Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
DnD is cool again? It's been on-and-off in the geek world for ages

D&D has been on/off what?

I meant it's been cool-ish, and really bad, depending on the current version, competing products, etc.
So, DnD might have been seen as geek-cool one year, and not the next.

IME D&D is a fixture of nerdom. I think that poorly written blog post is just pandering for clicks because there is a new edition. It's like how there is a dude who has been writing about Fifth Edition for Forbes's website and then wrote an utterly superficial book on the subject of D&D generally. If anything, it isn't that D&D is or ever was cool. More like, the wider market has woken up to the fact that nerds as a demographic have dollar value and flaky bloggers want to exploit that. Perhaps we take tend to naively take it at face value because we aren't used to the attention.

 Manchu wrote:
IME D&D is a fixture of nerdom. I think that poorly written blog post is just pandering for clicks because there is a new edition. It's like how there is a dude who has been writing about Fifth Edition for Forbes's website and then wrote an utterly superficial book on the subject of D&D generally. If anything, it isn't that D&D is or ever was cool. More like, the wider market has woken up to the fact that nerds as a demographic have dollar value and flaky bloggers want to exploit that. Perhaps we take tend to naively take it at face value because we aren't used to the attention.

That's something Wil Wheaton and Felicia Day certainly figured out...

New Tyranny of the Dragons comic series:

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/tyranny-dragons-comic1

Just a question that came to mind: Do folks in this thread generally run/play in a lot of prefab adventures or GM-created campaigns & settings? I'm just curious because I see a lot of folks mentioning the modules and my gaming experience has mostly leaned away from that style.

Every time I plan on running a module, I end up abandoning it -- usually before even starting it -- for an adventure and usually also a setting I create during play with the other players at the table.

I rarely use modules outside of organized play.

 Chongara wrote:
Just a question that came to mind: Do folks in this thread generally run/play in a lot of prefab adventures or GM-created campaigns & settings? I'm just curious because I see a lot of folks mentioning the modules and my gaming experience has most leaned away from that style.

I think that D&D has always had a strong tradition of pre-made modules and adventures. Partly because it is the biggest, and so can most justify such GM-only items, but also probably because D&D has a high workload for a GM (thanks to monster and loot calculations) that thus lends itself to modules doing the work for you. The basic idea is simple, really: there is actually two branches of GM work. The first is writing the plot, deciding NPCs, placing encounters and loot, etc. The second is then running the game, i.e. taking all the stuff from step one and bringing it to life in the game.

Beyond that, D&D 5e has only a handful of official products as yet, so it has generated a lot of interest as the first official adventure, providing a glimpse into what WotC plan to do with the brand for the next few years. Also I think that, like the Tomb of Horrors and whatnot, this adventure might become one of the communal experiences of this edition. I mean, there are a lot of people who have played or run the Starter Set, meaning that there is this shared experience that they can discuss with players from other groups. You always hear old school gamers reminiscing about the same dungeons that they all played in different groups. I can certainly see that there would be a desire to play the Tyranny of Dragons storyline at least in part to say that you had done so.

For my part, I've been heming and hawing over the Hoard of the Dragon Queen module primarily because the GM skills that I've identified as my best - funny NPCs, exciting combats, good descriptions - don't actually require me to have done the preparation work myself, and indeed I've found the starter set to work just as well for me as any of my own campaigns. I suspect that a lot of other GMs feel the same, or at least want a module to minimise the out-of-game workload. But then again, I really want to do a sandbox campaign, and I hear that Tyranny is (like any adventure with a overarching plot, I guess) moderately on the rails even if it does have a fair bit of exploration in it. I might pick it up this weekend to read it and then decide if it would work for me; I've done some campaign prep, but not so much that I'd lose sleep over binning my custom setting.

 Chongara wrote:
Just a question that came to mind: Do folks in this thread generally run/play in a lot of prefab adventures or GM-created campaigns & settings? I'm just curious because I see a lot of folks mentioning the modules and my gaming experience has most leaned away from that style.

