This is a thought I've been having for a while, and I've even promoted by another thread to discuss it but didn't want to derail it.
Which way round to hit? How much compromise should there be?
I have a two player party going Tales from the Yawning Portal. There is no way that they can reasona on be expected to survive without alteration - the dungeons are designed with 4-5 players in mind. Also, we're here to have fun. If the players think it would be more fun to run something in a certain way, perhaps a party of Hobbit Fighters, then surely we as DMs should try to accommodate that by making challenges that are not impossible for the party at hand?
On the other hand,you end then end up effectively making party roles, and therefore to an extent even classes redunandant. How useful is a Ranger really, if the challenges that he overcomes are only extant because he's present? Why would someone choose to be a healer, if they know that if there is no healer, the DM will shower the party with healing potions? Is he really bringing anything to the party by being a healer? In fact, it might make healing more problematic because they have to wait for the healer rather than just drinking their potions.
What are your thoughts? How far do you think a DM should go to accommodate party choices versus letting the consequences of their choice have an effect? I guess this even extends to things like fudging dice rolls, allowing modifications to the classes, spells etc, tailoring magic items to the party's needs and desires...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
In my estimation, encounter balance (and by extension the adventure/campaign that contains them) is done by design to fit a specified group capability. If the group does not meet that capability prior to the start of the encounter/adventure/campaign then the DM might consider re-balancing to meet the capability of their group.
The party should have enough information about the campaign or adventure to build PCs that they feel would be viable in the environment. Without spoiling the plot, obviously. I might suggest that this is where your compromise would exist. If they want to hinder their opportunities voluntarily, it might be advisable to ensure they understand the ramifications of their choice. Otherwise, the only change that I might entertain would be to re-balance combat to suit the number and level of PCs in the party.
I've run two campaigns now without a dedicated healer. First one ended in a TPK @ 7th level. Not because of lack of healing, but because of lack of expectation management. One of the party members thought that things would work out a lot better than they did. Second one is working just fine to 6th level, but only because everyone now understands that choices have meaning, because consequences happen if choices are made lightly. Party roles are not a requirement, unless you make it one. Roles aren't a requirement unless your party makes it one.
Player agency should prevail. Even in a TPK.
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
Add two more players to the party. Playing D&D with two players is not what I call a fun game as a DM. If not, you can add side kicks to the party and henchmen to balance out the encounter. The modules in Yawning Portal are meant to be played with a larger group. If you want to nerf the experience, then cut the CR to fit the two player party, but frankly I say add two more players to the party and it will be a better game for it.
How far do you think a DM should go to accommodate party choices versus letting the consequences of their choice have an effect? I guess this even extends to things like fudging dice rolls, allowing modifications to the classes, spells etc, tailoring magic items to the party's needs and desires...
As a DM, if there's something that my players don’t have any control over, then I'm willing to adapt the campaign a bit to help compensate for potential deficiencies. For example, if there’s only two players available to play in an adventure that clearly needs 4+ characters to be successful, then I’d probably add a couple NPCs and/or sidekicks to balance out that shortage.
However, if the potential issue is due to something that my players do have control over, then I’d expect them to live with the consequences of their decisions. If the group decides to play a party of only arcane spellcasters, then they’ll need to plan accordingly when they are lacking in other areas (such as healing and melee combat). I might provide such a group more opportunities to purchase healing potions but wouldn’t significantly increase the number of healing potions found in treasure hoards just because nobody wanted to have healing capabilities.
I certainly want my groups to have fun, but too many changes to accommodate their choices potentially takes away the impact/importance of their decisions.
How useful is a Ranger really, if the challenges that he overcomes are only extant because he's present? Why would someone choose to be a healer, if they know that if there is no healer, the DM will shower the party with healing potions? Is he really bringing anything to the party by being a healer?
The players won't know this. They'll just think, "Man, you guys are lucky I'm here to help you track this dragon down!" And as someone who loves to play a dedicated healer, if a DM made potions rare precisely because I was in the campaign, I'd feel special and important.
