MC'ing is not for inexperienced players. Passing it off as something new players can easily transition into does no one any good.
Why?
If we'd shied away from things because of a lack of experience and not knowing how to do them right most of us wouldn't play D&D in the first place (and still be virgins, but that's neither here nor there). New group and you want to DM? Have at it. Don't feel like picking something straightforward for your first class so you settled on sorcerer, just not an obvious blaster? More power to you. You think a couple of levels of rogue might give your squeeky-clean paladin some much needed patina? Roll with that.
Who cares about easy? And who says multiclassing isn't? This feels like an implied suggestion players should optimize their characters (and not a very subtle one, at that). Not something I'd care to see at my table, if I'm honest.
Panjurgan, I think we agree that D&D is NOT an easy game to master. Anything with over 500 pages of core rules can't be easy. Multi-classing takes the experience of playing before it should be tried. If you have new players trying out this delicate thing, you end up with chaos at a table. I don't know how many times I have had to correct players that completely misunderstood how many skills could be added when a new class was added, and oh man, when combining third caster and full caster classes. New players simply can't get that right. Same goes for Warlocks, whether played as a pure class, or worse, multi-classed with something like a Sorcerer. New players invariably get the set up wrong, and the entire table then pays as the DM either has to educate the player, or the player has super-powers as they take all the benefits, but none of the drawbacks.
Considering my goal for new players is to have them playing in 45 mins to an hour without necessarily having to have read a single page of the rules, I think we very likely don't agree on quite a lot of things.
I see what you are going for and I think that its a not a bad idea in theory but I do think you should at least read the combat section of the basic rules (Chapter 9) which is about 8 pages.
If you are only planning on doing a one shot then yeah you can likely walk people through the process no problem and that would be just fine.
If you are planning on doing a full campaign then I would expect people to read a good chunk of the basic rules as they will be married to this character for some time and should understand its basics at least.
DnD is a game that does require more commitment from those playing it and in my opinion you as a player should realize this and likely put more effort in to understand it if you are signing up for a full on campaign.
One shots though I rarely have people read the rules so we are on the same page there.
Eh. I don't really care if players want to make some changes after a while, or decide they don't like their character after all. I'll fit it into the narrative and let them adjust what they want or bring in a new character altogether. If they stick it out for 4-5 levels, they're almost certainly too attached to want to part ways with their character (I've never had anyone ask to retire a character after level 4, anyway). Having read the class section rather than just discussed what they'd like to play doesn't guarantee they won't have second thoughts either - more than half the new players I got started did prepare before diving in (which is great, I just want to remove as many obstacles as possible for those who feel intimidated by it all) and several of those regretted decisions they'd made just the same. We're playing for fun, so why would I put my foot down on something that inconsequential?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What a lot of forum wonks don't realize is that the front-page articles aren't for us. We're forum wonks. We write our own articles, daily. The front page articles are for the Average DDB User, who is not nearly so engaged with this whole shit as a typical forum wonk, and who is generally not nearly so knowledgeable about the game's mechanics.
Saige's article is perfectly fine for its intended audience - people who don't know the game as well and maybe haven't heard much about multiclassing, but may decide to try it to better fit a character of theirs. Forum wonks will protest "But muh progression!" and complain about misdirecting newer players to a 'weaker' character choice, but then I have to wonder where all those "Your DM will adjust your game to you, player power doesn't matter!" nonsense from the 4d6 thread went. If somebody wants to do a multiclass spellcaster that relies on a wide and diverse pool of lower-level magic to clever their way out of problems rather than "I cast Solve Problem at eighth level"? Who's a DM to argue? Most martial classes will happily take a multiclass dip after level 5, which is when Saige recommended one look into this. And some character concepts simply don't work without levels from multiple source classes. That's the drawback to class-based games, and multiclassing is a partial fix for it.
The article is fine. It's just not meant for us, so we should acknowledge that and take it with a grain of salt.
Based on that comment, Dungeon World is that way ----->. D&D is a rules based game. To have people dive in without a clue of what they are doing.......
Well, don't stop there. Finish that sentence. What's the worst that's going to happen?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You don't need to have a Masters Degree in D&D in order to play the GAME. I see nothing wrong with getting a brand new table set up and running with completely new players in less than an hour. You can learn the detailed stuff as you play. Hell I didn't even know that there were 5000 pages, let alone read them. Literally all you need is the players handbook, some blank paper, some pencils and a handful of dice. It does't need to be war and peace - it's a game of the imagination, not Sheldon's 3 person chess.
MC'ing is not for inexperienced players. Passing it off as something new players can easily transition into does no one any good.
Why?
If we'd shied away from things because of a lack of experience and not knowing how to do them right most of us wouldn't play D&D in the first place (and still be virgins, but that's neither here nor there). New group and you want to DM? Have at it. Don't feel like picking something straightforward for your first class so you settled on sorcerer, just not an obvious blaster? More power to you. You think a couple of levels of rogue might give your squeeky-clean paladin some much needed patina? Roll with that.
Who cares about easy? And who says multiclassing isn't? This feels like an implied suggestion players should optimize their characters (and not a very subtle one, at that). Not something I'd care to see at my table, if I'm honest.
