I have been DMing for a year now, and it has always been with the same group. We meet up as a group about once a month. We are all pretty close friends, but I have known one of my players for many years and we often have a couple solo-sessions each week. However, in the group and with the solo-sessions, the highest level we have attained is level 4. The reason for this is that we rarely ever stick to the same setting and characters. It is mostly my fault and the fault of the player I do the solo-sessions with, because we both scrap characters and campaign ideas almost weekly.
Usually the way this goes is that we either have new campaign or character ideas we want to try, or we have very different ideas about how the current setting/campaign should be moving forward. For instance, I made a setting where magic was outlawed because it was seen as heresy. I told my friend about this, and he decided to create a paladin anyway. He proceeded to cast spells and thought that all the NPCs were too close minded. He then basically declared war on the capital and anti-magic people. He was kind of displeased when he was not able to defeat everyone and take over the city. Anyway, in short the idea was a fail since we obviously had differing ideas.
A time when it was completely my fault was a short while ago when I scrapped a perfectly good setting when I felt that it became too convoluted. We did a solo-campaign in the group setting as normal, and this time he played a pure Neutral Paladin. He basically took over a town and established himself there and created an army that could potentially oppose the group's army. He felt like this was "world building." However, the world felt convoluted and weird, and I already had an idea for another setting I wanted to try.
Basically, I need to stop him from creating character ideas and I need to stop creating ideas. Whenever we go to the group, the group seems somewhat dismayed that they have to lose all the progress and break ties with the NPCs from the previous setting. I do not want my campaigns to revolve around his character either, I do not think that the group should suffer from our constant shifting of ideas. Plus, we both get somewhat frustrated when we spend time on a setting/character just to have another person scrap everything we worked on. I know this thread is somewhat convoluted itself, but is there any advice on sticking to a setting and characters and making it so everyone's ideas are equally represented in the plot/setting?
One - you are having some conversation before a new campaign starts about expectations, but its sounds like you need to do more. When you told the player magic was outlawed and he made a paladin anyway, things went sideways quickly - even though you talked, it sounds like neither of you understood what the other was about to do next. Have some back and forth with the players, make sure everyone is really on the same page before you allow the game to start.
Two - If you are doing multiple solo sessions with one player in particular, but that play take place in the same game world the rest of the players are playing in, that one player is going to have way more influence and impact than the rest of the group - because they get far more spotlight. You could run two games for the solo player - only let them have as much time in the main campaign as the group of players gets, and spend your other sessions with the player in a totally independent game.
Three - Don't give up too early! So the Paladin did some unexpected stuff that didn't fit your idea, you scrapped the campaign and the other plays were not happy. It sounds like that time you were the only one not having a good time. Is there any way for you to rescue your good time without sacrificing everyone else's? I have more questions about this one - I mean, it was just you and another player and you ended up feeling your world had become "weird" and "convoluted" - what happened? Players pull all kinds of crazy stuff, but the DM is there to enforce reasonable reactions from the environment - are you doing that or just letting the player have their own way all the time? As a player, its way more fun to have to deal with the consequences of my stupid ideas than it is to just have them work out and then have my DM end the game because he didn't like it.
Not sure how to guide you much beyond that - have some self control and don't kill a campaign everyone is enjoying just because you have a new idea. Write it down and save it for later. Maybe take some time off from DMing and see if one of the players wants to give it a go. And try to be open to things playing out differently that YOU would like - you may be surprised to find out the way you didn't plan is actually better.
Definitely agree on the interactions with the Solo player. Move that to its own campaign. Don't mix the streams...
For creating the world and a party that everyone gets to play in... it sounds like you need to have everyone together and agree on what you are going to play. And make a commitment on how long you are going to play it. Having played in some long campaigns (over 9 years in a near-weekly group), there is a lot that can happen (both good and bad) in the lifespan of a campaign. If you have ideas, find ways to make them work with where you are going. If you want to do one-shots... find a different avenue for that... your players are definitely telling you that is not the experience they are looking for week after week.
If your own ideas keep derailing you... invest in a module and see it out... write creative stuff on the side, but follow the module to completion (the good and the bad of it). See where the group is. If they want to keep going, either give them one idea or find another module. The main thing is to decide as a group...
Thanks, this was pretty helpful. Yeah, I know I need to let stuff go. To be honest I can kind of be more of a novel writer than a DM.
One - However, some of the problems I have encountered is that whenever I do make a new setting/campaign idea, I usually only discuss it with the one player. He usually texts me a new character idea, and says that he wants to do something for that one character. I then attempt to create a new idea for that character. We both know a ton of veteran D&D players, and one of them recommended only making three characters and switching those out, but at this point he has a binder full of character sheets. I do want to curb that. Otherwise yes, I do think every one does need to be on the same page about everything.
Two - Yeah, I totally agree. To be honest looking back on it, some of the main problems is that his character advances most of the plot or does something to conflict with the main group. I think making two separate settings would help. That was the main thing I meant by "convoluted." I did not know how deal with a scenario where he would potentially be controlling two conflicting characters. I kind of disliked that, b/c I felt ultimately he would be choosing b/w the two characters.