Most of my experience as a player and GM are with modules. I did run a HackMaster 4.0 game in the Forgotten Realms that I made up or pieced together bits from this book or that book, though. It ran for about 2 years before player implosion and forming a new RPG group.

I run modules when I have them, but my biggest and longest games are always GM made campaigns/settings. (I think my record was like 7 years or something like that.)

Pre-mades are a good way to start off for a new group, but once the group is established, it's usually better to make stuff up to suit it.

 Melissia wrote:
Pre-mades are a good way to start off for a new group, but once the group is established, it's usually better to make stuff up to suit it.

Either this or just make up the entire thing as you go along.

When I DM, I like to have the other players contribute to world building during play. I find this makes them more interested and invested in the setting and NPCs. It also allows those who also enjoy DMing to stretch those muscles a bit.

 Manchu wrote:
When I DM, I like to have the other players contribute to world building during play. I find this makes them more interested and invested in the setting and NPCs. It also allows those who also enjoy DMing to stretch those muscles a bit.

Oh yeah, I do that. But I usually still start off on a pre-made, just modified to suit the player input.

THough I don't likely take as much input as you do mind you. I feel I'm a bit of a rails-style DM at times.

 Melissia wrote:
I feel I'm a bit of a rails-style DM at times.

This is sometimes appropriate. I have had a lot of conversation about whether it is possible to run a mystery "off the rails" and while I think it is possible I also acknowledge it would take exacting attention to detail on the DM's part.

Outside of organized play, like LFR (defunct) or the Adventurer's League, I find it best to mix a little railroading with a bit of open world. You want the players to be able to have some say in their destiny, but sometimes destiny comes a knockin' as well.

So I've finally joined a group for 5e and had a game Thursday night. It was a blast! We're playing HotDQ, which sort of sucks since it means my copy has to be stashed away to avoid potential spoilers.

Our party is Nabbi Stonehewer, my Dwarf Rogue, Billy the Great, a 12 year old human sorcerer, and Athena, a hoplite-esque human fighter.

The combat is fun and fast, and we went through 5-6 combat encounters without resorting to a grid. I was the only downed character during the session, which was great since we're kind of short on magical healing.

As to player's world-building in game, our group has already done a lot of that. As the Dwarf player, I've established the difference between the snooty, high-class Mountain Dwarves and the more down to earth, arcane magic embracing, rat-eating-a-la-Pratchett Hill Dwarves. Our fighter is a hoplite from a land called Pythagorea across the sea to the west.

 infinite_array wrote:
Billy the Great, a 12 year old human sorcerer

I don't know why, but it always creeps me out when someone makes a child character.

Likewise. Especially since, last time, the guy who did it still tried to have his character get hookers and blow after one missions.

The character died shortly after in a completely unrelated incident. The DM assures you that she has an airtight alibi.

 Ahtman wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
Billy the Great, a 12 year old human sorcerer

I don't know why, but it always creeps me out when someone makes a child character.

It's a little odd, I'll admit, but the guys been decent enough so far. He just makes the fighter and me keep his character's child-like enthusiasm in check. Like chucking firebolts at a dragon circling overhead.

 Melissia wrote:
Likewise. Especially since, last time, the guy who did it still tried to have his character get hookers and blow after one missions.

The character died shortly after in a completely unrelated incident. The DM assures you that she has an airtight alibi.

DM's don't kill characters. Monsters kill characters. No alibi needed.

One of the players in my game was totally set on playing a 14 year old Elf wizard. I really got creeped out by that - someone him being an Elf made it worse, as in my mind the Elves are not mentally mature until like 80 or so. He would still have been in nappies! The player was a bit upset when I insisted that he'd have to be at least 40.

I agree that it is kind of just creepy. I guess that my thinking is that, if you want to do the 'inexperienced youth' trope then there is no need to be younger than 19, in all honesty.