Panjurgan, I think we agree that D&D is NOT an easy game to master. Anything with over 500 pages of core rules can't be easy. Multi-classing takes the experience of playing before it should be tried. If you have new players trying out this delicate thing, you end up with chaos at a table. I don't know how many times I have had to correct players that completely misunderstood how many skills could be added when a new class was added, and oh man, when combining third caster and full caster classes. New players simply can't get that right. Same goes for Warlocks, whether played as a pure class, or worse, multi-classed with something like a Sorcerer. New players invariably get the set up wrong, and the entire table then pays as the DM either has to educate the player, or the player has super-powers as they take all the benefits, but none of the drawbacks.
Considering my goal for new players is to have them playing in 45 mins to an hour without necessarily having to have read a single page of the rules, I think we very likely don't agree on quite a lot of things.
I see what you are going for and I think that its a not a bad idea in theory but I do think you should at least read the combat section of the basic rules (Chapter 9) which is about 8 pages.
If you are only planning on doing a one shot then yeah you can likely walk people through the process no problem and that would be just fine.
If you are planning on doing a full campaign then I would expect people to read a good chunk of the basic rules as they will be married to this character for some time and should understand its basics at least.
DnD is a game that does require more commitment from those playing it and in my opinion you as a player should realize this and likely put more effort in to understand it if you are signing up for a full on campaign.
One shots though I rarely have people read the rules so we are on the same page there.
Eh. I don't really care if players want to make some changes after a while, or decide they don't like their character after all. I'll fit it into the narrative and let them adjust what they want or bring in a new character altogether. If they stick it out for 4-5 levels, they're almost certainly too attached to want to part ways with their character (I've never had anyone ask to retire a character after level 4, anyway). Having read the class section rather than just discussed what they'd like to play doesn't guarantee they won't have second thoughts either - more than half the new players I got started did prepare before diving in (which is great, I just want to remove as many obstacles as possible for those who feel intimidated by it all) and several of those regretted decisions they'd made just the same. We're playing for fun, so why would I put my foot down on something that inconsequential?
To each their own I guess but generally having a good idea of the basics (Using Ability Scores and Actions During Combat) are must reads for players in the campaign so we can spend more time discussing their individual character options and not the most basic of basic rules.
It adds about 13 pages (realistically 9 pages as you can usually just read the first 4 pages of combat and be fine).
9 Pages of reading for something I spend ~2-3 hours for every session preparing seems like a very small ask as a DM. This is also a one time ask so its not a huge investment on their part.
If you are asking me what to roll for your battleaxe attack by session 5 as a fighter we have problems and I will likely ask for you to put more effort in.
To each their own I guess but generally having a good idea of the basics (Using Ability Scores and Actions During Combat) are must reads for players in the campaign so we can spend more time discussing their individual character options and not the most basic of basic rules.
It adds about 13 pages (realistically 9 pages as you can usually just read the first 4 pages of combat and be fine).
9 Pages of reading for something I spend ~2-3 hours for every session preparing seems like a very small ask as a DM. This is also a one time ask so its not a huge investment on their part.
If you are asking me what to roll for your battleaxe attack by session 5 as a fighter we have problems and I will likely ask for you to put more effort in.
I'll spend 20-25 mins explaining the basics, and another 20-25 coaching them through character creation. With DDB that's all the time it takes, and results in the player having a functional charactersheet they can find anything standard on - and it really doesn't take them 5 sessions to learn to find saves, skills and actions on there.
I don't disagree it's not a lot of work to read 20-something pages. Most players will read that and more, if not before the first session then almost certainly before the second. But it isn't strictly necessary, and me not requiring it makes the pitch to get people to try a session that much more convincing. Every player I've ever known could quite easily learn to play entirely on their own. The issue is that they don't know that until they try, and the game can look daunting when you see three hefty core rulebooks and a bunch of sourcebooks besides.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You don't need to have a Masters Degree in D&D in order to play the GAME. I see nothing wrong with getting a brand new table set up and running with completely new players in less than an hour. You can learn the detailed stuff as you play. Hell I didn't even know that there were 5000 pages, let alone read them. Literally all you need is the players handbook, some blank paper, some pencils and a handful of dice. It does't need to be war and peace - it's a game of the imagination, not Sheldon's 3 person chess.
You don't need a Master's Degree, but you have to have the ability AND WILLINGNESS to read. As others have said. If I as a DM put in the effort to create a setting for the players to work within, they can damn well show me the respect of understanding basic rules.
Pretty sure what Pang is going for is what a lot of DMs should be doing with prospective new players. I.e. "Hey, wanna give this a shot? No big long two-year game like you've heard about, just a few sessions to see if you like it. I'll walk you through what you need to know, no need to dig through all those books I've got right now. Just the free-samples-tray version of D&D, let you get a taste with no commitment. How's that sound?"
No DM should ideally ever be inviting someone who's never played before to a long-haul campaign they're hoping lasts for many years. Not only does the player not have any clue if that's something they're interested in, but the DM has no idea whether or not that player's gonna get sucked in and engage or bounce off and flake. Better for everybody to get that player's feet wet with a simple short adventure first, see what they think before selling them on playing a five-year game with a foot-high stack of books.