Three - On this one, he just really hated the situation he was in and all the NPCs in the end. He basically gave up after being stuck in a prison. But, yeah, I should have come up with other ideas in order to get him out of the hole and kept the game going at the next session. I just felt bad in this one since he did seem to be really enjoying the game.
I guess after some introspection, I should just create two settings and keep them completely separate from one another. Should probably communicate with the players more before the game as well.
I see a campaign as collective story telling, a collaborative creation. The DM may be the one who comes up with the setting but it is the players actions that change the game. When the DM is rigid or won't adapt events to suit the characters, then players lose interest in the game every quickly. That is why character backgrounds as so important imho. I always try and create events, side treks and adventures based around these. If I'm using a published adventure, I change it to incorporate character hooks within it.
One campaign I created decades a go, first I presented the players with the whole lot of campaign choices - High, Mid or Low Magic? A Swashbuckling, Horror, Planar or Tradition Campaign? etc. Then I created the settlement and first adventure. I presented it to the players and then asked them to create characters based on the campaign and had them create background stories, running both past me first. Some classes and ideas I told them wouldn't work so I helped them either pick another or adapt it to the campaign. Party balance is HUGE, no one player should be more powerful or more important than another. The campaign ended up lasting for almost a decade because it was all about the characters and players so they loved it. As soon as they start to feel obsolete to the story, players write themselves out.
Good luck and make sure you and your players are doing the most important thing while playing D&D - having fun.
Two games, double the fun! You can even steal the coolest stuff that happens in one and use it in the other.
Keeps the other players feeling like a third wheel too :). I'm not sure you could use the events that happen in one and play it in the other if the same players plays in both though. It would give them an advantage again. I once played a solo campaign with a friend with him playing an evil assassin - something that usually is too difficult to incorporate into a normal cohesive group. It was a nice change. Perhaps creating two very distinctive campaign will work better or, better yet, have your friend DM the solo game
If it was me DMing for a single player, I would give him exactly what he wants in a separate world. (You already change settings regularly.)
What's wrong with letting his paladin take over an alternative world Waterdeep? Let the guy blow off steam when it's not hurting anyone else. You never know, you might have fun yourself! If there is only one player at the table, then he absolutely should be the centre of attention, and nearly as absolutely the most important person in the world (eventually.)
Create a sidekick character for you to play when the swords are drawn and the (illegal) spells start flying. Be the Fafhrd to his Grey Mouser, Moonglum to his Elric, Caramon to his Raistlin, Murtaugh to Riggs. Billy Rosewood or Taggart, James "Rhodey" Rhodes, Hawkeye, Robin, Granville, or Fozzy Bear....
Give him what he wants now, and hopefully he will support your ideas when the group gets together...
I have been DMing for a year now, and it has always been with the same group. We meet up as a group about once a month. We are all pretty close friends, but I have known one of my players for many years and we often have a couple solo-sessions each week. However, in the group and with the solo-sessions, the highest level we have attained is level 4. The reason for this is that we rarely ever stick to the same setting and characters. It is mostly my fault and the fault of the player I do the solo-sessions with, because we both scrap characters and campaign ideas almost weekly.
Usually the way this goes is that we either have new campaign or character ideas we want to try, or we have very different ideas about how the current setting/campaign should be moving forward. For instance, I made a setting where magic was outlawed because it was seen as heresy. I told my friend about this, and he decided to create a paladin anyway. He proceeded to cast spells and thought that all the NPCs were too close minded. He then basically declared war on the capital and anti-magic people. He was kind of displeased when he was not able to defeat everyone and take over the city. Anyway, in short the idea was a fail since we obviously had differing ideas.
A time when it was completely my fault was a short while ago when I scrapped a perfectly good setting when I felt that it became too convoluted. We did a solo-campaign in the group setting as normal, and this time he played a pure Neutral Paladin. He basically took over a town and established himself there and created an army that could potentially oppose the group's army. He felt like this was "world building." However, the world felt convoluted and weird, and I already had an idea for another setting I wanted to try.
Basically, I need to stop him from creating character ideas and I need to stop creating ideas. Whenever we go to the group, the group seems somewhat dismayed that they have to lose all the progress and break ties with the NPCs from the previous setting. I do not want my campaigns to revolve around his character either, I do not think that the group should suffer from our constant shifting of ideas. Plus, we both get somewhat frustrated when we spend time on a setting/character just to have another person scrap everything we worked on. I know this thread is somewhat convoluted itself, but is there any advice on sticking to a setting and characters and making it so everyone's ideas are equally represented in the plot/setting?
There are three things I notice here -
One - you are having some conversation before a new campaign starts about expectations, but its sounds like you need to do more. When you told the player magic was outlawed and he made a paladin anyway, things went sideways quickly - even though you talked, it sounds like neither of you understood what the other was about to do next. Have some back and forth with the players, make sure everyone is really on the same page before you allow the game to start.
Two - If you are doing multiple solo sessions with one player in particular, but that play take place in the same game world the rest of the players are playing in, that one player is going to have way more influence and impact than the rest of the group - because they get far more spotlight. You could run two games for the solo player - only let them have as much time in the main campaign as the group of players gets, and spend your other sessions with the player in a totally independent game.
Three - Don't give up too early! So the Paladin did some unexpected stuff that didn't fit your idea, you scrapped the campaign and the other plays were not happy. It sounds like that time you were the only one not having a good time. Is there any way for you to rescue your good time without sacrificing everyone else's? I have more questions about this one - I mean, it was just you and another player and you ended up feeling your world had become "weird" and "convoluted" - what happened? Players pull all kinds of crazy stuff, but the DM is there to enforce reasonable reactions from the environment - are you doing that or just letting the player have their own way all the time? As a player, its way more fun to have to deal with the consequences of my stupid ideas than it is to just have them work out and then have my DM end the game because he didn't like it.
Not sure how to guide you much beyond that - have some self control and don't kill a campaign everyone is enjoying just because you have a new idea. Write it down and save it for later. Maybe take some time off from DMing and see if one of the players wants to give it a go. And try to be open to things playing out differently that YOU would like - you may be surprised to find out the way you didn't plan is actually better.
Definitely agree on the interactions with the Solo player. Move that to its own campaign. Don't mix the streams...
For creating the world and a party that everyone gets to play in... it sounds like you need to have everyone together and agree on what you are going to play. And make a commitment on how long you are going to play it. Having played in some long campaigns (over 9 years in a near-weekly group), there is a lot that can happen (both good and bad) in the lifespan of a campaign. If you have ideas, find ways to make them work with where you are going. If you want to do one-shots... find a different avenue for that... your players are definitely telling you that is not the experience they are looking for week after week.
If your own ideas keep derailing you... invest in a module and see it out... write creative stuff on the side, but follow the module to completion (the good and the bad of it). See where the group is. If they want to keep going, either give them one idea or find another module. The main thing is to decide as a group...
Thanks, this was pretty helpful. Yeah, I know I need to let stuff go. To be honest I can kind of be more of a novel writer than a DM.
One - However, some of the problems I have encountered is that whenever I do make a new setting/campaign idea, I usually only discuss it with the one player. He usually texts me a new character idea, and says that he wants to do something for that one character. I then attempt to create a new idea for that character. We both know a ton of veteran D&D players, and one of them recommended only making three characters and switching those out, but at this point he has a binder full of character sheets. I do want to curb that. Otherwise yes, I do think every one does need to be on the same page about everything.
Two - Yeah, I totally agree. To be honest looking back on it, some of the main problems is that his character advances most of the plot or does something to conflict with the main group. I think making two separate settings would help. That was the main thing I meant by "convoluted." I did not know how deal with a scenario where he would potentially be controlling two conflicting characters. I kind of disliked that, b/c I felt ultimately he would be choosing b/w the two characters.
Three - On this one, he just really hated the situation he was in and all the NPCs in the end. He basically gave up after being stuck in a prison. But, yeah, I should have come up with other ideas in order to get him out of the hole and kept the game going at the next session. I just felt bad in this one since he did seem to be really enjoying the game.
I guess after some introspection, I should just create two settings and keep them completely separate from one another. Should probably communicate with the players more before the game as well.
Two games, double the fun! You can even steal the coolest stuff that happens in one and use it in the other.
I think Mael is right on the ball here.
I see a campaign as collective story telling, a collaborative creation. The DM may be the one who comes up with the setting but it is the players actions that change the game. When the DM is rigid or won't adapt events to suit the characters, then players lose interest in the game every quickly. That is why character backgrounds as so important imho. I always try and create events, side treks and adventures based around these. If I'm using a published adventure, I change it to incorporate character hooks within it.
One campaign I created decades a go, first I presented the players with the whole lot of campaign choices - High, Mid or Low Magic? A Swashbuckling, Horror, Planar or Tradition Campaign? etc. Then I created the settlement and first adventure. I presented it to the players and then asked them to create characters based on the campaign and had them create background stories, running both past me first. Some classes and ideas I told them wouldn't work so I helped them either pick another or adapt it to the campaign. Party balance is HUGE, no one player should be more powerful or more important than another. The campaign ended up lasting for almost a decade because it was all about the characters and players so they loved it. As soon as they start to feel obsolete to the story, players write themselves out.
Good luck and make sure you and your players are doing the most important thing while playing D&D - having fun.
If it was me DMing for a single player, I would give him exactly what he wants in a separate world. (You already change settings regularly.)
What's wrong with letting his paladin take over an alternative world Waterdeep?
Let the guy blow off steam when it's not hurting anyone else. You never know, you might have fun yourself!
If there is only one player at the table, then he absolutely should be the centre of attention, and nearly as absolutely the most important person in the world (eventually.)
Create a sidekick character for you to play when the swords are drawn and the (illegal) spells start flying. Be the Fafhrd to his Grey Mouser, Moonglum to his Elric, Caramon to his Raistlin, Murtaugh to Riggs. Billy Rosewood or Taggart, James "Rhodey" Rhodes, Hawkeye, Robin, Granville, or Fozzy Bear....
Give him what he wants now, and hopefully he will support your ideas when the group gets together...
Roleplaying since Runequest.