Ok, so I am a first time Dm and I have tried to put together a crew. I have found one person who is very interested and two more that are interested but aren’t serious (one named his character Prestige) What do I do? I am thinking about the one interested person running two characters and me running one or two as NPCs. What would you do?
Not sure what's wrong with the name. That seems like a great name, especially for a tiefling...
So is this a tonal disagreement, then? When you say that the other two players are interested but not serious, do you mean that they want to play characters with a degree of levity, whereas you want something a little more sober in tone? I would suggest discussing with those two players what your expectations are, and see if you can come to an agreement regarding the tone of the game.
What would I do? Run a game for 3 PCs, come up with a reason for the character to be named Prestige (the character being a tiefling, for example), and count myself lucky that I was able to convince the two to try it.
More to the point, don't make encounters quite as dangerous as you would if there were four PCs.
I would not have a player run two pcs. Unless he is greatly experienced, and even if he is, it normally doesn't work out well. You could do a npc or two if you wish, but as a first time dm that might be daunting.
My advice is to scale back your encounters, you don't need to have four players, you can do three easy.
As far as npc go if they truley need a npc use the hireling section in the dmg to help guide you. Drop a hint or two that maybe they need to hire some help. Example if they have no arcane user and need one to complete a quest have their employer give them extra gold to hire help. A not so subtle hint, but isn't meta gameing, and will still help you complete your story.
Yeah 3 is 100% fine. It's not *optimal* (optimal is 4-6) but it's 100% fine, just like 7 is, just requires scaling some things. If anything it's easier than 7 since it just requires toning some things down vs having to balance 7 people's time in the spotlight. With 2 people I'd be right there with you about having them run 2 characters each (I certainly think that's a better idea than DMPCs) but having 1 person run 2 while the other 2 run 1 is *begging* for problems, and people running dual characters (in part or in full) will prove a *lot* more challenging for everyone involved than just running a party of 3 people.
To echo the above in some cases: this seems to be a difference of expectation vs application. Communication is a very key thing to a tables life span. If you're disagreeing with something the players are doing then it's always a good idea to ask why and what is going on. That said, you also need to respect what your players' wants as well. If the players want something from the game you're not providing, then they're going try to find it or make it happen.
In your situation, figure out what the players want, explain what you want, in other words: Have a session 0.
Three characters is perfectly fine, and it can also be great, if you find a good way to make use of the time you save by not dealing with a fourth player's actions. For example, creating character-specific plotlines is a lot easier with fewer players, if that's something you or your players are into. D&D 5E is less reliant on the traditional roles (tank, DPS, healer) overall, so as long as the characters are reasonably varied, party balance shouldn't be too much of a problem. That said, it's best to scale encounters appropriately (the DMG provides clear guidelines on this).
As far as your players' differing seriousness - I strongly suggest sending out some kind of campaign survey to see what parts of the game are the most important to each person. You can make your own, but you'll find a number of campaign surveys online that might suit your purpose. I find this to be extremely valuable if you're unfamiliar with everyone's play styles, especially with a small group, and it can really help you mold the campaign to fit what your players are looking for.
D&D 5E is less reliant on the traditional roles (tank, DPS, healer) overall, so as long as the characters are reasonably varied, party balance shouldn't be too much of a problem. That said, it's best to scale encounters appropriately (the DMG provides clear guidelines on this).
As far as your players' differing seriousness - I strongly suggest sending out some kind of campaign survey to see what parts of the game are the most important to each person.
True for the most part. I had to adjust my campaign to included a healer that the party would save so they would have some heals. They are first time players and I didn't want to railroad them into anything and pretty much gave them free reign over class choice. I got two Wizards and Rogue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
You're definitely right. If you end up with a weird mix of classes, then it can be a little more difficult, and oftentimes the adventure needs to be molded a bit more to fit the PCs. For example, for a couple wizards and a rogue, I'd probably avoid running any encounters or adventures with a lot of melee combat or a focus on strength-based challenges.