The DM is a master of smoke and mirrors, and the players hardly ever peek behind the curtain. They don't know what could have been, or should have been, unless they are told. D&D is by nature a collaborative game, which means that the DM should allow the players to have some influence over how the world manifests and responds to them. This isn't to say that a DM must cater to every little thing, but player choices (including class and background) have butterfly effects on the game world and what players think is engaging.
It doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. Some obstacles may be tailored for the given players to shine, while other obstacles may be insurmountable because they don't have the right resources. I try to design an adventure with a goal and given obstacles. Sometimes I will make an obstacle without really having an idea as to how they will get around it. You let your players do the heavy lifting there, and just have an alternate route ready if they roll poorly or just can't come up with a solution.
One solution to the "benevolent DM" problem is to write it right into the story. Maybe the party has a patron god or some other force of nature on its side. Increased potions or magical berry bushes or whatever could be the way they lend their support. Maybe it's not even necessarily an ally but just has an interest in seeing the PCs succeed.
The job of the DM is to ensure the game runs smoothly, is physically capable of being completed, and ensures that everyone is having fun. The DM has the most power of anyone at the table--they control the world, the encounters, and, if they know their party well enough, they have a good deal of control over the party members by setting situations and estimating the players' response to the stimulus.
That said, player agency also comes into play--if the players choose to make suboptimal decisions, they should receive suboptimal results, up to, and including, player death.
These balance of this dynamic--the DMs duty to make the game run smoothly while also allowing player agency--is different for each individual party. If you are a DM playing with a number of new players or a number of players who are just looking to have a silly, relatively safe campaign, you should be a lot more generous with the consequences of player actions than a DM playing with an experienced party who is completely willing to accept death or other consequences for their players' actions.
As for rendering classes irrelevant, that's not a great comparison. The DM should never provide 100% compensation for the party lacking certain aspects. Yes, maybe provide your group more healing potions if they don't have a healer--but don't give them so many healing potions that the party would be equal or better off than if they did have a healer. If your party chose not to utilize a healer, then the party is going to live with that choice and might need to spend resources to obtain healing potions and take more long rests to account for their lack of healing potions. Same goes for any other choice parties make when creating the campaign--you make it so the game is still possible, but "possible" does not mean "as easy as it might otherwise be."
Adventure modules are not meant to be run unmodified.
How you choose to modify them will go a long way towards defining your style as a DM.
Myself, I tend towards the idea that any attempt at a solution can yield a solution if the dice say so, but I don't roll to find out if the world is going to hand it out for free, because it just isn't. The dice I'm talking about are the players' dice, not mine. No healer? If the players are hurting for it, they'll probably look to buy potions, but they're only getting offered the normal amount. If they want more, great! Quick side quest to retrieve the magic potion seed guarded by the xorn or something.
I believe DM must adapt campaign to player characters composition, concept etc and players must adapt to DM's campaign world, rules etc
For party composition, it's entirely up to players to make any characters they want within the campaign rules established by the DM. The DM must then ensure they're up to the chllenge, either designing encounters that reasonably test their limit or modify published adventures accordingly to achieve the same goal.
Your main job as DM is to ensure that the players have fun. Adapt everything so that they do.
Yeah, I mean basically that's it. But I play with players who won't have fun if they feel they're being coddled. And I imagine many of us have players like that. They want to feel as though the challenge was either Left The Way It Was, or Altered To Make It Even Harder For Them Specifically, and then they overcame it anyway -- they'd lose all interest and trust if they felt that the challenge was Altered To Make It Easier. To the extent that they'd rather lose, even TPK, than have me pull my punches.
