I'm fairly new DM who is just starting off with a homebrew I'd been working for a couple months on while in covid isolation. As its new grounds for me I've been looking for advice and tips, and I've quite enjoyed watching a bunch of Matt Colville videos on YouTube. Something he said however about the difference between the 'story' and the 'adventure' in one of his episodes struck a chord with me, and now I'm pretty worried I've been going about all of this the wrong way.
Basically he was saying that new DM's often get a great story in their mind, have a pretty good idea of who the big bad is, and what the adventurers will need to do to 'save the world'. Unfortunately, he explains, players only end up feeling like they get railroaded into the story that the DM wants to tell in these things, and they would have been better off just writing a book. His critisims were that players only have the illusion of choice, except for shallow things such as what spells they get to pick and what weapons they wield. I've only played one session of my campaign so far, and my players said they had a good time with what we've seen so far.. but I've definitely got a story in mind that I wanted to happen after they finish the first 'heist job' that we open with.
My questions to any experienced DMs are:
Have I already messed up in writing anything at all?
What is the difference between having a narrative in home-brew set-up you'd like to happen, Vs. people who run the official pre-published campaigns (which I was originally trying to emulate)
Do most DMs prepare nothing and improvise most of what they players say they want to do next? If so, what is my expectation if they don't know what they want to do?
I guess I'm mostly just confused with what it means to be a DM running a home brew after coming off the back of running LMoP from the starter kit.
This is something a lot of new DM's do, myself included. I wouldn't say you've screwed up your campaign, but you might want to dedicate some thought to how things might go differently from how you've planned. Where are there options for player choice, so your pre-written campaign doesn't go completely linearly.
It's good that you're realizing that now while you still have time to broaden the scope of your campaign. Odds are your players will still throw one or two curveballs at you you'll have to improvise through, but that's something all DM's deal with too.
Some of the pre-published adventures are a bit railroady, but on your points
Any time you write stuff up ahead of time, there's a significant risk that you'll need to modify or scrap it because the PCs did something unexpected. That doesn't mean it isn't a useful exercise to write things up (some things are more useful than others, you haven't said what you're writing up).
In general a narrative that describes what the NPCs are going to do is fine. You can also note what you expect PCs to do, but they need to be free to do.. something else.
There's a lot of variation how DMs prepare. My general method is that I have a broad-brush vision of the setting, the villains' plots, and where I think the PCs will go, and in a session the general in-game flow is "run the adventure for the session, introduce one or more plot hooks for things they might be able to do next, and at the end of the session ask the players their plans for next session", and between sessions I'll prep the adventure and plot hooks for the next session.
Have I already messed up in writing anything at all?
No, you're going to need to do a certain amount of writing anyways. You only end up with a problem if you approach writing and running a D&D campaign the same way you'd approach writing a novel.
What is the difference between having a narrative in home-brew set-up you'd like to happen, Vs. people who run the official pre-published campaigns (which I was originally trying to emulate)
Not much. A published adventure just does a lot of the heavy lifting for you. The players will go off the rails sooner or later and you'll need to improvise.
Do most DMs prepare nothing and improvise most of what they players say they want to do next? If so, what is my expectation if they don't know what they want to do?
You definitely want to do some prep work. The trick is not to prepare the whole adventure in advance; focus on what's likely to come up really soon. Think of it as predicting the weather - you have a good idea of what things will be like next week, a vague idea of what'll happen next month and anything further out is anyone's guess.
You can probably guide the story towards a certain final encounter but you really don't know how your players will get there. Some of your ideas might never materialize because of the choices the players made so don't waste time designing things that might not get used.
I haven't really watched Matt Coleville so I can't comment on what he did or didn't say. With that said, it's perfectly fine to have elements that are unaffected by player decisions, like who the Big Bad is, what goal they're working towards, and how best to stop them. The real trick is knowing when to plonk that information down and when to hold it back because your players hare having a blast doing X, Y, and Z. (also, speaking from personal experience, this will also give you time to refine your ideas to better fit the campaign, or maybe even replace it with something your players think of because you realized it's cooler than what you were previously planning...again, personal experience here)
I would echo the others you're not screwing up your campaign. I like to think in terms of open ended events or statements.