To each their own I guess but generally having a good idea of the basics (Using Ability Scores and Actions During Combat) are must reads for players in the campaign so we can spend more time discussing their individual character options and not the most basic of basic rules.
It adds about 13 pages (realistically 9 pages as you can usually just read the first 4 pages of combat and be fine).
9 Pages of reading for something I spend ~2-3 hours for every session preparing seems like a very small ask as a DM. This is also a one time ask so its not a huge investment on their part.
If you are asking me what to roll for your battleaxe attack by session 5 as a fighter we have problems and I will likely ask for you to put more effort in.
I'll spend 20-25 mins explaining the basics, and another 20-25 coaching them through character creation. With DDB that's all the time it takes, and results in the player having a functional charactersheet they can find anything standard on - and it really doesn't take them 5 sessions to learn to find saves, skills and actions on there.
I don't disagree it's not a lot of work to read 20-something pages. Most players will read that and more, if not before the first session then almost certainly before the second. But it isn't strictly necessary, and me not requiring it makes the pitch to get people to try a session that much more convincing. Every player I've ever known could quite easily learn to play entirely on their own. The issue is that they don't know that until they try, and the game can look daunting when you see three hefty core rulebooks and a bunch of sourcebooks besides.
Yeah it can be daunting that's why I try to limit it to just a few pages ( ~9) so that its less of a challenge.
The Ability score one is generally pretty easy to skip too as its just....roll a d20 and add what it says on the sheet for about 90% of the out of combat interactions.
Combat is the one where things tend to grind to a halt. I try to print the 4 pages of combat that outlines the basic actions/bonus actions so that everyone has a reference if we are rolling IRL and online I will share a link to the relevant section .
However, I have found it is much much smoother if they have at least read that section prior to coming as it creates a lot less work and they are generally able to make better decisions in the creator.
You don't need to have a Masters Degree in D&D in order to play the GAME. I see nothing wrong with getting a brand new table set up and running with completely new players in less than an hour. You can learn the detailed stuff as you play. Hell I didn't even know that there were 5000 pages, let alone read them. Literally all you need is the players handbook, some blank paper, some pencils and a handful of dice. It does't need to be war and peace - it's a game of the imagination, not Sheldon's 3 person chess.
You don't need a Master's Degree, but you have to have the ability AND WILLINGNESS to read. As others have said. If I as a DM put in the effort to create a setting for the players to work within, they can damn well show me the respect of understanding basic rules.
I have the ability to read, but I have zero willingness to read the 50 shades wannabe tosh, or the sparkly vampire novels or Mills and Boons romances. I still know what they are though because someone used their voice to tell me. Blind people also don't technically read - they have text to voice software, braille or some other solution that does not involve reading in the conventional sense. Stop trying to impose your world view on others.
You don't need to have a Masters Degree in D&D in order to play the GAME. I see nothing wrong with getting a brand new table set up and running with completely new players in less than an hour. You can learn the detailed stuff as you play. Hell I didn't even know that there were 5000 pages, let alone read them. Literally all you need is the players handbook, some blank paper, some pencils and a handful of dice. It does't need to be war and peace - it's a game of the imagination, not Sheldon's 3 person chess.
You don't need a Master's Degree, but you have to have the ability AND WILLINGNESS to read. As others have said. If I as a DM put in the effort to create a setting for the players to work within, they can damn well show me the respect of understanding basic rules.
For a setting they might "enjoy" for all of one session if afterwards they decide D&D is not for them? I've never had a player try a session, decide they wanted to keep playing, and not grab the PHB to look up stuff before the next session - even if three sessions later they might change their mind an quit playing after all. If they're willing to set aside 3-4 hours and give the game an honest try, that's plenty of respect for me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Pretty sure what Pang is going for is what a lot of DMs should be doing with prospective new players. I.e. "Hey, wanna give this a shot? No big long two-year game like you've heard about, just a few sessions to see if you like it. I'll walk you through what you need to know, no need to dig through all those books I've got right now. Just the free-samples-tray version of D&D, let you get a taste with no commitment. How's that sound?"
No DM should ideally ever be inviting someone who's never played before to a long-haul campaign they're hoping lasts for many years. Not only does the player not have any clue if that's something they're interested in, but the DM has no idea whether or not that player's gonna get sucked in and engage or bounce off and flake. Better for everybody to get that player's feet wet with a simple short adventure first, see what they think before selling them on playing a five-year game with a foot-high stack of books.
Yeah and thats completely fair.
I generally approach it as "I will carry you through a few one shots to see if you like the game but if you sign up for a campaign please come ready to play your character"
If you are 10 sessions into a game and they are still asking what to add to an attack roll it shows very little respect for the DM's and other players time.
It would be like showing up to a book club having not read the book and asking for them to read passages to you so you can get in on the discussion....its just not very cool move.
Pretty sure what Pang is going for is what a lot of DMs should be doing with prospective new players. I.e. "Hey, wanna give this a shot? No big long two-year game like you've heard about, just a few sessions to see if you like it. I'll walk you through what you need to know, no need to dig through all those books I've got right now. Just the free-samples-tray version of D&D, let you get a taste with no commitment. How's that sound?"
No DM should ideally ever be inviting someone who's never played before to a long-haul campaign they're hoping lasts for many years. Not only does the player not have any clue if that's something they're interested in, but the DM has no idea whether or not that player's gonna get sucked in and engage or bounce off and flake. Better for everybody to get that player's feet wet with a simple short adventure first, see what they think before selling them on playing a five-year game with a foot-high stack of books.
Pretty much. I don't see the point in holding complete newbies who don't know any more about D&D than hearsay and tall tales to the same standard as players who have agreed to commit to the group, which implies the group is committed to them as well. At that point there's a social contract, whatever that may entail at your table, but before? Everybody's expected to be nice to everyone else and we'll see how things shake out, that's it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
MC'ing is not for inexperienced players. Passing it off as something new players can easily transition into does no one any good.
Why?
If we'd shied away from things because of a lack of experience and not knowing how to do them right most of us wouldn't play D&D in the first place (and still be virgins, but that's neither here nor there). New group and you want to DM? Have at it. Don't feel like picking something straightforward for your first class so you settled on sorcerer, just not an obvious blaster? More power to you. You think a couple of levels of rogue might give your squeeky-clean paladin some much needed patina? Roll with that.
Who cares about easy? And who says multiclassing isn't? This feels like an implied suggestion players should optimize their characters (and not a very subtle one, at that). Not something I'd care to see at my table, if I'm honest.
Panjurgan, I think we agree that D&D is NOT an easy game to master. Anything with over 500 pages of core rules can't be easy. Multi-classing takes the experience of playing before it should be tried. If you have new players trying out this delicate thing, you end up with chaos at a table. I don't know how many times I have had to correct players that completely misunderstood how many skills could be added when a new class was added, and oh man, when combining third caster and full caster classes. New players simply can't get that right. Same goes for Warlocks, whether played as a pure class, or worse, multi-classed with something like a Sorcerer. New players invariably get the set up wrong, and the entire table then pays as the DM either has to educate the player, or the player has super-powers as they take all the benefits, but none of the drawbacks.
Are roses are red? And are violets blue? Do you use Beyond? Me and my players sure do. Multiclassing is so easy, a caveman can do it too. Creating a Beyond account in fifteen seconds could save you fifteen minutes or more on character creation and progression.
Beyond has made it very very easy to make new games.....if you can get people to use it lol.
I do find it funny you want people to sign up for a service, learn how to use the character creator, and learn how to use the digital sheet and that is fine and dandy....
but reading 9 pages is too much? I am not sure I see it to be honest.
I have had a LOT more trouble getting players into the DnD Beyond pages than I have if I just sent them a character sheet already done for them. It takes much longer than 15 seconds to make an account and link it and then go through the process of making a character.
Beyond has made it very very easy to make new games.....if you can get people to use it lol.
Me and my group were new, so it is pretty easy for me to dictate my group what to do, especially if it is the easier way to do things. After I bought the Starter Box, I discovered Beyond, so I had my players create their characters on Beyond. If I had told them to do it via pen and paper, I am not sure we would have went past session zero. Since everyone was new, our session zero actually took like two or three sessions. With Beyond, character creation was the easy part. The hard part was options paralysis as most of my players want to read through most classes' page and most of my players have a hard time deciding which class to pick. Thank heavens I did not buy the Legendary Bundle back then yet, or else session zero could have easily dragged on longer.
As a GM, I do not think the articles helped me a lot in terms of actually playing the game, but it did give me some character ideas and I enjoy reading them. I think it would definitely sped up my session zero if I had my players read most of the 101 class articles as those articles gives a bit more guidance on what they want out of their character.
It takes much longer than 15 seconds to make an account and link it and then go through the process of making a character.
I think all I did to sign up was to just link my Google account and I got my account. Maybe it took longer than fifteen seconds, but sign up was so short and painless that I do not remember doing anything outside of linking my Google account.
Beyond has made it very very easy to make new games.....if you can get people to use it lol.
Me and my group were new, so it is pretty easy for me to dictate my group what to do, especially if it is the easier way to do things. After I bought the Starter Box, I discovered Beyond, so I had my players create their characters on Beyond. If I had told them to do it via pen and paper, I am not sure we would have went past session zero. Since everyone was new, our session zero actually took like two or three sessions. With Beyond, character creation was the easy part. The hard part was options paralysis as most of my players want to read through most classes' page and most of my players have a hard time deciding which class to pick. Thank heavens I did not buy the Legendary Bundle back then yet, or else session zero could have easily dragged on longer.
As a GM, I do not think the articles helped me a lot in terms of actually playing the game, but it did give me some character ideas and I enjoy reading them. I think it would definitely sped up my session zero if I had my players read most of the 101 class articles as those articles gives a bit more guidance on what they want out of their character.
It takes much longer than 15 seconds to make an account and link it and then go through the process of making a character.
I think all I did to sign up was to just link my Google account and I got my account. Maybe it took longer than fifteen seconds, but sign up was so short and painless that I do not remember doing anything outside of linking my Google account.
Then the process of figuring out how to make a character, what settings to use, where and how to make selections:
What do tools do? Why do I need to pick one? Whats a background? What does the feature do? Can I pick any background? Starter equipment or gold? If I use gold it says I can roll...where do I do that? What abilites scores do you want me to use? Standard array or are we rolling?
Where do I pick my spells? I am a druid and it says I should have spells but I do not know where they are at.
BTW What spells should I take? Is Farie Fire good? Whats a Dex save?
I jest a bit but it is daunting for a completely new player to look at beyond and be 100% comfortable with it.
I have had to do a lot of hand holding for new players and the system and while I felt the time invested was great as it would streamline A LOT in the future....it was a bit of a spin up to get it going.
Beyond has made it very very easy to make new games.....if you can get people to use it lol.
I do find it funny you want people to sign up for a service, learn how to use the character creator, and learn how to use the digital sheet and that is fine and dandy....
but reading 9 pages is too much? I am not sure I see it to be honest.
I have had a LOT more trouble getting players into the DnD Beyond pages than I have if I just sent them a character sheet already done for them. It takes much longer than 15 seconds to make an account and link it and then go through the process of making a character.
Just speaking for myself here - I don't teach them to use the character creator. I coach them through character creation and show them how to enter each step in the creator (which typically we don't do in the exact order the character builder suggests) It's not meaningfully different from having them fill out a charsheet on paper, and it's all done as part of telling them what they need to know to start playing.
Again, reading 9 pages is not too much, not at all. Most players will do that much and more anyway. But when asked if they don't have to learn a whole lot of rules before they can play (and that's a common question) it seems to work a treat to be able to tell them they don't really have to read or learn anything at all beforehand and that explaining what they need to know can be done while setting up the first session and creating the characters. Most will in fact then tell me that, no, it's ok, they want to come prepared and to tell them what they should know. And when I give them a link to the basic rules and tell them it'd be great if they could maybe read chapters 7 and the first half of 9, they'll more often than not read more than that and will have looked at the character creation rules and rolled up a few on their own.
It's not the amount that matters, really. It's them understanding that they shouldn't look at a couple of 300-page rulebooks as being mandatory to be able to play. A lot of my friends play boardgames (so do I). Some of those can be pretty complicated, and even if the rules leaflets are maybe 25 illustrated pages at most you do have to read them all and understand everything if you want to play well (even if the first games might be more like test runs in some cases). They project that onto D&D, because they don't know there's a DM who'll run the game (unlike competitive boardgames where everybody involved is trying to beat everyone else) and that the rulebooks aren't written to be concise manuals, so they think it's going to take them forever to absorb all the necessary information. Pretty much everybody can read the bare minimum to know what's going on in the time of an extended bathroom break. Pretty much everybody is willing and able to read a whole lot more. They just got it in their heads it's so much more than what it is and they need to know it so much better than they do that they don't want to try.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Beyond has made it very very easy to make new games.....if you can get people to use it lol.
I do find it funny you want people to sign up for a service, learn how to use the character creator, and learn how to use the digital sheet and that is fine and dandy....
but reading 9 pages is too much? I am not sure I see it to be honest.
I have had a LOT more trouble getting players into the DnD Beyond pages than I have if I just sent them a character sheet already done for them. It takes much longer than 15 seconds to make an account and link it and then go through the process of making a character.
Just speaking for myself here - I don't teach them to use the character creator. I coach them through character creation and show them how to enter each step in the creator (which typically we don't do in the exact order the character builder suggests) It's not meaningfully different from having them fill out a charsheet on paper, and it's all done as part of telling them what they need to know to start playing.
Again, reading 9 pages is not too much, not at all. Most players will do that much and more anyway. But when asked if they don't have to learn a whole lot of rules before they can play (and that's a common question) it seems to work a treat to be able to tell them they don't really have to read or learn anything at all beforehand and that explaining what they need to know can be done while setting up the first session and creating the characters. Most will in fact then tell me that, no, it's ok, they want to come prepared and to tell them what they should know. And when I give them a link to the basic rules and tell them it'd be great if they could maybe read chapters 7 and the first half of 9, they'll more often than not read more than that and will have looked at the character creation rules and rolled up a few on their own.
It's not the amount that matters, really. It's them understanding that they shouldn't look at a couple of 300-page rulebooks as being mandatory to be able to play. A lot of my friends play boardgames (so do I). Some of those can be pretty complicated, and even if the rules leaflets are maybe 25 illustrated pages at most you do have to read them all and understand everything if you want to play well (even if the first games might be more like test runs in some cases). They project that onto D&D, because they don't know there's a DM who'll run the game (unlike competitive boardgames where everybody involved is trying to beat everyone else) and that the rulebooks aren't written to be concise manuals, so they think it's going to take them forever to absorb all the necessary information. Pretty much everybody can read the bare minimum to know what's going on in the time of an extended bathroom break. Pretty much everybody is willing and able to read a whole lot more. They just got it in their heads it's so much more than what it is and they need to know it so much better than they do that they don't want to try.
