...for example, last night the party went into a cave with 7 goblins. I hadn't really thought much about them other than what's on their stat block. In that case, do you guys do anything in particular? I just had the front-rank goblins attack the front-rank PCs, and the goblins that were further back (it was a big cave) pulled out their short bows and went for the back-rank PCs. Would you guys put more thought into it than that for a band of goblins that had no special part in the story?
The way I think of things is this; if it isn't an important part of what is going on, it's a waste of time. And I don't want to waste any time.
By that, I mean that I do not spend time playing out anything but the "special part in the story" things - so there is no such thing as 7 goblins in a cave and I don't know why they are there or what they want out of an encounter with the party.
Very True! I'm the same way. There is always a reason why something is there other than the odd wandering Owlbear that comes crashing through camp looking for a hafling to eat. Having senseless creatures for no reason will either take away from the story or confuse the players. Either/or, they are there for a reason and will act accordingly. Monster have goals. Consider the goals of the monster even if it just for food in the case of an Owlbear or other creature.
I play the monsters based on their INT and instincts. An Owlbear will go after what ever is closest. I group of bandits might be smarted and do their best to take out a identified caster type early. A leader may try to escape etc. Or even those goblins. If they are on the losing side of a battle they would make a run for it. They are masters of disengaging and making a run for it. They might appear later and harass they players with their bows knowing they cannot survive hand to hand. Ogres are big and dumb and might surrender or fight to the death depending on the Ogre. All these are lessons that players will learn. They will start planning more.
Other humanoids may not attack the players directly but might ambush them and run. Super intelligent creatures such and evil mages, Special Undead and Dragons will fight smart.
Wow. I definitely didn’t do a good job of phrasing my question. I was trying to save time by not writing a big long backstory as to the goblin cave, and I failed by making it seem like this was just a totally random encounter that was happening for no reason. As far as the part in the story, it was important, and it drove the story. There was a captive NPC in the cave, that needed rescuing. The cave was part of a larger system, and it was used as a both a general purpose room (cooking fire, weapon racks, loot) and also as a barracks. So in terms of story, their goal was to A. not allow the captive to escape and B. not die. The group makeup is 4 elves, a dwarf and a halfling, so I guess they pretty much hate everyone lol. What I meant by the goblins not having a big part is that they themselves were just fodder. There wasn’t a character in there that had any extra “in-story” motivation, if that makes sense. Like, if this was Star Wars, they were all regular storm troopers. If it was Star Trek, they were red shirts. If it were an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, they would be every bad guy minion that wasn’t the BBEG.
It’s all good. I think I more or less get the picture. The points about certain races hating each other is well-taken. I'll definitely spend some time looking that stuff up. Thanks everyone.
Keep in mind, 5th Edition is written with the intent and understanding that characters WILL drop in combat and need to be healed.
There have been a lot of good ideas presented here, but to add $0.02 from another veteran Dungeon Master, play all NPC's, monsters included, true to their motivation. For instance:
Skeletons are mindless and hate life. They're going to attack the most convenient target.
Hobgoblins are battle-savvy and unlikely to fling themselves up against the tank unless they have no choice. They'll definitely try to get to the clothies in the back and work their way up from there.
Any creature with alternate movement methods (climb, fly, etc) or unique capabilities (invisibility, passing through objects, etc) will use these special abilities to their best benefit in combat.
IMO, having NPC's behave out of character is the worst way of softening the world for them. The best way is to reduce the difficulty level of encounters until they start to get the hang of it. The second way is to make sure ALL of your rolls are behind a DM's screen (so they don't know when you're cheating) and occasionally reduce damage rolled, turn crits into normal hits, or otherwise fudge rolls in a minor way in order to take the edge off of the game's deadliness.
