So when building a new party, how much planning do people generally allow their players to have? Like is it better to have your players build their characters (stats, race, class, the whole nine yards) as individuals or let the players pre plan their team comp so they have a nice split of front line, range, magic, support, and healing?
Been thinking of trying out my next game with the players not knowing what the rest of the party is going to be. They get to pick their race, class, etc... and then are stuck with it. I figure it's a good way keep the players from building hyper specialized characters who excel at a small handful of things, and "just so happen" to find a group of strangers/friends who cover any and every weakness. I suppose another possible answer is to have an extra small group, so that they can't really cover every base. I can't tell if i'm doing that whole "DM vs. Their players" thing, or if it's a common issue to be really sick of the party who's a swiss army knife of answers to every problem you throw at them.
Generally, you want players to have those solutions. The more varied the characters, the more tools they have, the more they'll get to feel the impact of the special moments when they do their thing. Your game is for the players. Your role as DM is purely, and only, to ensure the players enjoy playing the game. There is literally no other good reason to make a D&D game.
First up, most players will have an idea of the type of character that they would want to play. If they've no idea at all, then I will explain the general theme around character classes.
After that, the party is usually formed. However, once you know what everyone wants to play, if you think there's a problem then it's a good idea to talk to the players as a group if you see an issue. Any group dynamic can work; there's no requirement to have a healer, or a tank, or a blaster, but if everyone in the group has chosen to play a melee character (let's say you have two barbarians, a strength based fighter and a monk) then this will really limit the type of encounters that they can handle. What do they do against a dragon that just stays in the sky and breathes fire at them? Every encounter becomes a pure "charge into the enemy and start rolling" and without spells I find games are a bit limited.
If the party lacks diversity I'll suggest what I foresee as being a problem and ask them if they're ok with the challenge.
"If you can't brute strength your way through something, you're going to be kind of stuck"
"You realise your problem solving is all going to come down to smashing things?"
"it's cool you're all wizards and sorcerers, but you are going to get pummelled a lot - are you ok with getting knocked unconscious all the time?"
If they're fine with it, then no problem, let's roll with an unusual campaign!
Generally, I think that the best games will happen where you have a range of class abilities available. My current players are Wild Magic Barbarian 7/Wild Magic Sorcerer 1, Tempest cleric 8, Rogue 5/Fighter 3, and Blood Hunter 8 (crossbow expert). Their damage output is outrageous, but some encounters prove really challenging - in particular they struggle against magic users. The party are really feeling the lack of an arcane spellcaster now; the Blood Hunter is going to start taking levels in Wizard and he's found a looted enemy spellbook and a mentor during level 8 so it will make sense at 9.
Funny you should ask. I was just going on about that. I let the players decide as a group. I tell them which books I have shared, I give them a brief description of the tone, tenor, and play-style I hope to see, any homebrew I'm going to use as rules (I'm not talking about homebrew items), and that's pretty much it. In my public DM's notes, I'll give a little more information about why I am doing what I do, a bit more about the campaign setting, that sort of thing.
I generally inform players of the current or proposed party composition and specifically recruit for other players (if the party is small) who might want to roll up a character that fills in a gap. Honestly, I do this because it's less work on my end to have to adjust combat and puzzle encounters for an all-melee/all-caster/etc. party. Plus, I like seeing class diversity in long-running campaigns.
I've played in groups before where the other guys want to hyper-optimise the party, ticking off the classic group of damage dealer, healer, tank, ranged spellcaster to make sure they are ready for all situations, and for me I didn't really enjoy the tactical nature that this then brought on in every single fight, but they loved it. The group I'm running now though, I just said to the guys create whatever class you think would be fun, but lets try not to duplicate another party member, so it's a mixed bag, and by no means an optimal party, but as DM i'm taking that into consideration for the encounters I run.
I've just introduced a new player to the group and his first question was "what gap in the party should I fill?", he was actually one of the guys from the previous really tactical games we played. I told him to just create a character of the fighting style or RP style that he will find fun to play.
Basically, I think it depends on how your players want to play the game, I'm a fan of the "bunch of chuckle f**ks" party, where as some of my other mates much prefer the pre planning and cohesive group.
