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.
After a few friends and mates expressed interest, I've decided to DM a DND session at my place. Most of those involved are beginners, and this is my first time DMing. I am looking to do maybe a single encounter first, to establish the party, and then hopefully spur it into a more campaign-like series.
Are you the GM who is character driven, quest driven, setting driven, where is you focus. Character driven GM's allow the PC's to the be centre of everything, some think that this is new role playing should be, others think that it pampers the players and is too generous. Quest driven campaigns are easy to develop a backstory for, but either become linear or easily broken. Setting driven is my preferred option, but can be very restrictive especially for those who feel PCs should do as they want, on the other hand you can pint a deeper picture and more immersive world for he players.
No one technique is superior, as each has their merits. Though one will be the preferred and thus best option or you and your gaming group. Before you begin though, the three techniques are mutually exclusive, while all contain a small mix of the other two for your GMing toolbox will naturally have to steer to one of the three techniques or fail.
The above is my own game theory, but I can back up my words, but there is too much to just post it all, and most of the nuances are best seen from experience.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
I'm probably going to go with Setting focused, I love describing the world and immersion trumps everything else/ I've been working on building the world, and just enjoying the richness of DND lore.
1. Spend time making actual characters and not just a bunch of stats. Each character should have:
- motivations - make players dig deep. If they want riches, why do they want them? Is it to support their family? Pay for Grandma's magical healing? Build a keep to defend their hometown.
- personality- each character should have at least three character traits. For Example, the character is Happy-go-lucky, Opportunistic, and Adventurous.
- quirks, eccentricities, and habits- things like the magic-user has a nervous tick, the fighter likes to smoke pipes, and the cleric stutters, and the thief also collects stamps.
2. Build a group background. This is a basic idea of why the characters are together and adventure together. I.e. They all grew up together, they are all part of the king's household guard, etc. Think about why your friends are friends and do the same for the characters.
3. In you first adventure, give everyone a chance to use their special skills and shine.
4. Make the characters make decisions. If they are stalling, hold up your hand and start counting down from five, they will act before you get to 0. If they don't you tell them what happens while they are dithering.
5. Start you first adventure in the middle of the action, and then narrate how they got there. That allows you to set the stage for adventure early. I.e. You are walking the path to the local inn, when Farmer Jones comes bursting through the window, obviously thrown through it. What do you do?
I hope that helps.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Remember this isn't your novel with a few people playing characters. If you try and create something that is tightly scripted you will be disappointed as the PCs run roughshod over everything. You have to walk the line of having some structure but also prepare for some improv.
If all else fails throw books/dice/chairs at the players so they know you are dissatisfied.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Have a discussion about expectations with players before you play- if someone is looking for a gothic horror mystery story and another is looking for pulpy swords and sorcery, it's better to hash that out before you start prepping. Remember that your preferences for what is happening are very important too.
At the same time, prep situations, not plots. A situation presents the players with a problem and they then figure out a solution. A plot progresses along a defined course. Situations are more fun for players and give them a sense of control, and "playing" the situation allows you to be surprised by your own game, which is pretty fun.
When you feel yourself about to say "no" to a player request, do a quick check if saying "yes" would destroy or damage the game. "Yes, and" or "Yes, but" is almost always better than "No".
I also like to let the players get involved in the setting building if they show any interest.
Oh, and a big one - you're going to have the odd dud session. Don't let it get to you - sometimes it can be that the players just weren't on form, or you weren't, any number of reasons. Let it go and move on, instead of worrying too much about it. (I am terrible at this and therefore suffer periodic burnout!)
Right, so now I can tailor advice without it being too widecast to be of use. I will be basing this on 5e D&D. Many of my approaches work better in other systems, for Runequest it is ideal, but can be ported to D&D easily enough with a it of tailoring.
Character origins
For setting focused games think about the characters social class and origins. With new players I would try a more restrictive approach. First step is to get permission from your players for this style of game, then when permission is given request they all play human, give them choices of social class, best not to make more than one, if any, noble. Make them role play their own gender ad give the social and gender divide real meaning and set cultural obstacles. Female gamers are generally ok with this once it is explained that your society will be patriarchial, but as a hero player characters can step out of their social bonds. Most female gamers I have met appreciate this and prefer to overcome restrictions of gender b achievement than be given the 'we are all the exact same' variant of equality treatment . I don't recommend you apply a race based restriction though, unless humans are enslaved in general and you have a revolt theme. Then restrict the character classes available to eliminate wierdness. Then you stop taking away start giving.....
Enhanced character generation
Start by giving your characters a childhood for their characters, this will aid immensely in adding immersion. I tend to start my adventurer groups from the same village, town or tribe. Then have two mini scenario 'scenes' for each character lasting about five minutes each. They can be linear. One scene will be pre-teen, one as a teen. Do this around the table during character generation. None will require combat or challenge beyond choice making. Develop your characters bonus feat and stat boosts based on their choices.
One technique I do for childhood development is to take a fairy tale or myth for the firs scene and make my characters relive it. the second teenage scene will be a moral choice, or choice of benefits normally resulting in a minor item or personal contact.
Examples for you.
Child 'quest' taken from African Myth: A boy asks his father to hunt, but he is told he cannot because he hs not earned a spear,and must go help mother instead. Mother tells him to take a pot and milk the old goat. On the was a woman from the tribe asks for the pot to borrow, if the child hands the pot over it is accidentally broken and the woman compensates the boy with another item This in turn is taken by an adult in need used up or damaged and is replaced in turn by another item. Each demand should be reasonable, by an adult and from need, if the child refuses to hand over an item he quest ends, and if the pot is handed over the child doesn't even get to milk the old got and is spanked for being naughty. If the child keeps on handing over and having replacement items eventually he will get a shield.