If your party is missing a healer, giving the party more short rests between encounters can help, since the party can then spend hit dice to heal. Also, making healing potions readily available, both as loot and at a cheaper price in shops. I've also solved this problem in the past by leaning heavily into herbalism, allowing characters to find ingredients and make potions or similar herbal remedies themselves.
Throwing an NPC healer into the party, as you did, also works well as long as the DM is comfortable running an NPC in this way, but it can be a little distracting for a first-time DM.
Three players is no problem. The biggest issue you’ll face is party balance - do they have enough dps, heals, tank?
Those archetypes don't have a place in DnD 5e. There are no tanks, because you can just have a patrol of enemies pincer the party. Meaning the wizard is suddenly facing enemies. On top of that no one can hold aggro to prevent enemies from going after the other party members. It is always a team effort to root/entangle opponents etc. On top of that, clerics and paladins, are no longer typical healer class. 5e relies a lot less on that and provides sufficient alternatives to get by. DPS is something everyone does acceptably. If I was to worry it would be more about the players having all the languages and such among them needed to read texts and such. That way players have information about the area, maybe from some old half destroyed scrolls about what happened or is roaming the halls of the dungeon. Also to provide t hem all the options needed so they can find all the hidden areas with loot. Such as spell scrolls and what not which can make fights a lot more manageable. In short... information and resources...as long as your player group has the skills to obtain those things in your area/dungeon they should be fine.
I wouldn't worry too much about having only 3 players. You don't even have to balance encounters especially for it. Just keep encounters balanced for 4 players and teach them they have to proceed carefully, use tactics, gather intelligence on the area and opponents too prepare. But do be a little bit more lenient with npc's giving a healing potion here and there if they need it. After my players investigated the town, last one being the priestess, they mentioned that they'd go to the dungeon. As they walked away the priestess offered 1 or 2 healing potions with well wishes to see them come back where others didn't succeed. This experience will tell them the game is like real life. Nothing is tailored for their convenience. The world isn't paused waiting for the players to interact with it. The dangers are real. The drama and tense situations have weight.
During play, and you do notice your players struggling with encounters. Just remove 1 or 2 opponents that were part of the encounter to make it easier. If they just go throw the opponents easily enough...and there isn't a hard fight coming up soon... then you can add 1 or 2 opponents.
Three players is no problem. The biggest issue you’ll face is party balance - do they have enough dps, heals, tank?
Those archetypes don't have a place in DnD 5e. There are no tanks, because you can just have a patrol of enemies pincer the party. Meaning the wizard is suddenly facing enemies. On top of that no one can hold aggro to prevent enemies from going after the other party members. It is always a team effort to root/entangle opponents etc.
Goading Attack When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to goad the target into attacking you. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll, and the target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the target has disadvantage on all attack rolls against targets other than you until the end of your next turn.
Protection When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must be wielding a shield.
Would be nice to have these options in my party of two wizards and a rogue. However, I understand what you're saying.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok, so I am a first time Dm and I have tried to put together a crew. I have found one person who is very interested and two more that are interested but aren’t serious (one named his character Prestige) What do I do? I am thinking about the one interested person running two characters and me running one or two as NPCs. What would you do?
Loading...
Not sure what's wrong with the name. That seems like a great name, especially for a tiefling...
So is this a tonal disagreement, then? When you say that the other two players are interested but not serious, do you mean that they want to play characters with a degree of levity, whereas you want something a little more sober in tone? I would suggest discussing with those two players what your expectations are, and see if you can come to an agreement regarding the tone of the game.
What would I do? Run a game for 3 PCs, come up with a reason for the character to be named Prestige (the character being a tiefling, for example), and count myself lucky that I was able to convince the two to try it.
More to the point, don't make encounters quite as dangerous as you would if there were four PCs.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
I would not have a player run two pcs. Unless he is greatly experienced, and even if he is, it normally doesn't work out well. You could do a npc or two if you wish, but as a first time dm that might be daunting.