In my games, I don't build the party, the players do. I'm not particular about what party composition they have. If they all show up with pure melee characters that's on them. I don't forbid them from collaborating, nor do I require it. I don't get overly concerned about this topic. I see it as part of the DMs role to adjust challenges and obstacles to be solvable for the party. If you intentionally build something that "has to be solved in this particular way", you may as well write a book. The players don't have a choice at that point, and it does become DM v Player. To be blunt - finding solutions are literally what the players' are supposed to do.
I suppose another possible answer is to have an extra small group, so that they can't really cover every base. I can't tell if i'm doing that whole "DM vs. Their players" thing, or if it's a common issue to be really sick of the party who's a swiss army knife of answers to every problem you throw at them.
If you're sick of your gaming group figuring out your challenges the only suggestions I would give you are - attack their strengths, give them unbalanced encounters, and lastly take some time off from the DM screen. Be a player for a bit. The quoted snippet leads me to believe that you aren't having fun, and may indicate a needed a break.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
People have a great time in D&D when they each get their turn in the spotlight, and get to play a role that they feel that they excel at.
It's not much fun being the second strongest strongman, or the third most stealthy rogue.
When my players have to do something stealthy, scouting ahead or going in for an assassination, then the Rogue does it. How much fun are those moments when in fact there are 3 Rogues, and one has Dex 20, one has Dex18, and one has Dex17. The Dex 20 Rogue will always be the best choice to undertake those moments.
When they need to lift that massive stone door, the Barbarian is the one who is going to do it. When they need to check to see if someone knows about the distant past, the Arcana check probably goes to the Wizard. When the cleric leads the party to the next location by casting divination she gets to feel awesome. When the AC26 Eldritch Knight defies the BBEG and tanks blows that would have taken down the rest of the group long ago, he feels like a boss.
A diverse party gives those moments to the characters. If everyone's a Champion Fighter, nobody gets a special moment.
I see it as part of the DMs role to adjust challenges and obstacles to be solvable for the party. If you intentionally build something that "has to be solved in this particular way", you may as well write a book.
This is what I aim for, albeit I'm new and still learning, but I personally think that the players should create what they individually want to play and not just create something to fill a gap where they might not enjoy it.
Regarding the puzzles, if they don't have a specialisation in a certain area, then it could always be fun to make that an easy way to solve the problem, like a carrot dangled in their face they can't get, but then have their other abilities be a bit more obscure but solvable.
For my campaign, I let the players create their characters on their own without too much input from the group. The game started after they were shipwrecked on an island so my take was these people are complete strangers (With fantastical abilities) so having the players build their characters as a group did not seem...right?? I don't know there is a word I'm looking for that fails me right now. In the backup campaign, I also run the players did the same created their characters on their own where there was the surprise come game time what race and class will make up the new party.
I guess I just like that element of surprise for everyone. It's how in the first campaign I have a Ranger, Monk, Warlock, Mage, and Rogue and the second is Fighter, Fighter, Bard, Monk, and Cleric. The other point of view is with this surprise the players have to think more strategically in approaching situations like skill checks and combat because it is not the perfect party build and characters are not tapped for specific jobs right from the get-go.
I see it as part of the DMs role to adjust challenges and obstacles to be solvable for the party. If you intentionally build something that "has to be solved in this particular way", you may as well write a book.
This is what I aim for, albeit I'm new and still learning, but I personally think that the players should create what they individually want to play and not just create something to fill a gap where they might not enjoy it.
Regarding the puzzles, if they don't have a specialisation in a certain area, then it could always be fun to make that an easy way to solve the problem, like a carrot dangled in their face they can't get, but then have their other abilities be a bit more obscure but solvable.
In my last session, the players used a Teleportation Circle, going to an underground location with little idea what they'd find there. What they found was a small room, a massive stone door that had to be lifted, and no other way out.
The Barbarian tried to lift it, rolled badly, and didn't make the DC22 Athletics check (with advantage, being helped) he needed. I rule that when the group may all want a turn at something, the first player rolls and then that roll stands for every subsequent attempt - unless something changes the scenario.
So the Barbarian, who has a level in Sorcerer, casts mold earth to try to give himself handholds a little higher up. I rule that he makes enough of an indent to get a slightly better grip ("shaping patterns") and allow another Athletics check. With advantage. He fails again.