A hunter returning to the village needs the shield to fight a lion (?or a big big orc?). He kills the opponent but the shield is ruined, in compensation the hunter gives the boy a spear, it should be emphasized that being given a spear is highly unusual, but the shield was well worked (many of the replacement items being a sequential upgrade in value from th point of view of the tribe). Now with spear in and the of rushes off to father and father asks how he came of it. When father learns the spear was gained honourably through obedience to elders father decides that while too young to be offered a spear fate had given him one anyway and he should be trained as a hunter. A successful 'quest' means a point of strength and encouragement to develop the character in the ranger, fighter or barbarian class (the player can choose otherwise).
Teenage quest micro-scenario. The player finds a money purse belonging to a merchant who is known to be searching for it. the player has three choices, - spend the money on ale, - give the money to father, - give the money to the merchant. The solution encourages alignment of chaotic, neutral and lawful respectively (player can overrule, but you give them a small bonus if they keep to alignment). Stay with chaotic - player meets the drinkers of low moral a learns a gambling skill, neutral - the merchant is reimbursed by the village,the elder commends your wisdom (+1) by letting elders handle the matter. Lawful - merchant is very grateful, player gets a minor valuable item which they will have on them at campaign start and the merchant becomes a contact who will be useful in play. Players who don't go with suggested alignment don't get a bonus but choose to set their alignment as they wish.
Character classes.
D&D is high fantasy by design, especially Pathfinder and v3.0 onwards. Whras this style of charcter generation fits low fantasy better. However you can meld the two with fancy footwork. Any character class considered too exotic to be used to sarting characters can be deferred. Make the character a rogue or fighter instead, ignore any rogue skills that dont fit the ethos of the eventual class. At third level when the player normally chooses a rogue/fighter subclass benefit they get the one off choice to replace all rogue levels with levels of a character class of thief choosing. It works better in practice than it sounds, if you encourage to think of themselves as an ordinary person or nondescript character-concept-in-waiting rather than a 'rogue'.
Example.
A player wants to play a Warlock, and you decided that warlocks are ok to play in your campaign, but are rare and you don't start as one. Arrange for the player to build a rogue and find an evil looking tome during play. They can secret it away, and use fiat to prevent other characters from interfering. Te demon lord to whom the tome refers offers the rogue a dark pact in a troubled ream (just after the character reaches third level. At this point the player can choose to multiclass, continue with rogue levels or make a one off replacement of rogue levels to warlock levels.
Start would be paladins as fighters, give then a religious conversion/awakening experience between 2nd and 4th level, convert all fighter levels to paladin overnight.
Tip: Make the religion mean something more than just a spell list, this is important for immersive play for druids, paladins and clerics.
Why do this?: Players should pre-book their intended character classes with the GM, but need not start this way. Warlocks and paladins in particular are creaming out for character development. All too often players start characters as caricatures, for a setting based campaign start them off as mundane as possible and let them become variety fantasy tropes rather than start hardwired into those roles.
Explain via the 4th wall that th development processes are there to allow players to step into their character classes in play, and that other players should make excuses for their characters not to find out or interfere.
Common origin Having a common origin like a tribe or village helps you as the GM paint the picture as there is a common point of view for all characters, later add on characters can be more diverse, non human etc, but starting characters together makes your job easier, it also encourages setting based play, gives characters intrinsic cultural or national loyalties and make the party a part of the setting rather than a random bunch of well tooled individuals rampaging through it. Thus in turn channeling the rampagings all PCs eventually do long natural logical paths.
This has a secondary advantage of helping bond the characters without alignment fixing. Chaotic Evil dick characters excepted, which you should try and ban, you can have characters of very wide alignment base geling as a loyal team because they all come from the same social unit.
Third you can start the ball rolling by having a disaster befall the characters and their formative environment. Forexample - you all grew up in the same village, village gets burned by marauding ors and you are all carried off as slaves.
Players immediate first goal is to escape their bonds and or take revenge on the orcs. You immediately set up a sandbox setting for further play, have an enemy, a point of origin and a point of perspective. The latter being important as you describe the world from the point of view of adventuring ex-villagers who had until then not taken any notice f anything more than a few miles from home.
Downsides of setting based games. Have to throw this in here to be fair.
- You will be restricting the characters a lot more than people are used to, especially at the start.
- It will be harder to justify using many of th races and classes technically available in the sourcebooks, even during play.
- The game will have a low plot feel and may take a while to get 'epic' and might never actually be epic.
However all of these disadvantages are conversely advantages if the players agree to this style of play, which an be very enriching.
Thus setting based play comes down to one factor, get your player group on board with it before you start. If your players want to be what they want when they want (within reason) choose another playstyle. If you start theme out as something paraphrased to be 'you are all lost refugee commoners - get over it' and sell the immersion benefits to the players your campaign may well become awesome.
Some recommended starts
You are all prisoners/slaves who make a mass escape (a 'Bethesda Special').
- Good choice for a party of multiskilled diverse characters with a common start point and little or no equipment.
You are villagers/townsfolk trying to make their name in the world.
- Basic rustic starting point, for back to setting based gaming. Encourage players to emphasize character personality over character build. Good for starting wide eyed local boy makes good storylines, and voyages of discovery. You don't need to burn their homes to start the campaign, starting a trade caravan is a good alternative.
Shipwrecked
-Starts everyone as a sailor or passenger, allows some diversity from the start. As a hint don't allow early rescue, let the characters develop from local resources and rescue themselves after they have bonded as an adventuring team. Good for throwing players into an unknown environment with no way back.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/23 16:16:42
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
First of all, there's a great tool called the Ten Minute Background. Basically, this is a tool for your players to fill out for you before the game starts. This will allow you to weave some of their backstories into the plot itself, which gives that character a time to shine and makes them feel more alive.
Second, learn to improvise. No matter how obvious the solution, no matter how clear the path, no matter how simple the puzzle, the PCs will nine times out of ten overthink it and come up with some ridiculous solution. Or, in some cases, they may take a turn you never expected. You have to be familiar enough with the lore of the system, as well as the system itself, to quickly and seamlessly make new and interesting threads when your PCs ridiculous choices send you there.