All that said, the players need to learn somehow. Without real consequences to their actions, they'll never graduate past newb status. If the rogue needs to drop and make a couple of death saving throws to teach the group to heal (or use hit dice) between scenes when needed, then let it be. With brand new players, I may even mention to them after the session something along the lines of, "Hey, just to make sure you guys are aware, you know you can use hit dice to heal yourselves during a short rest...?"
Running a group full of new players is a heck of a challenge, especially for a relatively new DM, so whatever method you use just don't put too much pressure on yourself to make it all work out. It's all a learning experience and, in the end, it'll work out how it works out.
Luck!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
PBP "Beregost Blues" - Dungeon Master of Gnome Slaying +5
I tend to just let the dice fall as they may, though I have decided to use less HP and attack bonuses for an encounter with a party that hasn't yet reached 3rd level when many classes choose their archetype and start getting more abilities. The point of this, IMO, is to tell a story. If the PC dies at low level, the party can go on a quest to resurrect them, or that player can roll a new character and perhaps play smarter the next time they go into a combat encounter. I like to think of my games taking place in a living, breathing world where things happen according to the actual rules of that world. I inform all players of this before-hand, and remind them that death doesn't necessarily mean the end of the campaign for them because they can go on that quest or roll a new character to explore some other things. I kinda like the old style of DnD, where character death was an accepted part of the game and people had a backlog of rolled characters to play in case the one they're playing now dies. that's just me, though, and I made sure all of my players were okay with that.
In your case, I'd talk to the player and ask them how they're liking the game. Sit down and have a pretty frank discussion with them about various aspects, and remind them that this game has very different rules from other video games the players themselves might be used to.
I tend to just let the dice fall as they may, though I have decided to use less HP and attack bonuses for an encounter with a party that hasn't yet reached 3rd level when many classes choose their archetype and start getting more abilities. The point of this, IMO, is to tell a story. If the PC dies at low level, the party can go on a quest to resurrect them, or that player can roll a new character and perhaps play smarter the next time they go into a combat encounter. I like to think of my games taking place in a living, breathing world where things happen according to the actual rules of that world. I inform all players of this before-hand, and remind them that death doesn't necessarily mean the end of the campaign for them because they can go on that quest or roll a new character to explore some other things. I kinda like the old style of DnD, where character death was an accepted part of the game and people had a backlog of rolled characters to play in case the one they're playing now dies. that's just me, though, and I made sure all of my players were okay with that.
In your case, I'd talk to the player and ask them how they're liking the game. Sit down and have a pretty frank discussion with them about various aspects, and remind them that this game has very different rules from other video games the players themselves might be used to.
There are good points here. I have been taking time OOG to connect with the players to see what they like and what they don't like. Part of that is to help them, but honestly, a lot of it is to help me, since I'm a brand new DM. I catch myself handling something poorly, or not doing a great job of RPing an NPC. I think sometimes I get so many things running through my head that stuff just falls through the cracks. I know it'll get better in time, as I work through some of these early kinks, and figure out the methods that are most helpful to me. Same with my players, as they sometimes get twisted up between remembering mechanics, trying make decisions based off my set up, and trying to keep their character in mind.
Once we get past this early part where we're all learning, I can see myself running the game similar to your style, Erika. Lots of options for the players, and if you get yourself killed, them's the breaks. Not in a jerk kinda way, but just "hey, that's what happens in a dangerous world."
Here is a simple answer to your simple question. No, I don't ever take it easy on my players. Now here is the required qualifying explanations. Players can "sniff" that out a mile away and will lose respect for you as a DM. I don't fudge die rolls and I don't lessen my encounter difficulty. I play all my NPCs, including what most people refer to as monsters because really they are NPCs, to win. Now, I do a couple of things at my table different than most DMs. 1) I don't use the Hit Die thing for a short rest because that is just plain dumb. When a PC completes a short rest they automatically receive up to1/4 of their max HP back period. The whole asking how many hit die they spend is dumb, have I mentioned that? At no other point to we ask a PC how much they want to heal. Also I use flesh and grit which can help keep a PC alive. But as the fabulous LordHighDukanis said if the PCs don't have set backs and have to deal with the negative consequences of their actions they will never learn and grow as players. So back around full circle....NO! Don't ever take it easy on your players, always play to win, be brutal but be fair.