My advice is to scale back your encounters, you don't need to have four players, you can do three easy.
As far as npc go if they truley need a npc use the hireling section in the dmg to help guide you. Drop a hint or two that maybe they need to hire some help. Example if they have no arcane user and need one to complete a quest have their employer give them extra gold to hire help. A not so subtle hint, but isn't meta gameing, and will still help you complete your story.
Yeah 3 is 100% fine. It's not *optimal* (optimal is 4-6) but it's 100% fine, just like 7 is, just requires scaling some things. If anything it's easier than 7 since it just requires toning some things down vs having to balance 7 people's time in the spotlight. With 2 people I'd be right there with you about having them run 2 characters each (I certainly think that's a better idea than DMPCs) but having 1 person run 2 while the other 2 run 1 is *begging* for problems, and people running dual characters (in part or in full) will prove a *lot* more challenging for everyone involved than just running a party of 3 people.
Three players is no problem. The biggest issue you’ll face is party balance - do they have enough dps, heals, tank?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
To echo the above in some cases: this seems to be a difference of expectation vs application. Communication is a very key thing to a tables life span. If you're disagreeing with something the players are doing then it's always a good idea to ask why and what is going on. That said, you also need to respect what your players' wants as well. If the players want something from the game you're not providing, then they're going try to find it or make it happen.
In your situation, figure out what the players want, explain what you want, in other words: Have a session 0.
Three characters is perfectly fine, and it can also be great, if you find a good way to make use of the time you save by not dealing with a fourth player's actions. For example, creating character-specific plotlines is a lot easier with fewer players, if that's something you or your players are into. D&D 5E is less reliant on the traditional roles (tank, DPS, healer) overall, so as long as the characters are reasonably varied, party balance shouldn't be too much of a problem. That said, it's best to scale encounters appropriately (the DMG provides clear guidelines on this).
As far as your players' differing seriousness - I strongly suggest sending out some kind of campaign survey to see what parts of the game are the most important to each person. You can make your own, but you'll find a number of campaign surveys online that might suit your purpose. I find this to be extremely valuable if you're unfamiliar with everyone's play styles, especially with a small group, and it can really help you mold the campaign to fit what your players are looking for.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
You're definitely right. If you end up with a weird mix of classes, then it can be a little more difficult, and oftentimes the adventure needs to be molded a bit more to fit the PCs. For example, for a couple wizards and a rogue, I'd probably avoid running any encounters or adventures with a lot of melee combat or a focus on strength-based challenges.
If your party is missing a healer, giving the party more short rests between encounters can help, since the party can then spend hit dice to heal. Also, making healing potions readily available, both as loot and at a cheaper price in shops. I've also solved this problem in the past by leaning heavily into herbalism, allowing characters to find ingredients and make potions or similar herbal remedies themselves.
Throwing an NPC healer into the party, as you did, also works well as long as the DM is comfortable running an NPC in this way, but it can be a little distracting for a first-time DM.
I wouldn't worry too much about having only 3 players. You don't even have to balance encounters especially for it. Just keep encounters balanced for 4 players and teach them they have to proceed carefully, use tactics, gather intelligence on the area and opponents too prepare. But do be a little bit more lenient with npc's giving a healing potion here and there if they need it. After my players investigated the town, last one being the priestess, they mentioned that they'd go to the dungeon. As they walked away the priestess offered 1 or 2 healing potions with well wishes to see them come back where others didn't succeed. This experience will tell them the game is like real life. Nothing is tailored for their convenience. The world isn't paused waiting for the players to interact with it. The dangers are real. The drama and tense situations have weight.
During play, and you do notice your players struggling with encounters. Just remove 1 or 2 opponents that were part of the encounter to make it easier. If they just go throw the opponents easily enough...and there isn't a hard fight coming up soon... then you can add 1 or 2 opponents.
When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to goad the target into attacking you. You add the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll, and the target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, the target has disadvantage on all attack rolls against targets other than you until the end of your next turn.
When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must be wielding a shield.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale