This seemed a bit daunting at first, but I did have some practice last year when I wrote up a one-shot to teach my family how to play. I've plotted out the first few chapters and I'm going for something like The Seven Samurai. But I'm running into some speed bumps. While I'm writing up NPC's, I can't wrap my head around how to calculate CR because the DM Guide on that topic is just nonsensical gibberish to me. Also, one of my villains is a Yuan-Ti arms dealer, but I can't figure out how the suggestion spell would work on the PC's because I can't take away their agency. In that same vein, how do I run persuasion or intimidation checks by NPC's against the players?
For nearly all NPCs, I just use the premadeNPCs starting on p. 342 of the monster manual. I tweak AC and HP up and down if I need a weaker or stronger one. Stats don't make NPCs unique, personalities do. Saves you lots of work.
I don't use persuasion or intimidation checks on the party. I actually try to persuade or intimidate them using the vast resources available to a DM.
Persuasion: offers of reward, appeals to their heroic side, piquing their curiosity, etc
Intimidation: threats, scary henchmen, etc
Likewise, I only allow a persuasion check from players if they actually sell the idea in role play. Not just (roll roll), "I 'persuade' them." Same with other social checks. I encourage it with a, "What does your character say/do to persuade/intimidate/etc them?"
A spell like suggestion would require that players play along. It may or may not work with your players. I have yet to use mind control on my players. But if they have an NPC along, maybe it takes effect on them.
The encounter building advice in the DMG isn't wrong, but it's not complete.
GMs tend to develop their own style and approaches for just about everything, including encounter building. You'll find you own eventually.
However, here's how I'd approach it:
Figure out the central conflict in the encounter. There will be 2+ factions ( NPCs, groups, monsters, etc ) in the encounter, one of which is the Party. All groups want something, and what they all want conflicts with each other. This is as true for "the Owlbear is hungry, and wants to eat one of the Party members, and the Party is trying to drive it off or kill it" as "the Vizir is trying to convince the King to keep the army close to the capital for defense, while the Party is trying to convince the King that he should support the Barony of Elbonia's defenses as per the treaty". Knowing who is involved, and their motives, will tell you how they'll behave during the encounter.
Figure out the conditions under which the conflict might end. This is usually when one side or the other has achieved their goal, or reached a compromise ( hard to do with the Owlbear ), or both parties have withdrawn from the conflict.
Figure out the character of the groups involved: what do they know, what do they believe, what are their capabilities, what are their resources, what are their favored tactics/moves, what tactics/resources will they pull out in an emergency, what things will they never do.
Plan out the environment. Are there any interesting complications that the environment can add to the encounter? In a fight, this might be narrow choke-points like bridges, or narrow caves, or trees, elevated terrain ( for archers ), or areas of cover and screens for sneak attacks. In a social conflict this might be the bystanders: maybe the court can be swayed to throw their opinion behind the Party against the Vizir. Maybe there are agents of the secret police in the crowd when the Party is trying to rouse a posse against the thieves guild, so the Party must be very careful not to utter anything that might be considered treasonous to the Kings, etc.
Plan out possible (optional) changes to the environment in the middle of the encounter: a roof collapses, cutting off part of the combat theatre; one of the trolls pushes over a tree to bridge a chasm which now connects two parts of the combat theatre; the ship starts to sink; the orcs set fire to the underbrush; the Elbonian ambassador arrives in the middle of the debate.
Optionally, jot down a complication or two for the encounter, which allow you to increase/decrease the pace, and increase/decrease the difficulty of the encounter. Being able to adjust the encounter on the fly when the Party does way better, or way worse, than you had hoped, is very useful. Environment changes are one such example of this, as are adding new participants to the conflict, or removing participants ( by failing a morale check, for example ).
Role play out each non-Party agent in the conflict. Figure out how the conflict looks from their perspective. You already know their character from #3 above, so it should not be hard to figure out what they would try to do next, for each "move" in the conflict.
Repeat, until one of the conflict-ending-conditions you identified in #2 occurs, at which point the conflict is over. You can optionally throw in one of the complications identified in #6.
As for balance in an encounter, that's something almost everyone struggles with. If the conflict is almost certainly going to be violent, there are lots of encounter builders and calculators. DnDB has oneand Kobold Fight Clubis another good one. However they are not perfect. This is why having tools in your back pocket to adjust the encounter on the fly ( point #6 above) is so useful. Social conflicts are tougher to gauge. You'll kind of have to guesstimate based on the NPCs' social skill scores ( although they can't use them against the Party, remember our example where they are targeting the King ), and how resilient the target is to being swayed. However, the penalties for grossly mismatching the Party in an encounter which they are trying to resolve via social means, are much less.