J
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
Here is a simple answer to your simple question. No, I don't ever take it easy on my players. Now here is the required qualifying explanations. Players can "sniff" that out a mile away and will lose respect for you as a DM. I don't fudge die rolls and I don't lessen my encounter difficulty. I play all my NPCs, including what most people refer to as monsters because really they are NPCs, to win. Now, I do a couple of things at my table different than most DMs. 1) I don't use the Hit Die thing for a short rest because that is just plain dumb. When a PC completes a short rest they automatically receive up to1/4 of their max HP back period. The whole asking how many hit die they spend is dumb, have I mentioned that? At no other point to we ask a PC how much they want to heal. Also I use flesh and grit which can help keep a PC alive. But as the fabulous LordHighDukanis said if the PCs don't have set backs and have to deal with the negative consequences of their actions they will never learn and grow as players. So back around full circle....NO! Don't ever take it easy on your players, always play to win, be brutal but be fair.
J
I think I'd wholeheartedly agree with you if you hadn't use the term "play to win." That carries with it an implication of the DM's goal being that the players lose - that the DM and players are playing against each other rather than with each other.
If, however, you only meant it as far as playing the NPCs as pursuing their goals to the best of their capabilities and the overall goal of play being to have a good time, I'm in. Basically, so long as the DM is establishing a difficulty for the game that isn't "the players are screwed unless they can actually legitimately outwit me", then sticking to what the difficulty is set at - no matter how dice might make it appear to be different because they didn't all always roll exactly their 'expected' value - is just fair and equitable play.
Well whether you whole-heartedly agree with me or not is up to you, everyone is free to be as wrong as they want to be. The big myth that is constantly spread about RPG is about winning. The fact is the player's want to win the game, and frankly they should. And as a DM you should want to win the game as well. Now the tricky part is that as a DM you have the dual role of referee and opposition and you have to be fair and impartial as a referee and be brutal and try to win as the opposition. If you cannot balance these two roles then you have no business being a DM. I am pretty straight forward I think and I try not to be ambiguous when I type. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I could go on about this whole feel-good, safe space, participation trophy mentality to gaming but those people run crap games they just don't know it. However, that really isn't the scope of this thread so I will leave it at that.
J
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
Well whether you whole-heartedly agree with me or not is up to you, everyone is free to be as wrong as they want to be. The big myth that is constantly spread about RPG is about winning. The fact is the player's want to win the game, and frankly they should. And as a DM you should want to win the game as well. Now the tricky part is that as a DM you have the dual role of referee and opposition and you have to be fair and impartial as a referee and be brutal and try to win as the opposition. If you cannot balance these two roles then you have no business being a DM. I am pretty straight forward I think and I try not to be ambiguous when I type. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I could go on about this whole feel-good, safe space, participation trophy mentality to gaming but those people run crap games they just don't know it. However, that really isn't the scope of this thread so I will leave it at that.
J
Yeah, there is "winning" - I think you've gone and confused yourself though, because you appear to be agreeing with my statements all while slinging insults at a misinterpretation of them as being "participation trophy mentality".
See, I think that either the DM and players win together - achieved by the DM actually being fair and impartial in setting up and running challenges for the players, and everyone having a damn good time playing whether their characters always managed to win or end up dead in some lonely dungeon never to be heard from again - or everyone loses - and that looks like it matches up with what you are doing, because you aren't doing what I said I wouldn't agree with; Putting the DM "winning" as being that the players all lose, and doing everything a DM can do to ensure that happens (which is, because the DM can do literally anything they want, a *********ory exercise at best because the DM can, and in my experience will if they adhere to this use of "winning", ensure their "victory" over their players even if it means intentionally and repeatedly overwhelming them with things known to be outside their ability to handle).
