Later this year I'd like to start running a homebrew that I am working on. But it seems like everyone wants to play D&D UNLIMITED™ with access to all the races and all the classes all the time. My world is intended to be a bit more mundane, with a max of 6 or 7 races and some pretty strict limits on classes as well, including considerably less magic. So, closer to Tolkien than Forgotten Realms. I'd like my story to be character-driven, rather than focused on the Enemy of the Week, or trying to see how many different monsters I can introduce every session.
Has anyone had any luck running lower-magic or limited style campaigns? What is the best way to introduce players to a game with limited choices, should I have a handout or something?
What is the best way to get players more involved in their characters, beyond just Race, Class, Level, and outfits?
In a world with very few "monsters", what is a good way to keep combat interesting beyond just throwing ever-growing groups of bandits at them?
This was a lot longer than I anticipated, so don't feel obligated to read the whole thing.
My main advice would be to have a session zero with your party and talk about what kind of game you all want to play. It is important to set the right expectations for the game with your party before you actually start playing. The easiest way for someone to get turned off of D&D is to come into a game thinking it will be one way and then finding out that it is something else entirely. This can be avoided by having a session zero and talking about what type of game your party wants to play and what type of game you want to DM. There's a youtube channel called Taking20 that I would definitely recommend checking out. He has a ton of helpful videos on session zeros, DM tips, and all sorts of stuff. If you decide do decide to do a session zero with your party, it will be important that you voice your desire to DM a campaign where magic is less common, and it is more character/roleplay driven than combat driven. Don't just tell them what you want, but listen to what they want as well. Try to find the middle ground with what you all want to do, and be willing to try new things.
I have dm'd consistently for about 6 years now, and most of my homebrewed campaigns have been pretty magic heavy. That being said, one of them, perhaps the most magic heavy of all, started on a continent that was completely unaware of magic's existence. Magic still worked there, obviously, but the vast majority of the public didn't know magic existed, or at least not to the extent that it existed elsewhere. It sounds like you want a low-magic setting, not necessarily a NO-magic setting. If you do want a no-magic setting, make sure your players are all okay with that before starting, and don't steamroll anyone into doing it, because that cuts out a lot of content in D&D. For a low-magic setting, however, you don't necessarily have to outlaw magic classes altogether. Make magic rare in your world. Even cantrips are rare. When someone comes into a town or a city and they can use magic, most people avoid them, because they don't have any idea who they are or what they can do, or what kind of person would use something as mysterious and dangerous as magic. "Its not natural, who in their right mind would indulge in something like that?!" Talk to your players in session zero about magic's presence and significance in the world. If you make magic less common, I would think that would make it more significant, and if a Wizard shows up in a combat, everyone knows it. Lean into the mystery and rarity of magic.
I definitely can understand wanting to limit the race and class options. There are a LOT of source books out now, and some pretty broken and overpowered options and combinations out there. This can be overwhelming even to experienced dm's, so limiting classes and races for your first campaign is definitely a reasonable request. Taking your setting into account as well, I think it would be very reasonable to bring that up in a session zero and say "Hey y'all, I would really appreciate only using a select few races in this campaign, since the setting I want to use really only has these races." And then same deal with the classes. I would advise against limited class and race choices too much, since you don't want to take away the party's choices entirely, and there's some stuff that is just so dang cool. Again, talk to your players and ask them if they'd be willing to play with a selection of classes, or maybe even just one or two of the sourcebooks, rather than ALL of them.
If you're talking about limiting what they are allowed to do in the campaign, like railroading, there's a good use for railroading and a bad use for it.
The good use of railroading is making it very clear to your players where you would like them to go, where the plot is, or where the main storyline is headed. This is most easily done with an NPC that directly gives them their quest. A king, the leader of a syndicate, a wealthy noble, its very flexible. Have an NPC that clearly tells the party "Hey, I have an opportunity for you" and then tell them the hook. If you have to, you can even say out of game "this is the main plot guys". This is another thing that is made easier by having a session zero, since you can talk to your players about what type of campaign and plot they would be interested in, and you can try to tailor your game to interest them. That way, when you present a plot hook, its less likely that any players will brush it off out of disinterest. Granted, if they do that, they might have missed the point of D&D lol...