One stylistic option for encounter balance makes it a lot simpler: don't. D&D has not always been obsessed with always having completely balanced and fair encounters which the Party can be guaranteed to win, and it's just a question of how much resources they are going to consume in the process. There are ways of not worrying about whether your encounters are balanced or not, and still not slaughtering your Party, so long as you have the kind of Players which are active, engaged, and - most importantly - completely aware that they're playing in the kind of Adventure. Here's some guidelines on that style of play here.
It's not a style of play for everyone, by anymeans, but it does make encounter balance planning a lot easier.
This is by no means the only way, or the only effective way, to build and run encounters. As I said, eventually you'll find your own way. But I hope this gives you some ideas you can use.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Same goes to you. Why do you think I pop into a thread, upvote yours and Vedexent’s posts, and leave without posting myself?
LOL... we should form our own club.
As much as I appreciate you guys, and your inputs - and I've learned a lot from your both - we'd probably be an echo chamber. We need people who are wrong disagree with our approaches to things to keep us from getting too complacent. Heck, I even learn new things from those people ;)
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Same goes to you. Why do you think I pop into a thread, upvote yours and Vedexent’s posts, and leave without posting myself?
LOL... we should form our own club.
As much as I appreciate you guys, and your inputs - and I've learned a lot from your both - we'd probably be an echo chamber. We need people who are wrong disagree with our approaches to things to keep us from getting too complacent. Heck, I even learn new things from those people ;)
I often learn the most from folks I disagree with.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Yeah, all three of you guys are intimidating to have a conversation with.
Intimidating?!? Why?
Oh, it's not bad. It's like talking to a university professor who has most if not all the answers but you naturally feel dumb asking or trying to participate in a conversation because you are still in D&D 101.
The only difference between a student and a professor is the amount of time to practice and number of opportunities from which to learn. You know what the best way to generate learning opportunities for oneself is? Making mistakes. 😂😂
Yeah, all three of you guys are intimidating to have a conversation with.
I find that somewhat disturbing. I don't want to be intimidating.
Look at all that amazing information you dropped down in this thread. (I've copied it down for my own self-interest, by the way.) I could only dream of the day I could drop that much text down in one post and have that much of impactful information to a post. I'm lucky to string two sentences together of D&D philosophy, but I'm learning and learning from all of you which makes this good for me and my players in the long run.
The only difference between a student and a professor is the amount of time to practice and number of opportunities from which to learn.
My graduate advisor once said, "I've forgotten more than you've ever learned." (He did laugh when he said it -- he was a nice guy and mostly kidding, although given his encyclopedia-brain, probably true.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Yeah, all three of you guys are intimidating to have a conversation with.
I find that somewhat disturbing. I don't want to be intimidating.
Look at all that amazing information you dropped down in this thread. (I've copied it down for my own self-interest, by the way.) I could only dream of the day I could drop that much text down in one post and have that much of impactful information to a post. I'm lucky to string two sentences together of D&D philosophy, but I'm learning and learning from all of you which makes this good for me and my players in the long run.
You think we didn’t learn from others when we were new too?
Oh, it's not bad. It's like talking to a university professor who has most if not all the answers but you naturally feel dumb asking or trying to participate in a conversation because you are still in D&D 101.
My dirty secret is that I learn more from explaining things to people, than almost anything else :) And "newbies" contribute new and novel ways of viewing things that those of us who have worked out detailed approaches to things may have forgotten, or never considered in the first place.
So long as people are clear about their position, and why they hold it, I can learn something from their contribution - even if I don't agree with their basic goals ( and that's usually just a difference in preferences and styles ). I have more problems with people who don't articulate their basic values and goals, and just assume that what they value is what most people value - but I can usually puzzle out where they're coming from, and then evaluate their position on those grounds. The only people who I don't think are contributory to a conversations at all are the ones who get out there with an ideological axe to grind, have no idea why they are grinding that axe other than it's something they've always done, have no cogent arguments other than "I've been doing this forever, so you should accept me as an authority", and try and insert their ideological crusades into every conversation. Fortunately, such people are rare.
TL;DR: most people who take the time to write something and explain their position and views on a topic are contributing. So, please! Get involved in the conversations! :)
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This seemed a bit daunting at first, but I did have some practice last year when I wrote up a one-shot to teach my family how to play. I've plotted out the first few chapters and I'm going for something like The Seven Samurai. But I'm running into some speed bumps. While I'm writing up NPC's, I can't wrap my head around how to calculate CR because the DM Guide on that topic is just nonsensical gibberish to me. Also, one of my villains is a Yuan-Ti arms dealer, but I can't figure out how the suggestion spell would work on the PC's because I can't take away their agency. In that same vein, how do I run persuasion or intimidation checks by NPC's against the players?
Congrats on stepping into the DM role!
For nearly all NPCs, I just use the premade NPCs starting on p. 342 of the monster manual. I tweak AC and HP up and down if I need a weaker or stronger one. Stats don't make NPCs unique, personalities do. Saves you lots of work.