...but hey, maybe I do run crap games that just happen to not be as crap as all the other DMs I've known and watched become non-DMs because their players would rather I DM for them. If you ever end up in the Idaho area, I'd be glad to have you run a game for me and my group and put it to the test - because I seek to learn from, rather than insult, other methods.
First, an insult is only an insult if you allow it to be. Second, and more importantly I think we agree on 90% of this issue and the 10% we appear to disagree on may stem from a lack of understanding. I have said that a DM has two roles, the first role which in my opinion is the most vital is the role of referee. In this role the DM cannot win the game because referees do not win or lose. They merely ensure that everyone has a equal playing field. This is the part where as you said, DMs can do anything they want. And a DM that uses his referee role to influence his role as opposition is a crap DM. And this is in the case of making it so the PCs can not win or can not lose. Because if a DM fudges their die to help the PCs or weakens the opposition he is just as bad as the "killer" DM. Ultimately that is what I meant by the "participation trophy" style DMs. And if that is you, then yes you run crap games. If that is not you then don't worry about because I am not talking about you. As for the second role it does sound like we agree that NPCs should be played to the hilt to achieve their goals. Here I am going to go off on a tangent. If the only goal your monsters / NPCs have is to kill the PCs then you are back in the running crap games category again. It takes a lot of work to develop good NPCs (monsters) and give them logical motivations and a lot of DMs are just lazy. As a side note to that I know that motivation as a DM has a lot to do with quality of work. I am currently running a PbP game on this site and I will say so far I am not as happy with myself as I normally am. So, sometimes even the best DMs can run crap games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
The only judges that matter when it comes to a D&D game are the players at your table. If your players are happy and having fun then you are a good DM. If the players are not enjoying themselves then you are a bad DM (at least for that group).
First, an insult is only an insult if you allow it to be.
Firstly, I am glad to see I was correct that we were agreeing on substance of our positions while using terms differently.
...but then I have to admit confusion over the quoted text here. Did you mean an insult is only successful if you allow it be? I ask because that makes sense, while your actual statement read at face value is pure nonsense because a person is fully capable of intending their statement to insult independent of how their chosen target for insult chooses to be affected by it - I know from experience growing up in the 80s/90s as a boy with glasses, long hair, dark clothes, and preference for metal music, video games, and table-top role-playing.
How I DM depends on the makeup of my party. I do go into the adventure emphasizing party dynamics, especially with first time players, but I don't make it too easy on them. I also keep a handful of individually random NPCs on hand to help them if they all want to be one type of character.
Do I take it easy on them? Sometimes. If the party decides to do something stupid (i.e. pet the wild owlbear or kidnap a child - yeah, it happened), I make them understand why it's not a good idea.
First, an insult is only an insult if you allow it to be.
Firstly, I am glad to see I was correct that we were agreeing on substance of our positions while using terms differently.
...but then I have to admit confusion over the quoted text here. Did you mean an insult is only successful if you allow it be? I ask because that makes sense, while your actual statement read at face value is pure nonsense because a person is fully capable of intending their statement to insult independent of how their chosen target for insult chooses to be affected by it - I know from experience growing up in the 80s/90s as a boy with glasses, long hair, dark clothes, and preference for metal music, video games, and table-top role-playing.
My statement makes perfect sense, because yes, as you said an insult is only "successful" if you allow it to be. Actually, so is a compliment. This is one of those tricky parts of communication where it is the interpretation of the message by the receiver that determines the result of the message. So, it was never my intent to actually insult anyone. Which is why I said it is only an insult if you allow it to be so. As for the last part of your message, I grew up in small farm town a wee bit south of Idaho, in the great state of Nevada in the 70s and 80s playing D&D, listening to bootleg cassettes of punk rock bands my cousin from California would mail (yes mail via the Post Office) to me, and reading (gasp!) fantasy, murder, and sci-fi novels. I know all about your pain AoB.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
As long as the PCs have healing available it isn't the end of the world for the PC. I might be a little more worried if the PCs didn't bring any healing, but I'm also nice enough that I'd have provided healing if they didn't have a cleric. One of the big issues is if the cleric is MIA for a session and that would be tough.