The bad use of railroading is taking away player agency, or rather, their ability to effect the plot and the world with their actions. If you simply don't let your players carry out a specific plan or course of action because its not the "right" one according to your plot, this is going to make the players feel like they have no choice in the game, and that they are just listening to you tell them a story.
I would say the best way to get your players more involved in their characters is by intentionally weaving their backstory into the world. Make it relevant to some degree. it doesn't have to be the main plot obviously, but bring in an NPC from a player's backstory. Maybe let the party travel to or through a location from their backstory. Encourage the players to give their characters a flaw of some kind. Characters are interesting when they're imperfect because they can grow. They can change, and they can learn from their mistakes. Encourage players to think about their actions in D&D through the lens of their character and why they're doing it. Whether its making an attack in combat, talking to an NPC trying to get information, talking to a noble, or simply traveling and talking to the other characters, encourage your players to intentionally take actions based on their character's motivation in that situation. Don't be afraid to take an action that may not be the most effective or most efficient one, but is the most accurate to the character. This is NOT an excuse for being a jerk and doing whatever you feel like and just saying "its what my character would do", but rather its meant to help you think through why your character is doing what they're doing, and to better understand your character as a result.
As for getting players to roleplay more, you have to lead the way as the DM. If your players aren't the best at roleplaying, that's okay. Make it a safe space to try it out and explore. Lead the way. Roleplay the NPC's. If you feel comfortable doing so, use some voices and accents. Make sure the party knows that its okay and safe to roleplay in this space, and that making fun of people for not being the best at it is absolutely not going to be tolerated.
As for keeping combat interesting without just throwing more and more bandits at them, my advice would be to make combat significant to the plot when you can. If they're fighting a group of bandits, maybe someone paid those bandits to ambush the party. Maybe the bandits are actually from one of the characters' backstory, and they've hunted them down for revenge for something. Make the enemies smart. Not meta-game smart, but smarter than the regular "run to the closest enemy and attack". Use flanking for the enemies. Have them surround the party and attack from all sides. Have multiple enemies focus a single target to take them down quicker. Give them interesting equipment, like traps, caltrops, or ball bearings. Give them interesting weapons, like a rope with a weight to sweep the legs and knock someone prone. Don't be afraid to mess with the environment of the combat as well. Maybe there's a combat in the rain on the side of a hill, and the whole field of combat is slippery. Losing your footing could lead to sliding way down the hill and then not being able to help your friends. Have a combat in an area of low light, or perhaps no light whatsoever. Have high winds that mess with arrows. Hell, have a combat in a collapsing building, where both sides are trying to kill the other while simultaneously trying to avoid being crushed by a collapsing building. And then, if they mostly fight human enemies, any monsters they fight will stick out and be a cool memory, as it will be a rare occurrence. Even something as common as a Kobold or a Goblin can be interesting when most fights in the world are between people.
Lastly, I will say to not get too caught up in world-building. Its a ton of fun, but I for one easily get carried away with world building. Build out what will be relevant to the plot, but don't go crazy and fill out your whole world. It may seem like a good idea, but every time I have done that, it has backfired and I ended up regretting it. Additionally, let your characters add things to the world with their backstory. Obviously, you have final say, but let them add locations to the world. Maybe even let them add organizations to an extent. This will also get them invested in their character, since they will feel like their character has already had an influence on the world in some way.
I hope at least some of this is helpful to you. I absolutely love D&D, I love DMing, and I'm always trying to improve my craft. Remember, you're all there to play together and have fun. Its not only about you telling a cool story in your cool world, and its also not only about the players having fun and being awesome. Everyone should be enjoying themselves. Communicate regularly with your party, ask what they liked about the session, and if there's anything they think you could improve. And then be willing to make an effort to improve. You want your players to feel comfortable giving you feedback. If they know you will listen to their concerns / complaints, they will be much more willing to meet you halfway on things you disagree over.
I'm a huge Lord of the Rings fan, so I hope your Tollkien style game works out! Best of luck with your first campaign!
Yes, people limit options all the time. New players may even appreciate limiting the options to say, just the PHB. More experienced players should be fine with it as long as you impress upon them that it's due to the world you're running and make it clear that the limitations are reflective of the story investment not some arbitrary limit.
People also do "low magic" games, folks who really like playing spell casters will probably not want to play with you, but "low magic" is a thing you can do if you shape your world accordingly (plus the healing thing, probably want to figure out how that will affect your game's pace).
Since your'e running a low combat game, interest I presume will be sustained in the combat by what's at stake. I think that's almost always a better investment than seeing what a PCs latest leveled up mods allow. "Why we fight" as opposed to "check out this cool thing." I don't see that as a problem either if you begin with a party on the same page as you.
Whatever style you're playing, it's always good to make sure everyone is on the same page at the outset.
People play at their best when they're invested in the game's story. I do pause a little at players involved with their characters. I think some DMs expect players to "perform" their characters well, and what makes good "performance" is a matter of taste. Just because you're not getting the violin swells in your heart by a player playing a character doesn't mean that player isn't any more involved in the game as the one chewing the scenery with monologues cribbed from your favorite books (because they know how to gain DM favor). That's where the "how am I doing / how are we doing" pause at ends of sessions helps. It takes a while for players to learn what to ask for from a DM, if anything is needed, and vice versa. I always tell players (regarding their backstories and foreseen arc) and DM (invested in their world building and story arcs) to not invest so much in the story as the process of playing the story. And that process is an evolution. The basics you're outlining sound good, next step is to see what happens.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I personally restrict the player's options, with an asterisk. For example, in a non-tech campaign, I'd disallow the use of the Artificer or Warforged. But if a player gave me a good backstory with an in-world lore explanation for their character, I'd allow them to use races, classes, and backgrounds that would normally be banned.
Later this year I'd like to start running a homebrew that I am working on. But it seems like everyone wants to play D&D UNLIMITED™ with access to all the races and all the classes all the time. My world is intended to be a bit more mundane, with a max of 6 or 7 races and some pretty strict limits on classes as well, including considerably less magic. So, closer to Tolkien than Forgotten Realms. I'd like my story to be character-driven, rather than focused on the Enemy of the Week, or trying to see how many different monsters I can introduce every session.
Has anyone had any luck running lower-magic or limited style campaigns? What is the best way to introduce players to a game with limited choices, should I have a handout or something?
What is the best way to get players more involved in their characters, beyond just Race, Class, Level, and outfits?
In a world with very few "monsters", what is a good way to keep combat interesting beyond just throwing ever-growing groups of bandits at them?
Thanks in advance for any advice!
This was a lot longer than I anticipated, so don't feel obligated to read the whole thing.
My main advice would be to have a session zero with your party and talk about what kind of game you all want to play. It is important to set the right expectations for the game with your party before you actually start playing. The easiest way for someone to get turned off of D&D is to come into a game thinking it will be one way and then finding out that it is something else entirely. This can be avoided by having a session zero and talking about what type of game your party wants to play and what type of game you want to DM. There's a youtube channel called Taking20 that I would definitely recommend checking out. He has a ton of helpful videos on session zeros, DM tips, and all sorts of stuff. If you decide do decide to do a session zero with your party, it will be important that you voice your desire to DM a campaign where magic is less common, and it is more character/roleplay driven than combat driven. Don't just tell them what you want, but listen to what they want as well. Try to find the middle ground with what you all want to do, and be willing to try new things.