Hmmm it seems you are being a bit disingenuous with your statements then.....as in omitting information that provides context.
I do not remember ( I could have missed) you saying you walk the players through the creation process. So really you are providing insight and direction outside of just having them show up for play. This is basically walking them through a huge portion of the basic rules so its as if you having them go over them before you get to playing.
I am not that overtly concerned with the time aspect but certainly this takes more time for you as a DM then having them take a crack at the player creation and you providing insight after the fact.
It does provide insight into your process though so that is helpful. I personally have them read and attempt to create a player by themselves then ask what they got confused about or related to the parts of the basic rules that covered their question so they can refer back to it themselves later on.
This would be more akin to the Adventure's League approach which has them attempt to create a character ahead of time and get the DM to review and approve.
Hmmm it seems you are being a bit disingenuous with your statements then.....as in omitting information that provides context.
I do not remember ( I could have missed) you saying you walk the players through the creation process. So really you are providing insight and direction outside of just having them show up for play. This is basically walking them through a huge portion of the basic rules so its as if you having them go over them before you get to playing.
I am not that overtly concerned with the time aspect but certainly this takes more time for you as a DM then having them take a crack at the player creation and you providing insight after the fact.
It does provide insight into your process though so that is helpful. I personally have them read and attempt to create a player by themselves then ask what they got confused about or related to the parts of the basic rules that covered their question so they can refer back to it themselves later on.
This would be more akin to the Adventure's League approach which has them attempt to create a character ahead of time and get the DM to review and approve.
I didn't intend to come across as disingenuous, apologies if I wasn't clear or gave the wrong impression. The process is really simple: the first 45 mins to an hour of the first session starts with me explaining the basic concepts of tabletop roleplaying and the essential mechanics: race, class, checks, saves, rolls in general and then having everyone create a character with me guiding them to the options that seem best suited to what they have in mind. More experienced players can skip this, though they usually like to pitch in. I prefer new players create their character together, knowing what everyone else is looking at playing (most will prefer playing something different from everyone else and they might be annoyed finding out they're one of four elves and three rangers), even if they might have rolled up one or two before the session. The core message of those 45 mins though is very simply that no, you don't have to write this down and no, there isn't going to be a test - it's just so everyone has a notion of what I'm talking about when using a technical term in game, and even if you don't you can just ask. I'm the DM, I'll see to it everything's done "properly", which in reality means in whatever way seems most conducive to everyone having a good time.
Honestly though, all of that could be skipped altogether as well if I really wanted to. In fact I have, just once, by using the starter set with pregens and just explaining everything as it came up in game. That absolutely works and has the group playing, actually playing, in just five minutes but I found the pregens aren't necessarily to everyone's liking and if I'm going to do real (well, probably still guided) character creation I do think the players need to know at least what the essential game mechanics and concepts are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Eh. I don't really care if players want to make some changes after a while, or decide they don't like their character after all. I'll fit it into the narrative and let them adjust what they want or bring in a new character altogether. If they stick it out for 4-5 levels, they're almost certainly too attached to want to part ways with their character (I've never had anyone ask to retire a character after level 4, anyway). Having read the class section rather than just discussed what they'd like to play doesn't guarantee they won't have second thoughts either - more than half the new players I got started did prepare before diving in (which is great, I just want to remove as many obstacles as possible for those who feel intimidated by it all) and several of those regretted decisions they'd made just the same. We're playing for fun, so why would I put my foot down on something that inconsequential?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What a lot of forum wonks don't realize is that the front-page articles aren't for us. We're forum wonks. We write our own articles, daily. The front page articles are for the Average DDB User, who is not nearly so engaged with this whole shit as a typical forum wonk, and who is generally not nearly so knowledgeable about the game's mechanics.
Saige's article is perfectly fine for its intended audience - people who don't know the game as well and maybe haven't heard much about multiclassing, but may decide to try it to better fit a character of theirs. Forum wonks will protest "But muh progression!" and complain about misdirecting newer players to a 'weaker' character choice, but then I have to wonder where all those "Your DM will adjust your game to you, player power doesn't matter!" nonsense from the 4d6 thread went. If somebody wants to do a multiclass spellcaster that relies on a wide and diverse pool of lower-level magic to clever their way out of problems rather than "I cast Solve Problem at eighth level"? Who's a DM to argue? Most martial classes will happily take a multiclass dip after level 5, which is when Saige recommended one look into this. And some character concepts simply don't work without levels from multiple source classes. That's the drawback to class-based games, and multiclassing is a partial fix for it.
The article is fine. It's just not meant for us, so we should acknowledge that and take it with a grain of salt.
Please do not contact or message me.
Well, don't stop there. Finish that sentence. What's the worst that's going to happen?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You don't need to have a Masters Degree in D&D in order to play the GAME. I see nothing wrong with getting a brand new table set up and running with completely new players in less than an hour. You can learn the detailed stuff as you play. Hell I didn't even know that there were 5000 pages, let alone read them. Literally all you need is the players handbook, some blank paper, some pencils and a handful of dice. It does't need to be war and peace - it's a game of the imagination, not Sheldon's 3 person chess.