I also agree with a lot of what Da Boss said. Do not stop a player from doing something because it wasn't in your script. My philosophy is, a DM only has the right to say "no" if the game allows it. If some action would greatly defy the PC's morals/alignment, or is something the PC simply cannot do, then yes, you can say no. But if it is entirely within the realm of possibilities, then yes, it is allowed. Hell, that's how my signature was made- a series of rather silly events led to an undead ogre eating explosive pies because he thought they were a parrot. Did I plan for that to happen? No, but it became one of the most memorable parts of the campaign because it was unplanned, and most of all, because it was entirely planned by their characters. The most you can do to keep a campaign on track is to give the PCs a reason to keep it on track. Give some promise of loot to the greedy mercenary, have some mission from the gods for the devout travelers, and whatnot.
The ultimate goal of a campaign is to be fun and memorable. If a building or something explodes because you said it would happen in the script, then oh no, a building exploded, just as planned. But if the players explode a building, and it was in no way planned by the DM at all, then that becomes one of the most fun experiences of the session. The most fun to be had in these games is when your PCs do something incredible completely on their own. Let them grow and have their freedom, but at the same time, do not be afraid to bring the hurt if they make a stupid decision. Sure, go ahead, climb in the catapult, but get ready to roll up a new character if your trajectory is off.
As far as combat goes, here's a few quick pointers. Mass combat with tons of enemies sounds fun at first, but you have to realize DND is a rather sluggish combat system when lots of people are involved. Don't be afraid to throw a couple handfuls of enemies at a time, but keep them simple. Second, after rolling initiative, it helps keep the pace if you tell your players to have their move ready at the end of the turn of the person who goes before them. If they already know their move when the person before them goes, they can immediately make their move and combat is sped up.
Finally, as a last piece of advice, random loot tables have the potential to be amazing or horrible. The best part about random loot is that your party might have no immediate use for it, and if your party is creative, they can find some way to utilize that "Staff of Nosepicking" to save the day at some point. Also, as a DM, don't be afraid to cheese the random loot rolls. If it is something your party absolutely cannot use, like a ring of spell storage in a group of fighters, go ahead and pretend that wasn't the final roll on the chart.
Also, as another last final piece of advice I just remembered, make your rules ironclad. You may have little power over your PCs, but the power you do have is solid. Make your dice rolling rules very clear at the start. I've had players who had a habit of lying about their rolls, so my mandatory rule is that it must be rolled into the center of the table where everyone, especially the DM, can see. If a player is consistently cheating or becoming toxic, do not be afraid to give them a warning or eventually the boot. This is about having fun, and if someone is preventing that, then they are missing the point and should be kicked out.
"The undead ogre believes the sack of pies is your parrot, and proceeds to eat them. The pies explode, and so does his head. The way is clear." - Me, DMing what was supposed to be a serious Pathfinder campaign.
6000 - Death Skulls, Painted
2000 - Admech/Skitarii, Painted
1-Don't plan too much ahead- No plan survive contact with Players. Make the general line, important NPCs, but don't raw every single detail; you'll end up working for nothing as nothing will be used (yes, the PCs will go via the sewers for added sneaky instead of going as disguised guest to the Grand Ball)
2-Keep it simple; first mission for people who aren't too sure, so a sinple 'get my pigs for the goblins' should be all right to get the action going, have a little RP with the NPCs, and a few funny moments with bringing the pigs back home (since no hero take skills in farming or animal handling)
There is a lot to get into but honestly the main thing, the most fundamental and important thing, about DMing is this:
- the players tell you what they are attempting
- you tell them what they need to roll
I know this seems self-evident but you might be surprised how many DMs get flummoxed during a session trying to figure out if a PC can do X and what the rules for it are, flipping through pages, killing the pace of the session. When (not if) you find yourself in a situation similar to that, just re-focus on the basic structure of the game that I just described. Forget what the rulebook says, just stay in the moment and run the game. It is okay to come up with a ruling there and then -- in fact, that's your job as DM. That's the first fundamental principle of DMing.
The second fundamental principle of DMing is, always ask players to describe their characters' actions in reasonable detail. If they say, we're searching the room then you ask, how are you doing it? Do not let them get away with conclusory declarations. You will need to prompt them at first but pretty soon they will get into it and -- just trust me here, we can get into the theory later if you want -- everyone will have a better time.
The third fundamental principle of DMing is, when a player asks whether X is possible you can ONLY either say "yes" or "no, but." When you just say "no," you are effectively shutting that person's creativity down. Saying "no, but" and then providing them with more information to use is a method of keeping them engaged. But as a general rule, just say yes and apply the other principles: okay, sure, but how are you going to do it?
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2015/08/28 01:29:18
Psienesis is right. a lot of the advice here is about tantrum control. Giving the players what they want by never saying no. They end up 20th level spoilt brats. As its only as game this might be cool with you in which case allow the players to have their fun play through and move on.
If that doesn't satisfy you, you need to adapt but also tyo have the resolve to run the campaign you want to run.
In a nutshell.
1. You the GM are the world builder, your player characters only live there.
2. If you play in poverty, a small reward is magnified.
3. If you give players what they want when they want ultimately no reward is satisfying. You can avoid this fate is you speed on to level 20 retire the characters and restart.
4. There is not a asingle one of the GM's rules, including my own which should not be broken if it suits you.
I run a very successful and popular campaign that breaks just about every one of the Gamemastery 101 tips in the link Da Boss gave. Even though I don't fully disagree with them.
I will frequently tell my players No, and make things hard for them, and under-reward them.
Why is my campaign so popular? Because its not the opposite, its not the player comes first do what you want sort of campaign. After so much modern laissez faire gaming as forwarded by 3rd D&D onwards, my players have come to appreciate a harsh GM bitchslapping.