I have dm'd consistently for about 6 years now, and most of my homebrewed campaigns have been pretty magic heavy. That being said, one of them, perhaps the most magic heavy of all, started on a continent that was completely unaware of magic's existence. Magic still worked there, obviously, but the vast majority of the public didn't know magic existed, or at least not to the extent that it existed elsewhere. It sounds like you want a low-magic setting, not necessarily a NO-magic setting. If you do want a no-magic setting, make sure your players are all okay with that before starting, and don't steamroll anyone into doing it, because that cuts out a lot of content in D&D. For a low-magic setting, however, you don't necessarily have to outlaw magic classes altogether. Make magic rare in your world. Even cantrips are rare. When someone comes into a town or a city and they can use magic, most people avoid them, because they don't have any idea who they are or what they can do, or what kind of person would use something as mysterious and dangerous as magic. "Its not natural, who in their right mind would indulge in something like that?!"
Talk to your players in session zero about magic's presence and significance in the world. If you make magic less common, I would think that would make it more significant, and if a Wizard shows up in a combat, everyone knows it. Lean into the mystery and rarity of magic.
I definitely can understand wanting to limit the race and class options. There are a LOT of source books out now, and some pretty broken and overpowered options and combinations out there. This can be overwhelming even to experienced dm's, so limiting classes and races for your first campaign is definitely a reasonable request. Taking your setting into account as well, I think it would be very reasonable to bring that up in a session zero and say "Hey y'all, I would really appreciate only using a select few races in this campaign, since the setting I want to use really only has these races." And then same deal with the classes. I would advise against limited class and race choices too much, since you don't want to take away the party's choices entirely, and there's some stuff that is just so dang cool. Again, talk to your players and ask them if they'd be willing to play with a selection of classes, or maybe even just one or two of the sourcebooks, rather than ALL of them.
If you're talking about limiting what they are allowed to do in the campaign, like railroading, there's a good use for railroading and a bad use for it.
The good use of railroading is making it very clear to your players where you would like them to go, where the plot is, or where the main storyline is headed. This is most easily done with an NPC that directly gives them their quest. A king, the leader of a syndicate, a wealthy noble, its very flexible. Have an NPC that clearly tells the party "Hey, I have an opportunity for you" and then tell them the hook. If you have to, you can even say out of game "this is the main plot guys". This is another thing that is made easier by having a session zero, since you can talk to your players about what type of campaign and plot they would be interested in, and you can try to tailor your game to interest them. That way, when you present a plot hook, its less likely that any players will brush it off out of disinterest. Granted, if they do that, they might have missed the point of D&D lol...
The bad use of railroading is taking away player agency, or rather, their ability to effect the plot and the world with their actions. If you simply don't let your players carry out a specific plan or course of action because its not the "right" one according to your plot, this is going to make the players feel like they have no choice in the game, and that they are just listening to you tell them a story.
I would say the best way to get your players more involved in their characters is by intentionally weaving their backstory into the world. Make it relevant to some degree. it doesn't have to be the main plot obviously, but bring in an NPC from a player's backstory. Maybe let the party travel to or through a location from their backstory. Encourage the players to give their characters a flaw of some kind. Characters are interesting when they're imperfect because they can grow. They can change, and they can learn from their mistakes. Encourage players to think about their actions in D&D through the lens of their character and why they're doing it. Whether its making an attack in combat, talking to an NPC trying to get information, talking to a noble, or simply traveling and talking to the other characters, encourage your players to intentionally take actions based on their character's motivation in that situation. Don't be afraid to take an action that may not be the most effective or most efficient one, but is the most accurate to the character. This is NOT an excuse for being a jerk and doing whatever you feel like and just saying "its what my character would do", but rather its meant to help you think through why your character is doing what they're doing, and to better understand your character as a result.
As for getting players to roleplay more, you have to lead the way as the DM. If your players aren't the best at roleplaying, that's okay. Make it a safe space to try it out and explore. Lead the way. Roleplay the NPC's. If you feel comfortable doing so, use some voices and accents. Make sure the party knows that its okay and safe to roleplay in this space, and that making fun of people for not being the best at it is absolutely not going to be tolerated.