For me:
1. Done this and still do this now! However it comes in handy at another point in the future or I change it. I have also have flipped things mid game to suit an outcome that needed to happen but wouldn't have because the players did something else instead.
2. I've mainly only done homebrewed as I find it too constrictive running prepublished. I have to read ahead and usually improvise anyway. That said I do use prepublished encounters and scenarios to bolster my games.
3. My prep work is simular to Pantagruel666. There was some Dungeoncraft rules back in the early 2000's in Dragon magazine and this was one of them: Only create what you need to. I only prep what I need with a broad arc in the campaign (a goal, usually a one liner) because I don't know what my players might do, the campaign could go anywhere based on the players actions and intentions. For each session I usually plan it the weekend/night before looking back at what happened in the last sessions and what the arc of the campaign is. This has become a bit more involved since the lockdown as now I have to get it prep'ed in Roll20 as well as get my notes together. I only delve into more detail when it's needed because the players need it to be. It also can't be overstated how important Session 0 can be to help with campaign planning.
Explained like that, I think I understand a bit better, but my job has become a lot more daunting, haha.
For clarity on 'what I've done', everyone was given a hook on a reason they're breaking into the mansion of a noble (two are looking to steal an item of value, and three are on a rescue mission for an NPC). Our very first session was big on introductions and then planning the heist, and we finished shortly after they managed to find their way inside (which took WAY longer than I expected). I feel like I might have made the manor too big with 30 rooms and a couple puzzles to explore but thats a different problem (at our pace it could be a few sessions before we even get out of the building, oops?). Anyway, thats all been planned, and loot/NPC behavior has been written for that while I was in quarantine.
What isn't written is what happens once they're out of there. I had planned they would discover that their fence has been arrested, which would be the hook what I hope to be the second mission - a jailbreak. The incentive for my players would be to bust him out before hes interrogated and gives their names up as being the thieves. Fully understanding the players might say 'uh, no thanks' not wanting to risk it, is saying their fence was arrested too heavy-handed or rail-roady? (finding a reason the other three players who were on the unrelated NPC rescue are invested to help on this jailbreak is a puzzle too..)
I thought I knew what I was doing before, but now I'm doubting it!
Edit: everyones replies have been really helpful and reassuring, so thanks!
There's three possible problems with an event like that, none of which I see in your example of the fence getting arrested.
The first problem is when the event you bring in feels totally out of the blue and not something that makes sense for the setting as previously defined. That hardly seems like a problem in this case.
The second is when the event makes it seem like the PCs prior actions don't matter -- if they'd gone to a lot of effort to make sure he was safe from legal attention and he suddenly gets arrested anyway, they'd have reason to feel put out. Again, that doesn't seem like an issue here.
The third is when the event unduly limits the PCs scope of action. If there was really nothing they could do except plan a jailbreak, that would be grounds for annoyance. That's not true, though -- sure, they can plan a breakout, but they can also decide to disappear, kill him before he can talk, apply legal or political pressure to get him released, bribe someone, etc.
Note that, having established that they can leave the path if they want to, many players are perfectly happy to follow the established path.
Essentially what good DMing comes down to isn't necessarily avoiding railroading, but rather laying the rails in front of the train as it goes. You plan some content for a session or a handful of sessions, or an individual character arc, what have you, but you adjust your plans based off the actions of the characters, and give them the chance to change the world around them. Then, between sessions, you work on either adjusting your material to fit how plans have changed, or creating new material if they go in a completely different direction. The nice thing is, you generally have a whole week or two to do this depending on how often your group meets, so it's not as daunting as it sounds.
The most important thing you can do in advance is populate the world with quests and NPC's and plot, till you have enough that whatever the PC's try to do, you've got something prepared for them in that direction.
I think the easiest way to avoid railroading is to allow for multiple solutions to any problem. Its good to have a big bad, and know what their plans are and a rough timetable for them. But don't say, the players must meet him in his lair under the full moon while in possession of the artifact and stop the ritual or its the end of the world. Maybe the players find a way to cut things off earlier -- they destroy the lair, they block out the moon, whatever. You need to let them do it, make the bad guy adjust to their actions as they would adjust to his. And also, if they don't get involved at all and end up chasing shiny things all over creation, then go ahead and let the ritual go off. Then you can play the next campaign in the world of the aftermath of the big bad's plan. Not as a punishment, so much as a consequence. Agency isn't just about making choices, its also about dealing with the consequences.