My current group has a Life Cleric, a Land Druid, and a Paladin, so I have to basically "kill" someone to have ANY kind of challenge, since there's so much potential healing in the group. There are 6 of them and I started them at level 3. In their first encounter I had put them up against two groups of 3 Gricks and, once the 2nd group died, a Grick Alpha (CR 7) appeared, ambushing the lancer (my own custom class). I was thinking they'd get beaten and need help (planned on having an NPC come help them), but only the lancer dropped to 0 from the initial ambush; the rest of them destroyed it in like 2 rounds.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
As long as the PCs have healing available it isn't the end of the world for the PC. I might be a little more worried if the PCs didn't bring any healing, but I'm also nice enough that I'd have provided healing if they didn't have a cleric. One of the big issues is if the cleric is MIA for a session and that would be tough.
My current group has a Life Cleric, a Land Druid, and a Paladin, so I have to basically "kill" someone to have ANY kind of challenge, since there's so much potential healing in the group. There are 6 of them and I started them at level 3. In their first encounter I had put them up against two groups of 3 Gricks and, once the 2nd group died, a Grick Alpha (CR 7) appeared, ambushing the lancer (my own custom class). I was thinking they'd get beaten and need help (planned on having an NPC come help them), but only the lancer dropped to 0 from the initial ambush; the rest of them destroyed it in like 2 rounds.
Ha, figures. It's funny how that happens. I did a little "pre-campaign" with two of my players who had no idea what D&D was, and whether or not they wanted to play. I let them start at level 2, and they played a Life Cleric and a Wizard (no school yet). I rolled up a random dungeon and stocked it with low-CR monsters. I had one encounter where they went against a couple goblins and a worg, and they wiped that group out. Then at the end of the campaign I had them go against 3 lizardfolk and it was the fight of their lives. I hadn't realized how important the action economy is, and since lizardfolk get 2 attacks per turn, it went south fast. It didn't help that the Cleric's dice went ice cold at that point either.
Sometimes Players just make bad choices. I have the perfect example of this form the weekend.
I have a group of players that are normally really careful with everything they do. They talk their way out of sticky situations and never run into anything blind. This weekend something awful happened. They had roughly a 450 foot corner triangle cavern with a rope that drop right down the center from the ground above. They could see a group of Barbarians in one corner with a Shaman and spent enough time watching the notice a Manitcore fly into another corner. There is an completely unguarded alter.
They goal was to sneak in a grab an item they needed from the alter and get out. I was hoping to have them do a couple of these encounters that night, but somehow they got greedy or curious, I'm not really sure which and tried to sneak into the Barbarian camp. This was a easy get in and out encounter, and ended up in a cliffhanger with the Ranger fighting the Manitcore all by himself (he has 2 hit points left) and the rest of the group of 4 in a crazy fight with 9 barbarians and the Shaman. Only one barbarian has fallen, and they are roughly sitting around 1/2 their Hp's. This might be one of those situation that goes extremely bad for them and to be honest I'm not sure anyone will live to tell the tale. I fully expect a TPK! The players are well aware of their mistake and are going to make the best fight they can out of it. I did award one point of inspiration to the Ranger for hitting the Manitcore while it was on they way to the other players thus distracting it and most likely giving them a bit of fighting chance. He knew this would this was a bad idea for him and he could have escaped and he did buy them a few rounds of combat with out that beast making it impossible.