As for keeping combat interesting without just throwing more and more bandits at them, my advice would be to make combat significant to the plot when you can. If they're fighting a group of bandits, maybe someone paid those bandits to ambush the party. Maybe the bandits are actually from one of the characters' backstory, and they've hunted them down for revenge for something. Make the enemies smart. Not meta-game smart, but smarter than the regular "run to the closest enemy and attack". Use flanking for the enemies. Have them surround the party and attack from all sides. Have multiple enemies focus a single target to take them down quicker. Give them interesting equipment, like traps, caltrops, or ball bearings. Give them interesting weapons, like a rope with a weight to sweep the legs and knock someone prone. Don't be afraid to mess with the environment of the combat as well. Maybe there's a combat in the rain on the side of a hill, and the whole field of combat is slippery. Losing your footing could lead to sliding way down the hill and then not being able to help your friends. Have a combat in an area of low light, or perhaps no light whatsoever. Have high winds that mess with arrows. Hell, have a combat in a collapsing building, where both sides are trying to kill the other while simultaneously trying to avoid being crushed by a collapsing building. And then, if they mostly fight human enemies, any monsters they fight will stick out and be a cool memory, as it will be a rare occurrence. Even something as common as a Kobold or a Goblin can be interesting when most fights in the world are between people.
Lastly, I will say to not get too caught up in world-building. Its a ton of fun, but I for one easily get carried away with world building. Build out what will be relevant to the plot, but don't go crazy and fill out your whole world. It may seem like a good idea, but every time I have done that, it has backfired and I ended up regretting it. Additionally, let your characters add things to the world with their backstory. Obviously, you have final say, but let them add locations to the world. Maybe even let them add organizations to an extent. This will also get them invested in their character, since they will feel like their character has already had an influence on the world in some way.
I hope at least some of this is helpful to you. I absolutely love D&D, I love DMing, and I'm always trying to improve my craft. Remember, you're all there to play together and have fun. Its not only about you telling a cool story in your cool world, and its also not only about the players having fun and being awesome. Everyone should be enjoying themselves. Communicate regularly with your party, ask what they liked about the session, and if there's anything they think you could improve. And then be willing to make an effort to improve. You want your players to feel comfortable giving you feedback. If they know you will listen to their concerns / complaints, they will be much more willing to meet you halfway on things you disagree over.
I'm a huge Lord of the Rings fan, so I hope your Tollkien style game works out! Best of luck with your first campaign!
Yes, people limit options all the time. New players may even appreciate limiting the options to say, just the PHB. More experienced players should be fine with it as long as you impress upon them that it's due to the world you're running and make it clear that the limitations are reflective of the story investment not some arbitrary limit.
People also do "low magic" games, folks who really like playing spell casters will probably not want to play with you, but "low magic" is a thing you can do if you shape your world accordingly (plus the healing thing, probably want to figure out how that will affect your game's pace).
Since your'e running a low combat game, interest I presume will be sustained in the combat by what's at stake. I think that's almost always a better investment than seeing what a PCs latest leveled up mods allow. "Why we fight" as opposed to "check out this cool thing." I don't see that as a problem either if you begin with a party on the same page as you.
Whatever style you're playing, it's always good to make sure everyone is on the same page at the outset.
People play at their best when they're invested in the game's story. I do pause a little at players involved with their characters. I think some DMs expect players to "perform" their characters well, and what makes good "performance" is a matter of taste. Just because you're not getting the violin swells in your heart by a player playing a character doesn't mean that player isn't any more involved in the game as the one chewing the scenery with monologues cribbed from your favorite books (because they know how to gain DM favor). That's where the "how am I doing / how are we doing" pause at ends of sessions helps. It takes a while for players to learn what to ask for from a DM, if anything is needed, and vice versa. I always tell players (regarding their backstories and foreseen arc) and DM (invested in their world building and story arcs) to not invest so much in the story as the process of playing the story. And that process is an evolution. The basics you're outlining sound good, next step is to see what happens.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I personally restrict the player's options, with an asterisk. For example, in a non-tech campaign, I'd disallow the use of the Artificer or Warforged. But if a player gave me a good backstory with an in-world lore explanation for their character, I'd allow them to use races, classes, and backgrounds that would normally be banned.