To each their own I guess but generally having a good idea of the basics (Using Ability Scores and Actions During Combat) are must reads for players in the campaign so we can spend more time discussing their individual character options and not the most basic of basic rules.
It adds about 13 pages (realistically 9 pages as you can usually just read the first 4 pages of combat and be fine).
9 Pages of reading for something I spend ~2-3 hours for every session preparing seems like a very small ask as a DM. This is also a one time ask so its not a huge investment on their part.
If you are asking me what to roll for your battleaxe attack by session 5 as a fighter we have problems and I will likely ask for you to put more effort in.
I'll spend 20-25 mins explaining the basics, and another 20-25 coaching them through character creation. With DDB that's all the time it takes, and results in the player having a functional charactersheet they can find anything standard on - and it really doesn't take them 5 sessions to learn to find saves, skills and actions on there.
I don't disagree it's not a lot of work to read 20-something pages. Most players will read that and more, if not before the first session then almost certainly before the second. But it isn't strictly necessary, and me not requiring it makes the pitch to get people to try a session that much more convincing. Every player I've ever known could quite easily learn to play entirely on their own. The issue is that they don't know that until they try, and the game can look daunting when you see three hefty core rulebooks and a bunch of sourcebooks besides.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You don't need a Master's Degree, but you have to have the ability AND WILLINGNESS to read. As others have said. If I as a DM put in the effort to create a setting for the players to work within, they can damn well show me the respect of understanding basic rules.
Pretty sure what Pang is going for is what a lot of DMs should be doing with prospective new players. I.e. "Hey, wanna give this a shot? No big long two-year game like you've heard about, just a few sessions to see if you like it. I'll walk you through what you need to know, no need to dig through all those books I've got right now. Just the free-samples-tray version of D&D, let you get a taste with no commitment. How's that sound?"
No DM should ideally ever be inviting someone who's never played before to a long-haul campaign they're hoping lasts for many years. Not only does the player not have any clue if that's something they're interested in, but the DM has no idea whether or not that player's gonna get sucked in and engage or bounce off and flake. Better for everybody to get that player's feet wet with a simple short adventure first, see what they think before selling them on playing a five-year game with a foot-high stack of books.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah it can be daunting that's why I try to limit it to just a few pages ( ~9) so that its less of a challenge.
The Ability score one is generally pretty easy to skip too as its just....roll a d20 and add what it says on the sheet for about 90% of the out of combat interactions.
Combat is the one where things tend to grind to a halt. I try to print the 4 pages of combat that outlines the basic actions/bonus actions so that everyone has a reference if we are rolling IRL and online I will share a link to the relevant section .
However, I have found it is much much smoother if they have at least read that section prior to coming as it creates a lot less work and they are generally able to make better decisions in the creator.
I have the ability to read, but I have zero willingness to read the 50 shades wannabe tosh, or the sparkly vampire novels or Mills and Boons romances. I still know what they are though because someone used their voice to tell me. Blind people also don't technically read - they have text to voice software, braille or some other solution that does not involve reading in the conventional sense. Stop trying to impose your world view on others.
For a setting they might "enjoy" for all of one session if afterwards they decide D&D is not for them? I've never had a player try a session, decide they wanted to keep playing, and not grab the PHB to look up stuff before the next session - even if three sessions later they might change their mind an quit playing after all. If they're willing to set aside 3-4 hours and give the game an honest try, that's plenty of respect for me.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeah and thats completely fair.
I generally approach it as "I will carry you through a few one shots to see if you like the game but if you sign up for a campaign please come ready to play your character"
If you are 10 sessions into a game and they are still asking what to add to an attack roll it shows very little respect for the DM's and other players time.
It would be like showing up to a book club having not read the book and asking for them to read passages to you so you can get in on the discussion....its just not very cool move.
Pretty much. I don't see the point in holding complete newbies who don't know any more about D&D than hearsay and tall tales to the same standard as players who have agreed to commit to the group, which implies the group is committed to them as well. At that point there's a social contract, whatever that may entail at your table, but before? Everybody's expected to be nice to everyone else and we'll see how things shake out, that's it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Are roses are red? And are violets blue?
Do you use Beyond? Me and my players sure do.
Multiclassing is so easy, a caveman can do it too.
Creating a Beyond account in fifteen seconds could save you fifteen minutes or more on character creation and progression.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Beyond has made it very very easy to make new games.....if you can get people to use it lol.
I do find it funny you want people to sign up for a service, learn how to use the character creator, and learn how to use the digital sheet and that is fine and dandy....
but reading 9 pages is too much? I am not sure I see it to be honest.
I have had a LOT more trouble getting players into the DnD Beyond pages than I have if I just sent them a character sheet already done for them. It takes much longer than 15 seconds to make an account and link it and then go through the process of making a character.
Me and my group were new, so it is pretty easy for me to dictate my group what to do, especially if it is the easier way to do things. After I bought the Starter Box, I discovered Beyond, so I had my players create their characters on Beyond. If I had told them to do it via pen and paper, I am not sure we would have went past session zero. Since everyone was new, our session zero actually took like two or three sessions. With Beyond, character creation was the easy part. The hard part was options paralysis as most of my players want to read through most classes' page and most of my players have a hard time deciding which class to pick. Thank heavens I did not buy the Legendary Bundle back then yet, or else session zero could have easily dragged on longer.
As a GM, I do not think the articles helped me a lot in terms of actually playing the game, but it did give me some character ideas and I enjoy reading them. I think it would definitely sped up my session zero if I had my players read most of the 101 class articles as those articles gives a bit more guidance on what they want out of their character.
I think all I did to sign up was to just link my Google account and I got my account. Maybe it took longer than fifteen seconds, but sign up was so short and painless that I do not remember doing anything outside of linking my Google account.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Then the process of figuring out how to make a character, what settings to use, where and how to make selections:
What do tools do? Why do I need to pick one? Whats a background? What does the feature do? Can I pick any background? Starter equipment or gold? If I use gold it says I can roll...where do I do that?
What abilites scores do you want me to use? Standard array or are we rolling?
Where do I pick my spells? I am a druid and it says I should have spells but I do not know where they are at.
BTW What spells should I take? Is Farie Fire good? Whats a Dex save?
I jest a bit but it is daunting for a completely new player to look at beyond and be 100% comfortable with it.
I have had to do a lot of hand holding for new players and the system and while I felt the time invested was great as it would streamline A LOT in the future....it was a bit of a spin up to get it going.
Just speaking for myself here - I don't teach them to use the character creator. I coach them through character creation and show them how to enter each step in the creator (which typically we don't do in the exact order the character builder suggests) It's not meaningfully different from having them fill out a charsheet on paper, and it's all done as part of telling them what they need to know to start playing.
Again, reading 9 pages is not too much, not at all. Most players will do that much and more anyway. But when asked if they don't have to learn a whole lot of rules before they can play (and that's a common question) it seems to work a treat to be able to tell them they don't really have to read or learn anything at all beforehand and that explaining what they need to know can be done while setting up the first session and creating the characters. Most will in fact then tell me that, no, it's ok, they want to come prepared and to tell them what they should know. And when I give them a link to the basic rules and tell them it'd be great if they could maybe read chapters 7 and the first half of 9, they'll more often than not read more than that and will have looked at the character creation rules and rolled up a few on their own.
It's not the amount that matters, really. It's them understanding that they shouldn't look at a couple of 300-page rulebooks as being mandatory to be able to play. A lot of my friends play boardgames (so do I). Some of those can be pretty complicated, and even if the rules leaflets are maybe 25 illustrated pages at most you do have to read them all and understand everything if you want to play well (even if the first games might be more like test runs in some cases). They project that onto D&D, because they don't know there's a DM who'll run the game (unlike competitive boardgames where everybody involved is trying to beat everyone else) and that the rulebooks aren't written to be concise manuals, so they think it's going to take them forever to absorb all the necessary information. Pretty much everybody can read the bare minimum to know what's going on in the time of an extended bathroom break. Pretty much everybody is willing and able to read a whole lot more. They just got it in their heads it's so much more than what it is and they need to know it so much better than they do that they don't want to try.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Hmmm it seems you are being a bit disingenuous with your statements then.....as in omitting information that provides context.
I do not remember ( I could have missed) you saying you walk the players through the creation process. So really you are providing insight and direction outside of just having them show up for play. This is basically walking them through a huge portion of the basic rules so its as if you having them go over them before you get to playing.
I am not that overtly concerned with the time aspect but certainly this takes more time for you as a DM then having them take a crack at the player creation and you providing insight after the fact.
It does provide insight into your process though so that is helpful. I personally have them read and attempt to create a player by themselves then ask what they got confused about or related to the parts of the basic rules that covered their question so they can refer back to it themselves later on.
This would be more akin to the Adventure's League approach which has them attempt to create a character ahead of time and get the DM to review and approve.
I didn't intend to come across as disingenuous, apologies if I wasn't clear or gave the wrong impression. The process is really simple: the first 45 mins to an hour of the first session starts with me explaining the basic concepts of tabletop roleplaying and the essential mechanics: race, class, checks, saves, rolls in general and then having everyone create a character with me guiding them to the options that seem best suited to what they have in mind. More experienced players can skip this, though they usually like to pitch in. I prefer new players create their character together, knowing what everyone else is looking at playing (most will prefer playing something different from everyone else and they might be annoyed finding out they're one of four elves and three rangers), even if they might have rolled up one or two before the session. The core message of those 45 mins though is very simply that no, you don't have to write this down and no, there isn't going to be a test - it's just so everyone has a notion of what I'm talking about when using a technical term in game, and even if you don't you can just ask. I'm the DM, I'll see to it everything's done "properly", which in reality means in whatever way seems most conducive to everyone having a good time.
Honestly though, all of that could be skipped altogether as well if I really wanted to. In fact I have, just once, by using the starter set with pregens and just explaining everything as it came up in game. That absolutely works and has the group playing, actually playing, in just five minutes but I found the pregens aren't necessarily to everyone's liking and if I'm going to do real (well, probably still guided) character creation I do think the players need to know at least what the essential game mechanics and concepts are.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].