Sometimes things just go sideways and it's out of our control. I've always played the story and let things unfold as they are. It's going to be tragic, but out of these tragic moments comes heroism and selfless acts that make for great tales over the years to come.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
JT "You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
My friends and I are all relatively new to DnD. I have no issues taking it easy on some of the players, If archers have equal chance of hitting any player they will attack the one with the highest AC, I rarely let players get sandwiched between two enemies, and I may even let them rest in an unsafe area if there is no immediate danger. This will not always be the case but important to allow everyone to get into the story and have fun.
Sometimes Players just make bad choices. I have the perfect example of this form the weekend.
I have a group of players that are normally really careful with everything they do. They talk their way out of sticky situations and never run into anything blind. This weekend something awful happened. They had roughly a 450 foot corner triangle cavern with a rope that drop right down the center from the ground above. They could see a group of Barbarians in one corner with a Shaman and spent enough time watching the notice a Manitcore fly into another corner. There is an completely unguarded alter.
They goal was to sneak in a grab an item they needed from the alter and get out. I was hoping to have them do a couple of these encounters that night, but somehow they got greedy or curious, I'm not really sure which and tried to sneak into the Barbarian camp. This was a easy get in and out encounter, and ended up in a cliffhanger with the Ranger fighting the Manitcore all by himself (he has 2 hit points left) and the rest of the group of 4 in a crazy fight with 9 barbarians and the Shaman. Only one barbarian has fallen, and they are roughly sitting around 1/2 their Hp's. This might be one of those situation that goes extremely bad for them and to be honest I'm not sure anyone will live to tell the tale. I fully expect a TPK! The players are well aware of their mistake and are going to make the best fight they can out of it. I did award one point of inspiration to the Ranger for hitting the Manitcore while it was on they way to the other players thus distracting it and most likely giving them a bit of fighting chance. He knew this would this was a bad idea for him and he could have escaped and he did buy them a few rounds of combat with out that beast making it impossible.
Sometimes things just go sideways and it's out of our control. I've always played the story and let things unfold as they are. It's going to be tragic, but out of these tragic moments comes heroism and selfless acts that make for great tales over the years to come.
I agree that it happens. As a DM, I try to make the game engaging and fun while being semi-ground into the moral structure that the players understand. I find it great that your players understand the saying, and I quote Mr. Spock from Star Trek II, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one."
My friends and I are all relatively new to DnD. I have no issues taking it easy on some of the players, If archers have equal chance of hitting any player they will attack the one with the highest AC, I rarely let players get sandwiched between two enemies, and I may even let them rest in an unsafe area if there is no immediate danger. This will not always be the case but important to allow everyone to get into the story and have fun.
What I have the monsters do is attack the person with the most HP, regardless of AC (although this tends to be the tank). The point I try to do is to maim and not kill. I will flub the damage rather than flubbing the tactics. I encourage them to rest as needed, but I do let them know that rates of encounters are higher in dungeons rather than outside in the world.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
Keep in mind, 5th Edition is written with the intent and understanding that characters WILL drop in combat and need to be healed.
There have been a lot of good ideas presented here, but to add $0.02 from another veteran Dungeon Master, play all NPC's, monsters included, true to their motivation. For instance:
IMO, having NPC's behave out of character is the worst way of softening the world for them. The best way is to reduce the difficulty level of encounters until they start to get the hang of it. The second way is to make sure ALL of your rolls are behind a DM's screen (so they don't know when you're cheating) and occasionally reduce damage rolled, turn crits into normal hits, or otherwise fudge rolls in a minor way in order to take the edge off of the game's deadliness.
All that said, the players need to learn somehow. Without real consequences to their actions, they'll never graduate past newb status. If the rogue needs to drop and make a couple of death saving throws to teach the group to heal (or use hit dice) between scenes when needed, then let it be. With brand new players, I may even mention to them after the session something along the lines of, "Hey, just to make sure you guys are aware, you know you can use hit dice to heal yourselves during a short rest...?"