And another trick, I find, is to have them make decisions about next steps at the end of the session. On the practical side, it cuts down on prep time since you know just what they are doing. And second, it really cuts down on the feeling they don't have a say. There's a bit of a contract in the game, where the players realize the DM prepared an adventure, so they don't want to go too far off the map. They will, anyway, but usually there's a bit of meta-knowledge that seeps in like, well, DM prepped this dungeon for us today, so I guess we'd better get to crawling. But if you have them make the decision at the end of the previous session: Do you want to go into the dungeon or just keep going? You avoid that meta-guilt. Now they decided where to go, and you only have to prepare for one contingency instead of two. (Of course, they'll change their mind on you, so really, you should just prep both options. Players are the worst.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm fairly new DM who is just starting off with a homebrew I'd been working for a couple months on while in covid isolation. As its new grounds for me I've been looking for advice and tips, and I've quite enjoyed watching a bunch of Matt Colville videos on YouTube. Something he said however about the difference between the 'story' and the 'adventure' in one of his episodes struck a chord with me, and now I'm pretty worried I've been going about all of this the wrong way.
Basically he was saying that new DM's often get a great story in their mind, have a pretty good idea of who the big bad is, and what the adventurers will need to do to 'save the world'. Unfortunately, he explains, players only end up feeling like they get railroaded into the story that the DM wants to tell in these things, and they would have been better off just writing a book. His critisims were that players only have the illusion of choice, except for shallow things such as what spells they get to pick and what weapons they wield. I've only played one session of my campaign so far, and my players said they had a good time with what we've seen so far.. but I've definitely got a story in mind that I wanted to happen after they finish the first 'heist job' that we open with.
My questions to any experienced DMs are:
I guess I'm mostly just confused with what it means to be a DM running a home brew after coming off the back of running LMoP from the starter kit.
This is something a lot of new DM's do, myself included. I wouldn't say you've screwed up your campaign, but you might want to dedicate some thought to how things might go differently from how you've planned. Where are there options for player choice, so your pre-written campaign doesn't go completely linearly.
It's good that you're realizing that now while you still have time to broaden the scope of your campaign. Odds are your players will still throw one or two curveballs at you you'll have to improvise through, but that's something all DM's deal with too.
Some of the pre-published adventures are a bit railroady, but on your points
No, you're going to need to do a certain amount of writing anyways. You only end up with a problem if you approach writing and running a D&D campaign the same way you'd approach writing a novel.
Not much. A published adventure just does a lot of the heavy lifting for you. The players will go off the rails sooner or later and you'll need to improvise.
You definitely want to do some prep work. The trick is not to prepare the whole adventure in advance; focus on what's likely to come up really soon. Think of it as predicting the weather - you have a good idea of what things will be like next week, a vague idea of what'll happen next month and anything further out is anyone's guess.
You can probably guide the story towards a certain final encounter but you really don't know how your players will get there. Some of your ideas might never materialize because of the choices the players made so don't waste time designing things that might not get used.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I haven't really watched Matt Coleville so I can't comment on what he did or didn't say. With that said, it's perfectly fine to have elements that are unaffected by player decisions, like who the Big Bad is, what goal they're working towards, and how best to stop them. The real trick is knowing when to plonk that information down and when to hold it back because your players hare having a blast doing X, Y, and Z. (also, speaking from personal experience, this will also give you time to refine your ideas to better fit the campaign, or maybe even replace it with something your players think of because you realized it's cooler than what you were previously planning...again, personal experience here)
I would echo the others you're not screwing up your campaign. I like to think in terms of open ended events or statements.
For me:
1. Done this and still do this now! However it comes in handy at another point in the future or I change it. I have also have flipped things mid game to suit an outcome that needed to happen but wouldn't have because the players did something else instead.
2. I've mainly only done homebrewed as I find it too constrictive running prepublished. I have to read ahead and usually improvise anyway. That said I do use prepublished encounters and scenarios to bolster my games.