I don't use persuasion or intimidation checks on the party. I actually try to persuade or intimidate them using the vast resources available to a DM.
Persuasion: offers of reward, appeals to their heroic side, piquing their curiosity, etc
Intimidation: threats, scary henchmen, etc
Likewise, I only allow a persuasion check from players if they actually sell the idea in role play. Not just (roll roll), "I 'persuade' them." Same with other social checks. I encourage it with a, "What does your character say/do to persuade/intimidate/etc them?"
A spell like suggestion would require that players play along. It may or may not work with your players. I have yet to use mind control on my players. But if they have an NPC along, maybe it takes effect on them.
Okay so how accurate are the guidelines for building encounters in the DM guide?
The encounter building advice in the DMG isn't wrong, but it's not complete.
GMs tend to develop their own style and approaches for just about everything, including encounter building. You'll find you own eventually.
However, here's how I'd approach it:
As for balance in an encounter, that's something almost everyone struggles with. If the conflict is almost certainly going to be violent, there are lots of encounter builders and calculators. DnDB has one and Kobold Fight Club is another good one. However they are not perfect. This is why having tools in your back pocket to adjust the encounter on the fly ( point #6 above) is so useful. Social conflicts are tougher to gauge. You'll kind of have to guesstimate based on the NPCs' social skill scores ( although they can't use them against the Party, remember our example where they are targeting the King ), and how resilient the target is to being swayed. However, the penalties for grossly mismatching the Party in an encounter which they are trying to resolve via social means, are much less.
One stylistic option for encounter balance makes it a lot simpler: don't. D&D has not always been obsessed with always having completely balanced and fair encounters which the Party can be guaranteed to win, and it's just a question of how much resources they are going to consume in the process. There are ways of not worrying about whether your encounters are balanced or not, and still not slaughtering your Party, so long as you have the kind of Players which are active, engaged, and - most importantly - completely aware that they're playing in the kind of Adventure. Here's some guidelines on that style of play here.
It's not a style of play for everyone, by any means, but it does make encounter balance planning a lot easier.
This is by no means the only way, or the only effective way, to build and run encounters. As I said, eventually you'll find your own way. But I hope this gives you some ideas you can use.
Best of luck! :)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I should learn there is no need to answer on a thread when Vedexent has made a long post to it... basically he covers everything.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Same goes to you. Why do you think I pop into a thread, upvote yours and Vedexent’s posts, and leave without posting myself?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
LOL... we should form our own club.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
You might want to leave me out. According to some folks I’m the worst thing to happen to D&D since 4th edition. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That's the nice way of saying I talk to much ;)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
As much as I appreciate you guys, and your inputs - and I've learned a lot from your both - we'd probably be an echo chamber. We need people who
are wrongdisagree with our approaches to things to keep us from getting too complacent. Heck, I even learn new things from those people ;)My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I often learn the most from folks I disagree with.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah, all three of you guys are intimidating to have a conversation with.
I find that somewhat disturbing. I don't want to be intimidating.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Intimidating?!? Why?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Oh, it's not bad. It's like talking to a university professor who has most if not all the answers but you naturally feel dumb asking or trying to participate in a conversation because you are still in D&D 101.
The only difference between a student and a professor is the amount of time to practice and number of opportunities from which to learn. You know what the best way to generate learning opportunities for oneself is? Making mistakes. 😂😂
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Look at all that amazing information you dropped down in this thread. (I've copied it down for my own self-interest, by the way.) I could only dream of the day I could drop that much text down in one post and have that much of impactful information to a post. I'm lucky to string two sentences together of D&D philosophy, but I'm learning and learning from all of you which makes this good for me and my players in the long run.
My graduate advisor once said, "I've forgotten more than you've ever learned." (He did laugh when he said it -- he was a nice guy and mostly kidding, although given his encyclopedia-brain, probably true.)
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
You think we didn’t learn from others when we were new too?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/78230-best-class-for-noobs?comment=61
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My dirty secret is that I learn more from explaining things to people, than almost anything else :) And "newbies" contribute new and novel ways of viewing things that those of us who have worked out detailed approaches to things may have forgotten, or never considered in the first place.
So long as people are clear about their position, and why they hold it, I can learn something from their contribution - even if I don't agree with their basic goals ( and that's usually just a difference in preferences and styles ). I have more problems with people who don't articulate their basic values and goals, and just assume that what they value is what most people value - but I can usually puzzle out where they're coming from, and then evaluate their position on those grounds. The only people who I don't think are contributory to a conversations at all are the ones who get out there with an ideological axe to grind, have no idea why they are grinding that axe other than it's something they've always done, have no cogent arguments other than "I've been doing this forever, so you should accept me as an authority", and try and insert their ideological crusades into every conversation. Fortunately, such people are rare.
TL;DR: most people who take the time to write something and explain their position and views on a topic are contributing. So, please! Get involved in the conversations! :)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.