That's why I try to never offer a solution. In those instances where I have to or the game grinds to a halt, I try to suggest a version of the solution that sucks, so they can have the chance to fix it. Example: They need to grab something from inside a big tank of acid and nobody has Mage Hand or anything. Well, they could displace the acid with a large object like a tree trunk, but I wouldn't say that. Instead I'd suggest that if someone jumped in, they'd either get the object or they'd die thrashing in horrible pain and spill out a lot of the acid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is a thought I've been having for a while, and I've even promoted by another thread to discuss it but didn't want to derail it.
Which way round to hit? How much compromise should there be?
I have a two player party going Tales from the Yawning Portal. There is no way that they can reasona on be expected to survive without alteration - the dungeons are designed with 4-5 players in mind. Also, we're here to have fun. If the players think it would be more fun to run something in a certain way, perhaps a party of Hobbit Fighters, then surely we as DMs should try to accommodate that by making challenges that are not impossible for the party at hand?
On the other hand,you end then end up effectively making party roles, and therefore to an extent even classes redunandant. How useful is a Ranger really, if the challenges that he overcomes are only extant because he's present? Why would someone choose to be a healer, if they know that if there is no healer, the DM will shower the party with healing potions? Is he really bringing anything to the party by being a healer? In fact, it might make healing more problematic because they have to wait for the healer rather than just drinking their potions.
What are your thoughts? How far do you think a DM should go to accommodate party choices versus letting the consequences of their choice have an effect? I guess this even extends to things like fudging dice rolls, allowing modifications to the classes, spells etc, tailoring magic items to the party's needs and desires...
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
In my estimation, encounter balance (and by extension the adventure/campaign that contains them) is done by design to fit a specified group capability. If the group does not meet that capability prior to the start of the encounter/adventure/campaign then the DM might consider re-balancing to meet the capability of their group.
The party should have enough information about the campaign or adventure to build PCs that they feel would be viable in the environment. Without spoiling the plot, obviously. I might suggest that this is where your compromise would exist. If they want to hinder their opportunities voluntarily, it might be advisable to ensure they understand the ramifications of their choice. Otherwise, the only change that I might entertain would be to re-balance combat to suit the number and level of PCs in the party.
I've run two campaigns now without a dedicated healer. First one ended in a TPK @ 7th level. Not because of lack of healing, but because of lack of expectation management. One of the party members thought that things would work out a lot better than they did. Second one is working just fine to 6th level, but only because everyone now understands that choices have meaning, because consequences happen if choices are made lightly. Party roles are not a requirement, unless you make it one. Roles aren't a requirement unless your party makes it one.
Player agency should prevail. Even in a TPK.
“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
Add two more players to the party. Playing D&D with two players is not what I call a fun game as a DM. If not, you can add side kicks to the party and henchmen to balance out the encounter. The modules in Yawning Portal are meant to be played with a larger group. If you want to nerf the experience, then cut the CR to fit the two player party, but frankly I say add two more players to the party and it will be a better game for it.
As a DM, if there's something that my players don’t have any control over, then I'm willing to adapt the campaign a bit to help compensate for potential deficiencies. For example, if there’s only two players available to play in an adventure that clearly needs 4+ characters to be successful, then I’d probably add a couple NPCs and/or sidekicks to balance out that shortage.
However, if the potential issue is due to something that my players do have control over, then I’d expect them to live with the consequences of their decisions. If the group decides to play a party of only arcane spellcasters, then they’ll need to plan accordingly when they are lacking in other areas (such as healing and melee combat). I might provide such a group more opportunities to purchase healing potions but wouldn’t significantly increase the number of healing potions found in treasure hoards just because nobody wanted to have healing capabilities.
I certainly want my groups to have fun, but too many changes to accommodate their choices potentially takes away the impact/importance of their decisions.
The players won't know this. They'll just think, "Man, you guys are lucky I'm here to help you track this dragon down!" And as someone who loves to play a dedicated healer, if a DM made potions rare precisely because I was in the campaign, I'd feel special and important.
