1/3 is CR1/12. When or if the player ever chooses [or is allowed] to swap in a character for the main character, just swap the positions of the characters on the tree. well, there it is. What do you think?
#16 zombiegleemax May 23, 2005 21:20:13	I disagree. I think Trees are at best problematic: First, you need to generate 4 characters. For newbies, this is fairly insane when coming up with even one character appropriate to Darksun is some effort. Even for Darksun veterens this is still a lengthy task that doesn't really offer much reward (pre-rolled replacement character at the cost of four times the normal book keeping). Second, the fact tree characters get free levels is quite dodgy. Gaining XP for no risk on the tree character's part... I dislike it. Further, character development doesn't really happen... "Davo takes another level of brute I guess" rather than "after fighting those critters and spending time with Bob the Telepath of Doom, Davo learns his lesson and takes a level of psion." However, if you treat Tree characters as free NPCs, then the idea starts to become workable. At character generation, have the player invent concepts for three or four important people in their life (teacher, parent, spouse, tavern wench at the local who gives info etc). These should reflect a variety of levels (so 1 low, 1 high, and 2 in between or something). in game, these people operate as NPCs, providing the PC with a support network of a sort. If the player dies, one of these NPCs can become the new PC as they are most likely to take up whatever cause the dead PC had, or want revenge for the death of their friend/associate/spouse/family member or something equally appropriate. The other PCs will also likely know who this 'new' character is and thus have valid in game reasons for allowing this new PC to join their group.
#17 Kamelion May 24, 2005 4:29:35	At character generation, have the player invent concepts for three or four important people in their life (teacher, parent, spouse, tavern wench at the local who gives info etc). That's an interesting take on the idea - I like it. Character trees in my games are required to be connected by a common motivation, but some wind up having familial ties, business connections etc. I don't require all four characteres to be rolled up all at once; in fact, players don't even need to know what the other three are when they start playing. I'm happy to see those blanks filled in along the way. Even if there are no deaths, a player may wish to change characters for other reasons (as with crazy_cat's example above. The way I see it is this: in any given game, players will be changing characters at various points anyway. When one dies, another is rolled up to replace him; when the player wants to try something different, he rolls up another one. The character tree just provides a mechanic on which to hang this concept. In actuality, if you follow the character tree, you will wind up worse-off as far as the levels of your character are concerned than if you had not used the character tree system. This is because the character tree effectively prevents you from having all your characters at the same level. You can swap back and forth between two pretty effectively and not end up being lower than the average party level. But if you start to involve your third and fourth character, sooner or later you will be playing someone of considerably lower level than your initial primary character. So I don't think it's giving away any unearned advantages; replacment characters inevitable have "free" levels anyway - the character tree codifies this with a primarily role-playing based mechanic. I have found it useful to switch the focus of the game for a session or two onto the lower-level characters on the tree, especially if these have not been played or advanced in any significant way. If done when the usual active characters are much higher level, it not only fleshes out other characters on the tree but also produces a neat "below-decks" feel to the game.
#18 murkaf May 24, 2005 7:05:04	What I did: I had my players roll 4 sets of stats to be used as a collective stats pool. Everyone then made 1 character, choosing 1 column from the stats pool. Everyone thinks about 3 other character concepts to populate their trees. (For the munchkins among them, this equals Feat selection from 1st to 20th level) As for levels, the only characters gaining XP are those actively playing. The real time-saver is the stats pool: As all players get the same stats, no one is complaining that they rolled (5,6,7,5,5,16) while another rolled (18,18,18,18,17,17). As for character diversity: each character places the stats as they like. After racial modifiers, you get no 2 characters with the same set of stats. The balancing factor: All major NPCs get their stats from the stats pool too, though this might be tweaked as needed.
#19 greyorm May 25, 2005 20:42:24	my player are role-play oriented and dont really care about powering there character by abusing the system. The only way you can get powerfull in my game are by role-playing. Then why are you playing D&D? I suggest that if role-playing is your focus, and not the crunchy mechanical bits, you would be far better off using a system that supported and reinforced that idea and play style. Theatrix or Amber, for example. The Pool is another idea. You'll have more fun if you aren't fighting the system, and even if you aren't fighting the system, then you'll have more fun if the system is actually supporting your play by rewarding and focusing upon your group's chosen behaviors.
#20 greyorm May 25, 2005 20:42:55	As far as character trees go, when we played DarkSun in high school, we used the character tree and it was a blast. After the Road to Urik adventure, I swapped out my nobleman preserver for a halfling air cleric. I had a half-giant on standby, but the game ended before I had the chance to use him, and a mutant psionicist that I used once. The idea that the character trees is nothing more than "free levels" is bizzare to me. You simply explain the levelling up. I mean, these are other adventurers we are talking about. They aren't just sitting around waiting for someone to call their number so they can go out on a quest. They gained a level...add something to their background to explain it: they were hired onto the city-state's payroll and fought in a skirmish with raiders. It's not like you have to start a D&D game at 1st level anyways.
#21 jon_oracle_of_athas May 28, 2005 4:06:16	The character tree is a great concept for those who run tired of characters quickly. It allows them to swap to a new character and then swap back later to the first character or a third character later. We have mostly good experiences with the character tree concept.
#22 dawnstealer May 28, 2005 14:12:43	Bingo. Or in campaigns where the GM is a bit more brutal or the players aren't quite as careful.
#23 korvar May 28, 2005 19:26:21	Of course, the idea of oficially running more than one character isn't new; Ars Magica has had the idea of "Troupe" style play, wher you generate three characters - a Mage (very powerful but specialised), a Companion (middling powerful, but with more rounded skills) and a Grog (not powerful or well skilled, basically low-level bodyguards for the Mages) - and decide which you play for each adventure. It's a lot of fun, and allows a lot of flexibility of play and the missions you can undertake, as you can pick your team for each given adventure. It assumes that there's a home base where all these guys live, and venture out when needed, rather than the traditional wandering band of adventurers. I was planning to do something like this with the primary characters joining one of the Slave Tribes (Salt View, if I recall correctly), and using that as their base of operations.
#24 zombiegleemax May 29, 2005 17:10:20	I run D&D as heroic fantasy (which is what it is designed for). Thus the players are heroes. They do not get munched on, they usually achieve a minor victory at least in most scenarios, even in a quasi-dark fantasy setting such as Darksun. I also tend to write long term with specific characters in mind. When characters up and die - or for whatever reason leave - I have wasted effort writing for them with only a slight chance of being able to adapt the material to another character. Thus, I usually help keep characters alive until they have access to raise spells. A character death can be an important chapter in my overall story, but ultimately I don't want it inhibiting my end game or detracting characters away from the main plot. Character trees, to me seem to emphasise a body count, which is great I guess if that is your thing (GoGo Dawnstealer :D ). For me however, I like to tell the epic tales of heroes, hence my objections to this concept.
#25 greyorm May 29, 2005 23:37:10	Character trees, to me seem to emphasise a body count...hence my objections to this concept. Character trees aren't just for high body count games. The DS game I spoke about in my post above had a very low body count, and we utilized the character tree, switching between characters often. In fact, there's nothing specifically about character trees that emphasizes character death, because you don't only switch between characters when one character dies. In fact, it highlights the idea of switching between living characters rather than switching over from a slain one. I also tend to write long term with specific characters in mind...A character death can be an important chapter in my overall story, but ultimately I don't want it inhibiting my end game or detracting characters away from the main plot. Ouch. As a player, I would have serious objections to this. Are your players ever bothered by the fact that they are being railroaded in regards to this overarching plot? (I realize you may argue they aren't being railroaded, but if you are writing plot events that require specific characters in order to function, and events or revelations, etc. that have to happen, you ARE railroading: which is definitionally "No matter what, THIS happens." Frex, if you have two choices of road to walk down, but both roads lead to the same place, and the same stuff happens to the characters no matter which path they choose, the player doesn't really have free will. Mostly, they have the illusion of it: which is why this style of play is called Illusionism.) I'm curious if your players know about or have complained about either of these things, particularly their characters not being able to die because you have plans for them? I ask because keeping one's character alive in the face of danger is often one of the main points of play for a player: hence the centrality of hit points, weapon and other damage, saving throws, etc. to the D&D system. I know certain players I have gamed with over the years would be upset by this (ie: no character death) because it would completely remove a big source of tension and all sense of danger from the game for them. Suddenly, all those terrible monsters aren't so terrible, because they can't really DO anything to your character. There's no chance of the character dying, and nothing is going to happen to him that isn't already written into the game's plot by you as GM. The only point of play is really: "What's the story behind everything?" rather than "What happens if I do THIS?" Tangentially, this is why I'm not overly fond of computer RPGs. If I want to hear someone else tell a story, I figure I can just read the book instead, and save myself the time I would have wasted rolling dice (or pushing buttons) whose outcomes ultimately wouldn't have made a difference to anything. I know that when I ran my games the way you describe, I had players doing completely foolish things, like mouthing off to ancient dragons, because they KNEW (either consicously or subconsciously) their character would not be killed. Have you had anything similar happen to you yet?
#26 sithis May 30, 2005 10:44:46	Yikes, this was an awfully aggressive post for no good reason. Ouch. As a player, I would have serious objections to this. Are your players ever bothered by the fact that they are being railroaded in regards to this overarching plot? (I realize you may argue they aren't being railroaded, but if you are writing plot events that require specific characters in order to function, and events or revelations, etc. that have to happen, you ARE railroading: which is definitionally "No matter what, THIS happens." It's not railroading to say that the Templar the Mul humiliated three sessions ago is plotting his revenge or the Elf's tribe are getting into a conflict with a trading house and they're going to be taking some flak for it. It's called long term game continuity and it does involve a little planning ahead, planning that is wasted if the Mul's player decides to be a Half-Elf for the adventure where they're back in the Templar's city. I'm curious if your players know about or have complained about either of these things, particularly their characters not being able to die because you have plans for them? No, you wanted to make another jab at his playstyle. I ask because keeping one's character alive in the face of danger is often one of the main points of play for a player: hence the centrality of hit points, weapon and other damage, saving throws, etc. to the D&D system. In some games. In other the main points of play is the advancing heroic story. D&D provides a framework from which you can run the game. Combat is very well fleshed out, but that doesn't mean that D&D is supposed to be run as pure hack 'n slash. (The DMG even encourages fudging things sometimes.) I know that when I ran my games the way you describe, I had players doing completely foolish things, like mouthing off to ancient dragons, because they KNEW (either consicously or subconsciously) their character would not be killed. Have you had anything similar happen to you yet? Who says those things wouldn't get their character killed? A heroic-story based game involves not letting some random mook crit with a heavy pick and kill a character. It involves planning encounters that the PCs will have a tough time with, but will ultimately succeed in. If the PCs do stupid things (like fight on when they're at 1 HP or get themselves into encounters they can't hope to survive) they die like any other game, but the point is that this GM doesn't want to toss out all the planning and depth because of pure dumb luck. I know I much prefer his playstyle, so before you go off about the "right" way to play, maybe you should consider that not everyone shares your opinions.
#27 the_peacebringer May 30, 2005 11:14:19	I'm curious if your players know about or have complained about either of these things, particularly their characters not being able to die because you have plans for them? I ask because keeping one's character alive in the face of danger is often one of the main points of play for a player: hence the centrality of hit points, weapon and other damage, saving throws, etc. to the D&D system. I know certain players I have gamed with over the years would be upset by this (ie: no character death) because it would completely remove a big source of tension and all sense of danger from the game for them. I sure have known a heck of a lot of players who just kept on b****in' about their character dying, tying to go up against the GM to overule the situation... Of course, that didn't save them but it would usually end the game quite badly. Tangentially, this is why I'm not overly fond of computer RPGs. If I want to hear someone else tell a story, I figure I can just read the book instead, and save myself the time I would have wasted rolling dice (or pushing buttons) whose outcomes ultimately wouldn't have made a difference to anything. I agree with you on that point, but as a GM, you still are a storyteller. The difference is the players have the choice to do whatever they want (including badmouthing the Dragon to his face). You still lead them places from time to time and save their arses in some battles because you want the story to go on. Even in DS, the point is not to kill their characters but to challenge them. I know that when I ran my games the way you describe, I had players doing completely foolish things, like mouthing off to ancient dragons, because they KNEW (either consicously or subconsciously) their character would not be killed. Have you had anything similar happen to you yet? A long time ago, I got POed once at a group of mine who had it in their mind to screw around with an adult Red Dragon when the point of the story was to bargain with it. Now I don't know if I was so soft that they thought I would accept that kind of foolishness but the game ended with the whole party as part of the dragon's meal... Such is the power of an angry GM. And how about you greyorm, don't you centralize the story on one character or another once in a while? Making the story related to their background for an adventure or two? I'm not saying that that character would be considered invincible but I'd want at least a minimal success of my story to be told.
#28 zombiegleemax May 30, 2005 16:43:57	Ouch. As a player, I would have serious objections to this. Are your players ever bothered by the fact that they are being railroaded in regards to this overarching plot? (I realize you may argue they aren't being railroaded, but if you are writing plot events that require specific characters in order to function, and events or revelations, etc. that have to happen, you ARE railroading: which is definitionally "No matter what, THIS happens." In my experience most players usually have NFI as to what to do next. Sessions where I have left it up to players to provide a driving force for the session's direction usually devolve into endless *****ing between characters, or worse players losing focus in the game and talking about the new shiny shiny L5R 3rd edition book they now own. A few players have very strong opinions on what they are doing next, but these things usually involve doing things by themselves so that doesn't help. Hence I write a series of logically linked short stories that culminate in a (hopefully) memorable finale. Frex, if you have two choices of road to walk down, but both roads lead to the same place, and the same stuff happens to the characters no matter which path they choose, the player doesn't really have free will. Mostly, they have the illusion of it: which is why this style of play is called Illusionism.) Yes. I'm curious if your players know about or have complained about either of these things, particularly their characters not being able to die because you have plans for them? My players like the strong focus on an overall story which they get to star in. Illusionism helps this. I don't push my story down their throats. So I give them time to side track and explore side issues, but in such cases I always insert clues heading back to the main plot. EG your character has only Int 6 and you want to play this as he has no memory? Okay, then the reason for it will be because of something linked to the main story arc. I ask because keeping one's character alive in the face of danger is often one of the main points of play for a player: hence the centrality of hit points, weapon and other damage, saving throws, etc. to the D&D system. I know certain players I have gamed with over the years would be upset by this (ie: no character death) because it would completely remove a big source of tension and all sense of danger from the game for them. I never said no character death. At least I hope I didn't. I said I try to help keep PCs alive until they can get access to raise spells. EG: Rather than the random metal spear wielding Gith critting the wizard and sending him to -12, I fudge the result and send him to -8 or -9 instead. If players can't get to the PC before he dies, well that is there issue. As I said, I am writing/telling a heroic story. Players need to take heroic and epic actions to maintain this style, thus I tend to think of it more as providing opportunity for my PCs to be bold. That being said, some players did find having the DM put the kiddy gloves on sometimes a little weak, but to this I say wait until I run my GURPS fantasy horror game and we will talk about this again. The only point of play is really: "What's the story behind everything?" rather than "What happens if I do THIS?" To a point. The second question become minor. Scenes and tangents in the overall tale rather than the focus of the game. Thus having a PC return to serving her SK (this actually happened in my game) is a major story point for a specific character, but ultimately was only a small feature overall. This keeps sessions linked together into a coherent format rather than some haphazard series of encounters that do not logically flow. I know that when I ran my games the way you describe, I had players doing completely foolish things, like mouthing off to ancient dragons, because they KNEW (either consicously or subconsciously) their character would not be killed. Have you had anything similar happen to you yet? Hey those scenes are fun. THe Hero always mouths off to the villain, even when rational thought would dictate otherwise. I had a Thri-kreen mouth off to Nibenay (with the other PCs trying to shut him up of course). It was all in character and worse the things he said were also all true (Nibenay being a coward and a big jerk etc). Needless to say it ended messily for the Kreen, he got to help Nibenay (Did anyone say geas?) and then got stomped flat as a reward. His next reincarnation also gets to be decided by Nibenay when he has an idle moment.
#29 dawnstealer May 31, 2005 9:14:37	Okay, BACK to the topic at hand: CHARACTER TREES. Greyorm's point was that the character tree for Athas was more a tool to give the players more options. If they wanted to level up their mage instead of their fighter (again), they could switch it out. If another player, who was the cleric, was killed, a different player could switch in a player from their character tree who was a cleric. If the players went into a city, and one of them was a barbarian or ranger or thri-kreen, the player could switch out and play a character more suited to a city (thief, bard, templar, etc). And, of course, if a character died, the player would be able to summon up a backup character without sitting in a corner rolling dice for two hours while the rest of the group soldiers on.