Running a group full of new players is a heck of a challenge, especially for a relatively new DM, so whatever method you use just don't put too much pressure on yourself to make it all work out. It's all a learning experience and, in the end, it'll work out how it works out.
Luck!
I tend to just let the dice fall as they may, though I have decided to use less HP and attack bonuses for an encounter with a party that hasn't yet reached 3rd level when many classes choose their archetype and start getting more abilities. The point of this, IMO, is to tell a story. If the PC dies at low level, the party can go on a quest to resurrect them, or that player can roll a new character and perhaps play smarter the next time they go into a combat encounter. I like to think of my games taking place in a living, breathing world where things happen according to the actual rules of that world. I inform all players of this before-hand, and remind them that death doesn't necessarily mean the end of the campaign for them because they can go on that quest or roll a new character to explore some other things. I kinda like the old style of DnD, where character death was an accepted part of the game and people had a backlog of rolled characters to play in case the one they're playing now dies. that's just me, though, and I made sure all of my players were okay with that.
In your case, I'd talk to the player and ask them how they're liking the game. Sit down and have a pretty frank discussion with them about various aspects, and remind them that this game has very different rules from other video games the players themselves might be used to.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
Here is a simple answer to your simple question. No, I don't ever take it easy on my players. Now here is the required qualifying explanations. Players can "sniff" that out a mile away and will lose respect for you as a DM. I don't fudge die rolls and I don't lessen my encounter difficulty. I play all my NPCs, including what most people refer to as monsters because really they are NPCs, to win. Now, I do a couple of things at my table different than most DMs. 1) I don't use the Hit Die thing for a short rest because that is just plain dumb. When a PC completes a short rest they automatically receive up to1/4 of their max HP back period. The whole asking how many hit die they spend is dumb, have I mentioned that? At no other point to we ask a PC how much they want to heal. Also I use flesh and grit which can help keep a PC alive. But as the fabulous LordHighDukanis said if the PCs don't have set backs and have to deal with the negative consequences of their actions they will never learn and grow as players. So back around full circle....NO! Don't ever take it easy on your players, always play to win, be brutal but be fair.
J
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
Well whether you whole-heartedly agree with me or not is up to you, everyone is free to be as wrong as they want to be. The big myth that is constantly spread about RPG is about winning. The fact is the player's want to win the game, and frankly they should. And as a DM you should want to win the game as well. Now the tricky part is that as a DM you have the dual role of referee and opposition and you have to be fair and impartial as a referee and be brutal and try to win as the opposition. If you cannot balance these two roles then you have no business being a DM. I am pretty straight forward I think and I try not to be ambiguous when I type. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I could go on about this whole feel-good, safe space, participation trophy mentality to gaming but those people run crap games they just don't know it. However, that really isn't the scope of this thread so I will leave it at that.
J
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
First, an insult is only an insult if you allow it to be. Second, and more importantly I think we agree on 90% of this issue and the 10% we appear to disagree on may stem from a lack of understanding. I have said that a DM has two roles, the first role which in my opinion is the most vital is the role of referee. In this role the DM cannot win the game because referees do not win or lose. They merely ensure that everyone has a equal playing field. This is the part where as you said, DMs can do anything they want. And a DM that uses his referee role to influence his role as opposition is a crap DM. And this is in the case of making it so the PCs can not win or can not lose. Because if a DM fudges their die to help the PCs or weakens the opposition he is just as bad as the "killer" DM. Ultimately that is what I meant by the "participation trophy" style DMs. And if that is you, then yes you run crap games. If that is not you then don't worry about because I am not talking about you. As for the second role it does sound like we agree that NPCs should be played to the hilt to achieve their goals. Here I am going to go off on a tangent. If the only goal your monsters / NPCs have is to kill the PCs then you are back in the running crap games category again. It takes a lot of work to develop good NPCs (monsters) and give them logical motivations and a lot of DMs are just lazy. As a side note to that I know that motivation as a DM has a lot to do with quality of work. I am currently running a PbP game on this site and I will say so far I am not as happy with myself as I normally am. So, sometimes even the best DMs can run crap games.