You wanna play a paladin, ok roll up a paladin, here are his awesome paladins abilities.
or
You wanna play a paladin, ok roll up a fighter, now join a religion and prove yourself worthy to become a paladin.
Neither approach is right or wrong, but you can break the rules, ignore most of the dos and donts that a good DM supposedly ought to follow, and still have the rep of running the best campaign in town.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Ahtman wrote: Remember this isn't your novel with a few people playing characters.
It can be, but need not be. I think you misunderstand big vision GMing, and also for that matter book characters.
Making a big vision and making characters passengers in it is reasonable dependent on how its handled, we are all passengers through life for a large part as a lot of what is around us is beyond our control. we interact with our environment rather than dominate it. Those who do dominate it often get bord more quickly than those who interact.
As for book characters you can have a firm plot and have characters exceed their bounds while remaining within a set framework, good writers allow for this. So good GMs should also.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Running a campaign and writing a short story/novel/play/script/etc are completely different things. Anyone doing the former based upon the latter is likely to be a fantastically terrible DM. I have suffered through such campaigns.
Manchu wrote: Running a campaign and writing a short story/novel/play/script/etc are completely different things. Anyone doing the former based upon the latter is likely to be a fantastically terrible DM. I have suffered through such campaigns.
Again reread more carefully.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
I've read your posts and I think your advice is bad and also it kind of seems more like you are bragging than giving advice. I have played with DMs who practiced some of what you post and they have been mostly terrible, including driving first time players away from D&D. Of course, what one DM does ineptly another may do successfully so if such practices work for your group, more power to you. I'd be happy to discuss in detail but further "reread my posts" type responses are a waste of everyone's time.
I can only offer limited advice, given that I play with close friends, and I've always been stuck as the GM from the start.
First I have to say, you must be willing to put the foot down when necessary. As Manchu said, flipping through pages constantly checking the precise rules will kill the pace entirely. By all means be open to player points and arguments, but YOU have the final say. If it saves you 30 minutes of rules-wrangling by winging it then so be it.
Second, things can get heated. I've noticed my mates sometimes have real difficulty separating in-character decisions, mistakes and rivalries with out-of-character arguments and insults. It's gotten out of hand more than once, to the point where I intend to issue an ultimatum at our next session. I hope you don't reach this point, just make it clear from the start it's a bloody game.
Third, encourage your players to 'play their character' not just 'play to win' (of course that might be part of their character). In an Only War session, one of my player's comrades had her leg blown off by a rampaging CSM. The player, to the outrage of the others, ceased firing his melta (the only weapon they had aside from det-packs that could reliably hurt the Chaos Marine) and dragged his comrade to the medic.
This infuriated the more 'play to win' fellows, arguing that the more logical thing to do would have been to keep firing and allow someone else to come over and help the wounded comrade. The player in question said, given they had signed up together, trained and fought together for years now, there's no way he'd ignore her leave her bleeding out on the ground waiting for help to come.
That's the kind of beautiful roleplaying that I truly enjoy seeing as a GM, and you should do everything you can to encourage it.
Psienesis wrote: I've... seen things... you people wouldn't believe. Milk cartons on fire off the shoulder of 3rd-hour English; I watched Cheez-beams glitter in the dark near the Admin Parking Gate... All those... moments... will be lost, in time, like tears... in... rain. Time... to die.
"The Emperor points, and we obey,
Through the warp and far away."
-A Guardsman's Ballad
Very good point about in-game and out-of-game issues getting blurred. I have been in groups where out-of-game bullying has carried over into the world of the characters. Fortunately, in that case, the bullied player's character put one over on the bully's character and that settled things. In that case, there was a happy ending with no DM intervention, which I would say is ideal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/08 23:09:14
Manchu wrote: I've read your posts and I think your advice is bad and also it kind of seems more like you are bragging than giving advice. I have played with DMs who practiced some of what you post and they have been mostly terrible, including driving first time players away from D&D. Of course, what one DM does ineptly another may do successfully so if such practices work for your group, more power to you. I'd be happy to discuss in detail but further "reread my posts" type responses are a waste of everyone's time.
Very well.
You have picked up a lot of misinterpretations, which are covered. This stems from your interpretation of what you assume is being written from your own experiences rather than actually just reading it. However I will reiterate if it helps clarify, as it is clear that the techniques I share I outside your experiences and this is why you are jumping to conclusions as to what I am describing rather than thinking about what is written long enough to work it out. As you have had some GMs try similar techniques unsuccessfully your mind is closed to them, and you need to take a fresh look to see the actualizable benefits for this to profit you in any way.
"The advice is bad."
GMing is an art not as science, often in art you do things which other people do not do and it trailblazes a path rather than fails if presented well. Best examples of that truth come from art itself, and the myriad times art and perception of art has changed as an individual artist threw away the rules about how artwork is presented. Every time you get a change of period you get this. Best example is the Impressionist movement in 19th century Paris. Apparently they were all doing it wrong because they threw away the rule book as to how canvass art was to be portrayed.
"and also it kind of seems more like you are bragging than giving advice."
Have you actually read the advice given on giving characters group origins etc? I cant see how you can just write that off as bragging. What I do works, and I to some extent explain why it works and better yet offer similar examples of technique which are known to work and mirror this Gming technique closely. Therefore I claim its the technique and not my leet gaming skillz that makes it work.
However if this helps here is my actual inspiration for one of the main concepts:
1:45ff
I oft remembered Dr Tyrells theory as Bladerunner is one of my favourite films, I thought the advice sound and applicable to player characters, who don't exactly have much personality or attachment when just first scribbled onto paper. Origins stories help this immensely. I have been playing this way for years and "bragging" or not I do have valid reason to say it is popular with my players, and to expect you may have similar results if you understand what you are trying to do enough to do it. I advise you to experiment.
e.g. Ever played Fallout 3? See how much deeper your character was for the growing up vignettes. Same again.
Oh and some of my play group are first time, some veterans. This technique of charcter generation while unusual is of itself acceptable to a wide variety of gamers.
Now onto the re-explanation. It is difficult to handle and quantify emotive processes, but shall try, and will keep this as brief as possible if I can for my own benefit, I wont explain a third time.
"The third fundamental principle of DMing is, when a player asks whether X is possible you can ONLY either say "yes" or "no, but." When you just say "no," you are effectively shutting that person's creativity down."
"Be advised that the above advice is often the path to campaign-ruining inventions."
The 'find-a-way-to-say-yes' approach to GMing is shallow frankly. I relies on constantly giving out the candy as its sole means of providing fun. I called this 'tantrum control' as that is what it is. A campaign revolving around wish fulfilment for players desires is an identical mentality to that of overindulging parent and spoilt child. This is true even of adult gaming groups because the want is entirely illusory players have no reason not to grasp for it in the same manner a spoilt child will. The 'tantrums' might differ from that of spoilt kiddies but are essentially similar. The only way out of this is if the gaming group has enough inherent maturity not to ask too much, and usual only some ask for less than others. It also is the original common tensions in player groups where one or more players tries to hog the limelight or be the centre of everything.
Your method works on the grounds that a GM has an infinite reward bag and you can keep on adding challenges and rewards, but it is very detached. If you can mask the shallowness as many Gm's have to do then, as you say, more power to you.
"As its only as game this might be cool with you in which case allow the players to have their fun play through and move on."
"Pray tell, if playing this game is not about having fun ... then what is it about?"
Touching on this briefly. Fun can be had in many different ways, but with a never say no policy, tantrum control is untimately the sole way to maintain and semblance of fun. A different technique has potential to be more fun, rather than necessarily devoid of fun. This should be obvious enough that rereading was recommended.
"Remember this isn't your novel with a few people playing characters."
"I think you misunderstand big vision GMing, and also for that matter book characters."
"Running a campaign and writing a short story/novel/play/script/etc are completely different things. Anyone doing the former based upon the latter is likely to be a fantastically terrible DM. I have suffered through such campaigns."
Hence the need to understand how to do it right. First to dispel your misconception as to book characters and their analogy to player characters..
Book characters only appear to just be passengers to the plot following it page after page this is because a book character whether written in first or third person is a narrative of a past events as the story is written. The writing of the story is the 'present' and a good writer develops the story as it is written, this includes the characters. A living character doesn't just follow the plot, he or she alters it by the dialogue and actions. Let me give you some examples of this from fantasy. Aslan, tyrion Lannister and Severus Snape were all intended to be minor characters in their respective books but they developed in the authors mind and yet developed. A good author will not shut down such creativity in favour of the meta plot but will alklow character to develop and thus write memorable and living characters. GRRMartin spoke of how at least one of his characters talked his way out of his own execution and Martin completed the character allowing for the plot digression. CS Lewis wrote later of how Aslan 'came bounding over the pages', and quite aptly took for himself the lions share of the first book. This was not intentional.
The main point here is that if good novel writing allows characters to grow and develop without the plot milieu, the same should also be true of narrative game player characters.
It is a bad writer who only writes the meta plot, and likewise it is a bad GM who develops a narrative campaign and doesnt understand writing narrative. This explains why you suffered as you say.
To give further example, one of the prime reasons must mystery stories are devoid of memorable character is because most mystery stories are written backwards for simplicity. You start with the big reveal at the end, then write the preceeding chapter showing how the deed was done and worked out, and from that generate a plot and characters. its an easy way of writing a clever plot with a hard to see but logically remaining twist, properly foreshadowed without needing the touch of genius to do the thinking the other way around. This is where Conan Dyles stories shine, as he didnt do that with Sherlock Holmes, he could write a deep mystery plot front to back and thus have his characters along for the ride, and present their deduction as though it were genius. Most literary mystery solvers however only reach their conclusion because they start from there, and when written backwards there is no room to live through the plot chronologically and thus experience character development as described above, as the hero must follow the meta plot and has absolutely no choice as time is working in reverse. Hense these characters are so often extremely bland.
Why have a narrative campaign to begin with?
The reason is because narratives have so much more depth to them than reactive play where the GM is opening the monster and goodie bag sequentially. In a narrative campaign there may be set unfudged encounters per location because that is how the 'sandbox' gameworld is set up to be. There might not be any opportunity for specific reward or yes-answering if the sandbox world doesn't have the option to fulfil the players wishes. However the sandbox world reinforced by narrative structure offers a more immersive experience which when handled right is a better play experience.
So what to do? Why and how does this work?
The advice given is linked and each part reinforces the whole. Lets look at the components:
- A set of common origins giving an emotional cushion for the characters and a foundation on which to build play.
- A 'sandbox' environment allowing free roaming, but which doesn't tailor its threats or rewards to the players but exists of itself.
- A narrative description heavy game world with its own back story which doesn't revolve around the players.
- A sense of accomplishment due to having any challenges exist within a pre-existing framework rather than be continually fudged.
I cant exactly describe the synergy easily, point is the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Best way for you to understand it is to try it.
However you might notice that the environment created is very similar to that hardcore RP modders look to achieve for sandbox games, the reason why such modding is popular as because it offers greater immersion and a deeper gaming experience. It is no accident that the goals are similar, making a gaming experience 'real' as a goal for immersive gaming because it is so satisfying. Exactly why its more fun is not easy to describe, as its never easy to explain how something is fun, it just is. However the techniques shown have their mirror and though ought to be enough for you to see that there is a connexion even if you cant fully see it before you try it.
Thankfully I usually try these techniques with Runequest not D&D, though they can translate.
One of the true reasons for the enduring popularity of Runequest is that its games materials are more like a book of restrictions than a list of candy to hand out to players. Take Cults of Prax for example, in my opinion the finest work in gaming ever written.
This book would hit all your bad game buttons at once. It doesn't offer much reward, it includes a huge list of limitation on play. Yet its immersion is unrivaled. I suggest you take as look at a copy so you understand the art of saying NO and getting away with it.
To summaries, to get anywhere in Runequest you usually need to join one or its guilds or religions. If you choose to join a religion you are told what the benefits of restrictions for joining are. Those restrictions are serious and effectively create a form of character class. But instead of a hard coded mechanic like 'wizards cant wear armour' these are religious strictures that you can break but are likely not to get away with it. As you progress in the cult you gain some magical talents specific to the deity, further benefits and further restrictions. By the time you become a priest or rune lord (paladin) you have a long list of who you can associate with what you can do and who your enemies are. In modern D&D terms its a big book of NO, and the rewards are fairly paltry by modern gaming standards, two or three unique spells that is all.
However the immersion is total.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/09/08 23:56:34
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
When someone decides they want to play some D&D, whether it is their first time or their hundredth, it's usually because they are feeling creative. One way this manifests is writing up a character background. Sometimes, the pre-game character background can get extremely involved.
This is a trap.
Honestly, not even your friends want to read your fantasy fiction. And they certainly did not sign on to play the supporting cast to your hero. And when the DM gets involved, because it's his world after all (eye roll), this becomes even worse ... because now you are not just a frustrated writer treating your mates as a captive audience but now you have a tyrannical editor who constantly demands you change everything (especially the most important parts). Even setting this circus of vanity aside, there is still the problem of the game not working out the way you imagined. They character you intricately crafted just isn't translating into the game. Instead of being darkly noble, your PC ends up as the butt of jokes. Where did this urge to do something creative go wrong?
Simply put, D&D is a great way to be creative together. Practically speaking, the best way to ensure the players enjoy playing their characters is to completely avoid pre-game background.
In other words, stop getting ready to play and just start playing. If something that happened to the characters before the game is (or rather becomes) important, it can be made up during the course of play. This method is superior because it helps the whole group participate in creating ... which, at the end of the day, is what "playing" D&D actually is ... and information that one helps create is ultimately more interesting than information you don't create.
As far as characterization goes, this method allows the player to "meet" her character more naturally -- to find out who the character is rather than just assuming the character is X or Y and then getting disappointed and frustrated when that is not how the dynamic actually plays out.
To the point about rewards ... all players and not just the DM have a stake in the game, which is about creation, and therefore must be allowed to create. This is not a reward that the DM confers; this is a reality that good DM's recognize and facilitate.
Manchu wrote: When someone decides they want to play some D&D, whether it is their first time or their hundredth, it's usually because they are feeling creative. One way this manifests is writing up a character background. Sometimes, the pre-game character background can get extremely involved.
This is a trap.
Handled the way you often see it, you can be right, and it might not work well.
The difference is that I can see a way for it not to be a trap. You cant, as yet, that is the difference.
Honestly, not even your friends want to read your fantasy fiction. And they certainly did not sign on to play the supporting cast to your hero. And when the DM gets involved, because it's his world after all (eye roll), this becomes even worse ... because now you are not just a frustrated writer treating your mates as a captive audience but now you have a tyrannical editor who constantly demands you change everything (especially the most important parts). Even setting this circus of vanity aside, there is still the problem of the game not working out the way you imagined.
The only reply possible to this is reread again. You are so missing the point.
Simply put, D&D is a great way to be creative together. Practically speaking, the best way to ensure the players enjoy playing their characters is to completely avoid pre-game background.
Ok for a start by removing all character background you create a sterile environment, it can make beginning harder especially for newer players, and also effectively starts by forcing you to do something random. Which only encourages further chaos. Ironically you are being more of a control freak than those who have a preplanned narrative campaign and do it the wrong way. At least they encourage a framework, albeit an overly rigid one. Denying the process at all is both controlling and denying. Odd that allowing for the levity you seek to generate.
In other words, stop getting ready to play and just start playing. If something that happened to the characters before the game is (or rather becomes) important, it can be made up during the course of play. This method is superior because it helps the whole group participate in creating ... which, at the end of the day, is what "playing" D&D actually is ... and information that one helps create is ultimately more interesting than information you don't create.
So its definitively superior is it?
So the whole group is not creating unless the GM has limited creativity and primarily reacts to player input?
As far as characterization goes, this method allows the player to "meet" her character more naturally -- to find out who the character is rather than just assuming the character is X or Y and then getting disappointed and frustrated when that is not how the dynamic actually plays out.
There is an element of truth to this, but it is still applicable, as potentially more so if there is a preexisting framework. One technique is to give the character a backstory but to allow then to fill in the blanks. This way you get benefits of both.
To the point about rewards ... all players and not just the DM have a stake in the game, which is about creation, and therefore must be allowed to create. This is not a reward that the DM confers; this is a reality that good DM's recognize and facilitate.
An unrestricted growth is called a tumour. A foundational framework allows controlled creativity, it doesn't prevent creativity. This so often works better for having common ground on which to interact.
Ask yourself why people buy campaign settings like Forgotten Realms. Because they cant image world for themselves or because they want a foundation on which to build. The evidence for foundations is strong.
Are you to argue that using the Forgotten Realms setting aborts creativity because the players are not in direct control of the universe?
Would you aregue there is no 'stake' for the players unless they have full foundational control?
If you say no to either of the above questions then you have already experienced the need for a game narrative and some sort of foundation. The positivity of background is identical, you just need to make the logical leap to see it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/09 00:30:57
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
IME people like established settings because they already have a stake in them. People like Star Wars, for example, prior to and independently from wanting to play a Star Wars RPG. They don't want to play a Star Wars RPG because they aren't creative enough to come up with their own setting. That is a common misconception about established settings. (It's why Golarion, the D&D-flavored theme park setting of Pathfinder, exists.) People want to play in Forgotten Realms because they like the Forgotten Realms. It's really that simple.
Playing in an established setting that you already have a stake in as a fan is nothing at all like playing in the setting of your mate's fan fiction. I like the Forgotten Realms quite a bit but I would be very hesitant to play a game set in FR with Ed Greenwood. A more vivid example is, I wouldn't want to play a Star Wars RPG with George Lucas as the Game Master. George might just absolutely insist that the Force is all about midi-chlorians or some similar foolishness when midi-chlorians have nothing to do with why I, or almost anyone else, likes Star Wars. But he could say, well, it's my world so deal with it. Doesn't sound very fun. It's even less fun when the person doing it is just some guy you know rather than one of the most successful Hollywood creators ever.
But back to the idea that folks need a published setting to play D&D. Well, D&D is already a setting. No I'm not talking about the officiual default setting (in 5E, Forgotten Realms; previously Greyhawk); rather, I'm talking about the generic low end of high fantasy tropes of which pretty much everyone who'd consider playing D&D has some idea, even if a vague one. Because a vague idea is all that's necessary.
Here's another principle of DMing: setting really isn't that important. Florial III may be the archpriest of the Sacred Crusade off in the great capital city of Imperial Lothgran but ... who cares? The PCs in a traditional D&D campaign are a lot closer to the dirty, mundane, hayridden countryside -- that is, when they're not creeping down dark holes in the ground. Nine times out of ten, maybe ninety nine times out of one hundred, most of the binderfulls of setting prep DMs get carried away "designing" never gets used unless said DM really insists on foisting it on players who would rather be doing something else, like dungeoneering.
The politics and theology of the empire can wait until (and if) the players make it to higher levels, assuming that is the sort of thing they even care about when they get to the higher levels. And therefore, like everything else, the high concepts can and should develop along the way with everyone's input into the mix, reinforcing the stake that all characters have in the campaign as it rolls along. This can and should even be done when you play in published settings.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/09 00:56:47
Psienesis wrote: Be advised that the above advice is often the path to campaign-ruining inventions.
Explain yourself.
It's quite simple, really. Every group has at least one player who, either through obsessive study or natural talent, can remember every minor rule, spell, and class perk in every book published for the game. (If your group doesn't have one of these, it's you). Such players, through absolutely no malicious will of their own, will look at things like the Item Creation Rules and decide that, why, yes, a cluster of a half-dozen Wands of Magic Missile crafted at the 10th level arranged around a Staff of Contingency makes the perfect weapon for his/her Wizard/Sorcerer/Insert Spellcaster here.
... and now you have someone launching 30 1d4+5 ranged attacks that cannot miss or be Saved against per round. That is, incidentally, minimum damage of 180HP per round. That's... freaking deadly. That drops, in a single attack-action, any PC Class build. It drops most monsters. And it's fairly cheap to build, and absolutely nothing in the rules prevents its construction.
You can assign it a higher DC on the crafting roll, to be sure but, and this is a very old adage of RPGs in general: "If it has stats, we can kill it". Players will figure out ways to meet that "high-but-not-insanely-unreasonable" DC. Usually through items that grant Skill/Talent buffs, and/or just by dumping all their Skill Points into the relevant Skills.
Case in point: I've been running Dark Heresy for awhile now. Years, in fact. The group wanted to do something a little less high-powered. I offered a game based on Dark Heresy, but set on "a world much like Earth in the Fallout games, a post-apocalyptic wasteland where the institutions of the Imperium still exist, though in debased form, as people barely remember that there even is an Imperium". The group was cool with it. The group enjoyed having to actually think about whether or not they could afford to fight a given enemy, as they were using a lot of SP weapons or lasguns with fire-cooked cells that held only half the ammo and had, through wear and tear, become Unreliable. Some people in the party had only blackpowder weapons, others bows and arrows. They appreciated that it was now a very viable option to attempt to talk one's way out of confrontations with other survivors in the wastelands.
And then the Tech-Priest decided to start building power weapons. And then rad-grenades. And then salvage a crashed ship (an Arvus Lighter) and make it air-worthy again. And then build himself a suit of TDA out of the hull-plating of a crashed starship. Soon enough, this one character had the firepower to level entire cities at absolutely no risk to himself. Once he put twin-linked lascannons on one arm of the TDA and a powerfist on the other, there was nothing that flew, walked or crawled in the deserts that could pose any significant challenge to him. No town of survivors could hope to match him in battle, because gunpowder cannons and salvaged Tarantula Turrets don't do a lot against Terminator Armor.
Worse? The rest of the party had been just fine with their "regular" guns... but now it began an armsrace in the group to try to out-do one another and reach the same level as the Tech-Priest.
All because I, as the GM, did not say "No."
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Ah yes, the game mastery age of roleplaying (i.e., ruleplaying). This gets a little deep (for this thread), but we're coming to the difference between RPGs where the GM makes rulings as opposed to "RPGs" where the GM just enforces the published rules. In the latter case, the GM should only say "no" to whatever breaks the rules. If the rules allow for something that breaks the game, well that's the game's fault. And of course that is the basic problem with ruleplaying ... you see, it's not roleplaying. Well, there is roleplaying going on but it is extraneous to the actual game (just like how chess can be roleplayed if you want); the actual game is piloting stats.
Neat idea for DH by the way.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/09/09 02:54:06
Manchu wrote: IME people like established settings because they already have a stake in them. People like Star Wars, for example, prior to and independently from wanting to play a Star Wars RPG. They don't want to play a Star Wars RPG because they aren't creative enough to come up with their own setting. That is a common misconception about established settings. (It's why Golarion, the D&D-flavored theme park setting of Pathfinder, exists.) People want to play in Forgotten Realms because they like the Forgotten Realms. It's really that simple.