The dwarf cleric has mason's tools. He adds ten minutes of work to keep doing it - and it's yet another failure. My players can't roll for toffee.
So the rogue then says "What about that keg of gunpowder in the Bag of Holding?" But they're trapped in a 15ft x 15ft room. "Yeah," says the rogue, "But why don't we lay a trail, run to the back of the room and I'll activate the Cube of Force."
A difficult situation to escape from, no clear way out really planned, but some ingenuity and clever solutions by the players and eventually they got out.
Later, they see Taathgenaaz, a semi-cyborg green dragon flying overhead, hunting them. They've already had some encounters and don't want to face him. So I give them all an opportunity to hide.
The Barbarian again uses Mold Earth to try to hide under desert sand, makes a Stealth check at advantage and he's hidden.
The Bloodhunter uses Minor Illusion to create a boulder around himself, and drops prone beneath it.
The Druid turns into a beetle and runs into a crack in a rock, impossible to see from the sky
The Cleric presses up against a rock and just prays... fails his stealth check.
The Rogue tries to hide in a crevice... and massively fails his stealth check. The dragon sees a glint of something, and starts coming down
The Rogue throws his last bead from a necklace of fireballs 120ft away to create a fireball, then legs it to better cover. He makes a second stealth check and makes it.
The Bloodhunter drops his spell, flings himself on top of the cleric and casts Minor Illusion again.
Success - the party all make it into hiding and Taathgenaaz investigates around the fireball area a while before moving on.
So when building a new party, how much planning do people generally allow their players to have? Like is it better to have your players build their characters (stats, race, class, the whole nine yards) as individuals or let the players pre plan their team comp so they have a nice split of front line, range, magic, support, and healing?
Been thinking of trying out my next game with the players not knowing what the rest of the party is going to be. They get to pick their race, class, etc... and then are stuck with it. I figure it's a good way keep the players from building hyper specialized characters who excel at a small handful of things, and "just so happen" to find a group of strangers/friends who cover any and every weakness. I suppose another possible answer is to have an extra small group, so that they can't really cover every base. I can't tell if i'm doing that whole "DM vs. Their players" thing, or if it's a common issue to be really sick of the party who's a swiss army knife of answers to every problem you throw at them.
Generally, you want players to have those solutions. The more varied the characters, the more tools they have, the more they'll get to feel the impact of the special moments when they do their thing. Your game is for the players. Your role as DM is purely, and only, to ensure the players enjoy playing the game. There is literally no other good reason to make a D&D game.
First up, most players will have an idea of the type of character that they would want to play. If they've no idea at all, then I will explain the general theme around character classes.
After that, the party is usually formed. However, once you know what everyone wants to play, if you think there's a problem then it's a good idea to talk to the players as a group if you see an issue. Any group dynamic can work; there's no requirement to have a healer, or a tank, or a blaster, but if everyone in the group has chosen to play a melee character (let's say you have two barbarians, a strength based fighter and a monk) then this will really limit the type of encounters that they can handle. What do they do against a dragon that just stays in the sky and breathes fire at them? Every encounter becomes a pure "charge into the enemy and start rolling" and without spells I find games are a bit limited.
If they're fine with it, then no problem, let's roll with an unusual campaign!
Generally, I think that the best games will happen where you have a range of class abilities available. My current players are Wild Magic Barbarian 7/Wild Magic Sorcerer 1, Tempest cleric 8, Rogue 5/Fighter 3, and Blood Hunter 8 (crossbow expert). Their damage output is outrageous, but some encounters prove really challenging - in particular they struggle against magic users. The party are really feeling the lack of an arcane spellcaster now; the Blood Hunter is going to start taking levels in Wizard and he's found a looted enemy spellbook and a mentor during level 8 so it will make sense at 9.
Funny you should ask. I was just going on about that. I let the players decide as a group. I tell them which books I have shared, I give them a brief description of the tone, tenor, and play-style I hope to see, any homebrew I'm going to use as rules (I'm not talking about homebrew items), and that's pretty much it. In my public DM's notes, I'll give a little more information about why I am doing what I do, a bit more about the campaign setting, that sort of thing.