3. My prep work is simular to Pantagruel666. There was some Dungeoncraft rules back in the early 2000's in Dragon magazine and this was one of them: Only create what you need to. I only prep what I need with a broad arc in the campaign (a goal, usually a one liner) because I don't know what my players might do, the campaign could go anywhere based on the players actions and intentions. For each session I usually plan it the weekend/night before looking back at what happened in the last sessions and what the arc of the campaign is. This has become a bit more involved since the lockdown as now I have to get it prep'ed in Roll20 as well as get my notes together. I only delve into more detail when it's needed because the players need it to be. It also can't be overstated how important Session 0 can be to help with campaign planning.
Explained like that, I think I understand a bit better, but my job has become a lot more daunting, haha.
For clarity on 'what I've done', everyone was given a hook on a reason they're breaking into the mansion of a noble (two are looking to steal an item of value, and three are on a rescue mission for an NPC). Our very first session was big on introductions and then planning the heist, and we finished shortly after they managed to find their way inside (which took WAY longer than I expected). I feel like I might have made the manor too big with 30 rooms and a couple puzzles to explore but thats a different problem (at our pace it could be a few sessions before we even get out of the building, oops?). Anyway, thats all been planned, and loot/NPC behavior has been written for that while I was in quarantine.
What isn't written is what happens once they're out of there. I had planned they would discover that their fence has been arrested, which would be the hook what I hope to be the second mission - a jailbreak. The incentive for my players would be to bust him out before hes interrogated and gives their names up as being the thieves. Fully understanding the players might say 'uh, no thanks' not wanting to risk it, is saying their fence was arrested too heavy-handed or rail-roady? (finding a reason the other three players who were on the unrelated NPC rescue are invested to help on this jailbreak is a puzzle too..)
I thought I knew what I was doing before, but now I'm doubting it!
Edit: everyones replies have been really helpful and reassuring, so thanks!
There's three possible problems with an event like that, none of which I see in your example of the fence getting arrested.
Note that, having established that they can leave the path if they want to, many players are perfectly happy to follow the established path.
Essentially what good DMing comes down to isn't necessarily avoiding railroading, but rather laying the rails in front of the train as it goes. You plan some content for a session or a handful of sessions, or an individual character arc, what have you, but you adjust your plans based off the actions of the characters, and give them the chance to change the world around them. Then, between sessions, you work on either adjusting your material to fit how plans have changed, or creating new material if they go in a completely different direction. The nice thing is, you generally have a whole week or two to do this depending on how often your group meets, so it's not as daunting as it sounds.
The most important thing you can do in advance is populate the world with quests and NPC's and plot, till you have enough that whatever the PC's try to do, you've got something prepared for them in that direction.
I think the easiest way to avoid railroading is to allow for multiple solutions to any problem. Its good to have a big bad, and know what their plans are and a rough timetable for them. But don't say, the players must meet him in his lair under the full moon while in possession of the artifact and stop the ritual or its the end of the world. Maybe the players find a way to cut things off earlier -- they destroy the lair, they block out the moon, whatever. You need to let them do it, make the bad guy adjust to their actions as they would adjust to his. And also, if they don't get involved at all and end up chasing shiny things all over creation, then go ahead and let the ritual go off. Then you can play the next campaign in the world of the aftermath of the big bad's plan. Not as a punishment, so much as a consequence. Agency isn't just about making choices, its also about dealing with the consequences.
And another trick, I find, is to have them make decisions about next steps at the end of the session. On the practical side, it cuts down on prep time since you know just what they are doing. And second, it really cuts down on the feeling they don't have a say. There's a bit of a contract in the game, where the players realize the DM prepared an adventure, so they don't want to go too far off the map. They will, anyway, but usually there's a bit of meta-knowledge that seeps in like, well, DM prepped this dungeon for us today, so I guess we'd better get to crawling. But if you have them make the decision at the end of the previous session: Do you want to go into the dungeon or just keep going? You avoid that meta-guilt. Now they decided where to go, and you only have to prepare for one contingency instead of two. (Of course, they'll change their mind on you, so really, you should just prep both options. Players are the worst.)