You miss the point again. I kn ow why people play Forgotten Realms, what needs happen to understand is for you to think about why. People have a preconceived idea, this naturally leads to a background. A character coming from Tatooine or Waterdeep already has a measure of backstory, which is why people play them. It rubbishes the idea that people shouldn't have backstory.
Here's another principle of DMing: setting really isn't that important. Florial III may be the archpriest of the Sacred Crusade off in the great capital city of Imperial Lothgran but ... who cares?
No one if your GMing is shallow. If its immersive however details like that can be important.
Florial III might be a heretic, he might be on ther take. How will the players know, because Bon the local priest is grumbling, and Ben th abbot is concerned about the tithes being requisitioned. Could it result in a schism, what side will the party cleric be on if there is. Who are the successors, and can the succession be influenced. Will stepping in at the right time mean a promotion for the cleric.
Add immersion and you add so much room to maneuver, as seen handled well religion is not just the means by which the cleric gets his spell list, its also a well of intrigue and power. Which the players tap into by themselves.
The PCs in a traditional D&D campaign are a lot closer to the dirty, mundane, hayridden countryside -- that is, when they're not creeping down dark holes in the ground. Nine times out of ten, maybe ninety nine times out of one hundred, most of the binderfulls of setting prep DMs get carried away "designing" never gets used unless said DM really insists on foisting it on players who would rather be doing something else, like dungeoneering.
Again if you open your eyes to immersive play you will find the opposite is true. The setting is the campaign.
For example I had my PCs be part of a local militia, they had orders to carry out from the captain which naturally set a plot of sorts. However within that loose framework they did what they wanted within reason and made thioer own scenarios by knowing what was happening in the district and what needed doing or could be done.. I dont need to foister stories on the players, in a sandbox they made thier own. So for example my players moonlighted on the side working a grain trade after a merchant disappeared and a market opportunity developed. as to why did the merchant disappear, that was some foreshadowing.
The politics and theology of the empire can wait until (and if) the players make it to higher levels, assuming that is the sort of thing they even care about when they get to the higher levels. And therefore, like everything else, the high concepts can and should develop along the way with everyone's input into the mix, reinforcing the stake that all characters have in the campaign as it rolls along. This can and should even be done when you play in published settings.
Howevber you turn it into a 2D cardboard cutout. Politics and theology matter at first level. You could ignore it, but that makes the world unlived in. Your first level so lets throw orcs at you.... your tenth level time to know where the capital is and who runs the major religions in the region so we can have som e set piece encounters.
vs
You ar a new priest, this is the heirarchy, these are the local events and current affairs of the religion. Even if you don't do much about that at first level you get foreshadowing, which is one of the immersion techniques from writing that translates so well to role play by making the world have depth. Furthermore characters can spend time looking at the whys and wheres in good time to make decisions. They can even set the ball rolling on high politics and watch while leveling up long enough to be able to finally show a hand.
As its a sandbox environment you dont even need to parse out leveled adventures, players pick their plots as they develop into them. Bottom up access to heirarchies, and having a meaningful stake in those heirarchies offers more depth than a staid option to do the quest that solves a problem in the local temple for exp and loot.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
To quote the Bard, the play's the thing. Whatever you dream up about your setting elements as a DM or your character as a player, it doesn't really matter unless it matters during play. The very best way to get to what matters during play is to play. And whatever matters will emerge. This includes what is important about the characters as well as what is important about the world in which they live. Or more precisely, who the characters are, including what is important to them, will emerge as they live and breath and exist. But the only way for them to do so is if they are played. Settings also live in this way and only in this way. No one is immersed by being hung up on how the game was supposed to work out; immersion is effectively the state of playing without distraction. If the player is ruleplaying as per Psinesis's example, immersion is impossible. If the player is shot down because their ideas do not correspond to the DM's, immersion is impossible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/09 04:01:29
While that's true to an extent, a rich background to the world allows the PCs to decide what's important and let's you, the GM, be ready for when (not if) they go off the track of the campaign's story. In the above-mentioned DH game, I had notes for all the regions of the Wastelands, the major city-states that had established themselves, the seven cults the Ecclesiarchy had broken into, the four various philosophies the surviving Mechanicus had split apart into, and the "tactical sects" that were the remains of various IG Regiments that had become something akin to mercenary armies/rolling tribes of nomads. Plus, how all of these various groups interacted with one another, which groups liked (or hated) other groups, and what people could expect in dealing with them... or being a member of one (or more) of these groups.
What's a good DH game without politics and intrigue?
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
I think we've wandered off from the original topic slightly.
Speaking as a first-time GM, the best advice is just go for it, but don't make the first adventure over-ambitious.
As everyone's a beginner, you won't have any "back-seat GMs" telling you you're doing it wrong.
Does everyone else own a PHB, or are you the only one with the rules? If it's the latter, it makes it easier to keep things under control, and helps with the "- the players tell you what they are attempting - you tell them what they need to roll" thing; it can mean that the players describe what they're doing without rendering everything down to game mechanics. Or it can mean everyone flounders around without knowig what's going on, if you're not careful.
Mind you, my group doesn't take things too seriously; plenty of hack & slash, and most of the character interaction is along the lines of "I say that 'blah blah'", rather than actually acting it out "in character". That's fine if that's what everyone wants.
Which is probably the best bit of advice I can think of; find out what your players want to do. Because I'm part of an established group, I knew the sort of games we play, so when I decided to run a Star Wars adventure, I picked Age of Rebellion, because it offers the most opportunity for straightforwardly gunning down hordes of Stormtroopers and general mayhem.
I played in an adventure once where one player wrote up pages and pages of backstory - all that happened was that he derailed the adventure at every opportunity, and then claimed "but my character would do that - see, it's written here". The way I look at it is, no-one cared what Luke Skywalker did before he met C-3PO.
6000 - Death Skulls, Painted
2000 - Admech/Skitarii, Painted 