The DM is a master of smoke and mirrors, and the players hardly ever peek behind the curtain. They don't know what could have been, or should have been, unless they are told. D&D is by nature a collaborative game, which means that the DM should allow the players to have some influence over how the world manifests and responds to them. This isn't to say that a DM must cater to every little thing, but player choices (including class and background) have butterfly effects on the game world and what players think is engaging.
It doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. Some obstacles may be tailored for the given players to shine, while other obstacles may be insurmountable because they don't have the right resources. I try to design an adventure with a goal and given obstacles. Sometimes I will make an obstacle without really having an idea as to how they will get around it. You let your players do the heavy lifting there, and just have an alternate route ready if they roll poorly or just can't come up with a solution.
One solution to the "benevolent DM" problem is to write it right into the story. Maybe the party has a patron god or some other force of nature on its side. Increased potions or magical berry bushes or whatever could be the way they lend their support. Maybe it's not even necessarily an ally but just has an interest in seeing the PCs succeed.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The job of the DM is to ensure the game runs smoothly, is physically capable of being completed, and ensures that everyone is having fun. The DM has the most power of anyone at the table--they control the world, the encounters, and, if they know their party well enough, they have a good deal of control over the party members by setting situations and estimating the players' response to the stimulus.
That said, player agency also comes into play--if the players choose to make suboptimal decisions, they should receive suboptimal results, up to, and including, player death.
These balance of this dynamic--the DMs duty to make the game run smoothly while also allowing player agency--is different for each individual party. If you are a DM playing with a number of new players or a number of players who are just looking to have a silly, relatively safe campaign, you should be a lot more generous with the consequences of player actions than a DM playing with an experienced party who is completely willing to accept death or other consequences for their players' actions.
As for rendering classes irrelevant, that's not a great comparison. The DM should never provide 100% compensation for the party lacking certain aspects. Yes, maybe provide your group more healing potions if they don't have a healer--but don't give them so many healing potions that the party would be equal or better off than if they did have a healer. If your party chose not to utilize a healer, then the party is going to live with that choice and might need to spend resources to obtain healing potions and take more long rests to account for their lack of healing potions. Same goes for any other choice parties make when creating the campaign--you make it so the game is still possible, but "possible" does not mean "as easy as it might otherwise be."
Adventure modules are not meant to be run unmodified.
How you choose to modify them will go a long way towards defining your style as a DM.
Myself, I tend towards the idea that any attempt at a solution can yield a solution if the dice say so, but I don't roll to find out if the world is going to hand it out for free, because it just isn't. The dice I'm talking about are the players' dice, not mine. No healer? If the players are hurting for it, they'll probably look to buy potions, but they're only getting offered the normal amount. If they want more, great! Quick side quest to retrieve the magic potion seed guarded by the xorn or something.
I believe DM must adapt campaign to player characters composition, concept etc and players must adapt to DM's campaign world, rules etc
For party composition, it's entirely up to players to make any characters they want within the campaign rules established by the DM. The DM must then ensure they're up to the chllenge, either designing encounters that reasonably test their limit or modify published adventures accordingly to achieve the same goal.
Your main job as DM is to ensure that the players have fun. Adapt everything so that they do.
Yeah, I mean basically that's it. But I play with players who won't have fun if they feel they're being coddled. And I imagine many of us have players like that. They want to feel as though the challenge was either Left The Way It Was, or Altered To Make It Even Harder For Them Specifically, and then they overcame it anyway -- they'd lose all interest and trust if they felt that the challenge was Altered To Make It Easier. To the extent that they'd rather lose, even TPK, than have me pull my punches.
That's why I try to never offer a solution. In those instances where I have to or the game grinds to a halt, I try to suggest a version of the solution that sucks, so they can have the chance to fix it. Example: They need to grab something from inside a big tank of acid and nobody has Mage Hand or anything. Well, they could displace the acid with a large object like a tree trunk, but I wouldn't say that. Instead I'd suggest that if someone jumped in, they'd either get the object or they'd die thrashing in horrible pain and spill out a lot of the acid.