<Insert clever signature here>
I generally inform players of the current or proposed party composition and specifically recruit for other players (if the party is small) who might want to roll up a character that fills in a gap. Honestly, I do this because it's less work on my end to have to adjust combat and puzzle encounters for an all-melee/all-caster/etc. party. Plus, I like seeing class diversity in long-running campaigns.
I've played in groups before where the other guys want to hyper-optimise the party, ticking off the classic group of damage dealer, healer, tank, ranged spellcaster to make sure they are ready for all situations, and for me I didn't really enjoy the tactical nature that this then brought on in every single fight, but they loved it. The group I'm running now though, I just said to the guys create whatever class you think would be fun, but lets try not to duplicate another party member, so it's a mixed bag, and by no means an optimal party, but as DM i'm taking that into consideration for the encounters I run.
I've just introduced a new player to the group and his first question was "what gap in the party should I fill?", he was actually one of the guys from the previous really tactical games we played. I told him to just create a character of the fighting style or RP style that he will find fun to play.
Basically, I think it depends on how your players want to play the game, I'm a fan of the "bunch of chuckle f**ks" party, where as some of my other mates much prefer the pre planning and cohesive group.
In my games, I don't build the party, the players do. I'm not particular about what party composition they have. If they all show up with pure melee characters that's on them. I don't forbid them from collaborating, nor do I require it. I don't get overly concerned about this topic. I see it as part of the DMs role to adjust challenges and obstacles to be solvable for the party. If you intentionally build something that "has to be solved in this particular way", you may as well write a book. The players don't have a choice at that point, and it does become DM v Player. To be blunt - finding solutions are literally what the players' are supposed to do.
If you're sick of your gaming group figuring out your challenges the only suggestions I would give you are - attack their strengths, give them unbalanced encounters, and lastly take some time off from the DM screen. Be a player for a bit. The quoted snippet leads me to believe that you aren't having fun, and may indicate a needed a break.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
One thing to be aware of:
People have a great time in D&D when they each get their turn in the spotlight, and get to play a role that they feel that they excel at.
It's not much fun being the second strongest strongman, or the third most stealthy rogue.
When my players have to do something stealthy, scouting ahead or going in for an assassination, then the Rogue does it. How much fun are those moments when in fact there are 3 Rogues, and one has Dex 20, one has Dex18, and one has Dex17. The Dex 20 Rogue will always be the best choice to undertake those moments.
When they need to lift that massive stone door, the Barbarian is the one who is going to do it. When they need to check to see if someone knows about the distant past, the Arcana check probably goes to the Wizard. When the cleric leads the party to the next location by casting divination she gets to feel awesome. When the AC26 Eldritch Knight defies the BBEG and tanks blows that would have taken down the rest of the group long ago, he feels like a boss.
A diverse party gives those moments to the characters. If everyone's a Champion Fighter, nobody gets a special moment.
This is what I aim for, albeit I'm new and still learning, but I personally think that the players should create what they individually want to play and not just create something to fill a gap where they might not enjoy it.
Regarding the puzzles, if they don't have a specialisation in a certain area, then it could always be fun to make that an easy way to solve the problem, like a carrot dangled in their face they can't get, but then have their other abilities be a bit more obscure but solvable.
For my campaign, I let the players create their characters on their own without too much input from the group. The game started after they were shipwrecked on an island so my take was these people are complete strangers (With fantastical abilities) so having the players build their characters as a group did not seem...right?? I don't know there is a word I'm looking for that fails me right now. In the backup campaign, I also run the players did the same created their characters on their own where there was the surprise come game time what race and class will make up the new party.
I guess I just like that element of surprise for everyone. It's how in the first campaign I have a Ranger, Monk, Warlock, Mage, and Rogue and the second is Fighter, Fighter, Bard, Monk, and Cleric. The other point of view is with this surprise the players have to think more strategically in approaching situations like skill checks and combat because it is not the perfect party build and characters are not tapped for specific jobs right from the get-go.
In my last session, the players used a Teleportation Circle, going to an underground location with little idea what they'd find there. What they found was a small room, a massive stone door that had to be lifted, and no other way out.
A difficult situation to escape from, no clear way out really planned, but some ingenuity and clever solutions by the players and eventually they got out.
Later, they see Taathgenaaz, a semi-cyborg green dragon flying overhead, hunting them. They've already had some encounters and don't want to face him. So I give them all an opportunity to hide.