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
The only judges that matter when it comes to a D&D game are the players at your table. If your players are happy and having fun then you are a good DM. If the players are not enjoying themselves then you are a bad DM (at least for that group).
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
Firstly, I am glad to see I was correct that we were agreeing on substance of our positions while using terms differently.
...but then I have to admit confusion over the quoted text here. Did you mean an insult is only successful if you allow it be? I ask because that makes sense, while your actual statement read at face value is pure nonsense because a person is fully capable of intending their statement to insult independent of how their chosen target for insult chooses to be affected by it - I know from experience growing up in the 80s/90s as a boy with glasses, long hair, dark clothes, and preference for metal music, video games, and table-top role-playing.
How I DM depends on the makeup of my party. I do go into the adventure emphasizing party dynamics, especially with first time players, but I don't make it too easy on them. I also keep a handful of individually random NPCs on hand to help them if they all want to be one type of character.
Do I take it easy on them? Sometimes. If the party decides to do something stupid (i.e. pet the wild owlbear or kidnap a child - yeah, it happened), I make them understand why it's not a good idea.
As for me, I choose to believe that an extinct thunder lizard is running a game of Dungeons & Dragons via Twitter!
My current group has a Life Cleric, a Land Druid, and a Paladin, so I have to basically "kill" someone to have ANY kind of challenge, since there's so much potential healing in the group. There are 6 of them and I started them at level 3. In their first encounter I had put them up against two groups of 3 Gricks and, once the 2nd group died, a Grick Alpha (CR 7) appeared, ambushing the lancer (my own custom class). I was thinking they'd get beaten and need help (planned on having an NPC come help them), but only the lancer dropped to 0 from the initial ambush; the rest of them destroyed it in like 2 rounds.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
Sometimes Players just make bad choices. I have the perfect example of this form the weekend.
I have a group of players that are normally really careful with everything they do. They talk their way out of sticky situations and never run into anything blind. This weekend something awful happened. They had roughly a 450 foot corner triangle cavern with a rope that drop right down the center from the ground above. They could see a group of Barbarians in one corner with a Shaman and spent enough time watching the notice a Manitcore fly into another corner. There is an completely unguarded alter.
They goal was to sneak in a grab an item they needed from the alter and get out. I was hoping to have them do a couple of these encounters that night, but somehow they got greedy or curious, I'm not really sure which and tried to sneak into the Barbarian camp. This was a easy get in and out encounter, and ended up in a cliffhanger with the Ranger fighting the Manitcore all by himself (he has 2 hit points left) and the rest of the group of 4 in a crazy fight with 9 barbarians and the Shaman. Only one barbarian has fallen, and they are roughly sitting around 1/2 their Hp's. This might be one of those situation that goes extremely bad for them and to be honest I'm not sure anyone will live to tell the tale. I fully expect a TPK! The players are well aware of their mistake and are going to make the best fight they can out of it. I did award one point of inspiration to the Ranger for hitting the Manitcore while it was on they way to the other players thus distracting it and most likely giving them a bit of fighting chance. He knew this would this was a bad idea for him and he could have escaped and he did buy them a few rounds of combat with out that beast making it impossible.
Sometimes things just go sideways and it's out of our control. I've always played the story and let things unfold as they are. It's going to be tragic, but out of these tragic moments comes heroism and selfless acts that make for great tales over the years to come.
JT " You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
My friends and I are all relatively new to DnD. I have no issues taking it easy on some of the players, If archers have equal chance of hitting any player they will attack the one with the highest AC, I rarely let players get sandwiched between two enemies, and I may even let them rest in an unsafe area if there is no immediate danger. This will not always be the case but important to allow everyone to get into the story and have fun.