I don't think a child character is so bad as concept. However it best fits in a game aiming for a tone that supports their presence, in a setting where their abilities would make sense, and a player that can make them engaging rather than annoying or weird. In other words probably a bad idea for most games. This is probably less challenging if you're doing a game where the premise is *all* child characters. Say a group of PCs in the 12-15 range forced out their homes without adults for whatever reason. It's one of those things where it's all in the execution and a great many RPers are bit clumsy with that even given the easiest of character concepts.

 Chongara wrote:
I don't think a child character is so bad as concept. However it best fits in a game aiming for a tone that supports their presence, in a setting where their abilities would make sense, and a player that can make them engaging rather than annoying or weird. In other words probably a bad idea for most games. This is probably less challenging if you're doing a game where the premise is *all* child characters. Say a group of PCs in the 12-15 range forced out their homes without adults for whatever reason. It's one of those things where it's all in the execution and a great many RPers are bit clumsy with that even given the easiest of character concepts.

Right. Our player's backstory for his character is that the kid, despite being a folk hero for his little town - when he killed a monster by way of his sorcerer's powers manifesting - was forced to leave his town and grow up on his own after those same powers accidentally caused the deaths of a few people.

 Red Harvest wrote:
DM's don't kill characters. Monsters kill characters. No alibi needed.

So do spaceship crashes

 Chongara wrote:
I don't think a child character is so bad as concept.

It doesn't have to be, but it often is. Kids playing kids isn't what I am referring to either. Sometimes the concept works for an adult, such as this one seems to be. The ones I always seem to run into are the 37 year old man playing a 12 year old girl. If you haven't run into an older man describing his tween human female Druids lack of clothes than you are quite lucky.

 Melissia wrote:

 Red Harvest wrote:
DM's don't kill characters. Monsters kill characters. No alibi needed.

So do spaceship crashes

Teleport mishaps. Because you could make the players roll those In AD&D 1e, IIRC, There was a 4% chance of coming in 10-40 feet high (ie above the ground) at a well-known location. A player in one campaign of mine built a special chamber, so even if he came in high or low he would be safe. Only, the player made the ceiling 41 feet high. So the top 5' of the mage ended up in stone, and the lower 1' of the mage was dangling from the ceiling. Oops. Also, potion miscibilities. There were so many ways for PCs to do themselves in...

About the child characters: For adults, I can think it would only work well if all the PCs were children, and that was the basis for the campaign. (Orphanage burnt down, or village destroyed and all adults murdered... etc.) It could be an interesting narrative. Otherwise, it seems a bit unsettling.

I meant spaceships crashing IN to the character.

I don't think I could tell a player no you can't play that. I an really bad at telling my players no. It's part of why I am a bad DM. If the players what to do something I say OK.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
I don't think a child character is so bad as concept.

It doesn't have to be, but it often is. Kids playing kids isn't what I am referring to either. Sometimes the concept works for an adult, such as this one seems to be. The ones I always seem to run into are the 37 year old man playing a 12 year old girl. If you haven't run into an older man describing his tween human female Druids lack of clothes than you are quite lucky.

=/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/ =/

Well. I thought I had delved pretty deep into the unwashed neckbeard abyss in my time. I stand corrected. I've never run into anything remotely that bad. In fact I hadn't even considered such a possibility when I'd made the post. I mean that's pretty damn creepy, but I don't think it really does much to change my opinion. I still see it as viable under the right circumstances, turbo-creeper guy being around obviously not qualifying as that.

I don't think I could tell a player no you can't play that. I an really bad at telling my players no. It's part of why I am a bad DM. If the players what to do something I say OK.

I find it helps to set expectations ahead of time. I always put out a paragraph or two on what the premise of the campaign is and what the opening events will be, along with some notes on the tone & themes I'll be trying to touch on. I find doing this gets everyone on the same page and gives players a chance to think about what kind of PC they'd like to fit in the game, rather than just coming up with whatever comes to mind first and then finding it may or may not be a great fit.