These boots are tough to fill

[SigmaX0]

We have a problem. As a group, we are very reliant on our DM of the last 10 years or so. Now someone else is running a campaign, and the weight of expectation itself is hindering his performance.

It's not a bad campaign, i've seen worse. It lacks the kind of artistry, creativity and personality our group takes for granted these days, but the combat is a lot of fun (4E usually is) and the encounter balance and set up is spot on.

The main problems lie in the NPCs, and the apparent 'free-roaming' nature of the campaign.

The problem with the NPCs is that they're pretty much non existent. There's one captain who gave us our first quest, whom I think the party is supposed to have some kind of connection with, but since he stopped giving us any more direction we have just been getting frustrated with him.

Which brings us to the second issue, the DM seems content to let us flounder without any leads or clues about what to do next. Now, i'm not against an open-ended campaign, but I think they're very hard to pull off, and not for 'amateurs'. I appreciate that it's always a fine balance between open-ended and story driven and that balance is difficult to achieve.

To give an example of how we seem to be seeing things from different perspectives, we were fighting a group of fanatics and the high priest escaped into a side room (of the underground chapel) whilst we defeated his summoned elemental. We decided on a short rest afterwards, then proceeded after the priest. The DM described a long corridor leading into darkness, and we promptly followed in pursuit. After about half a mile we reached a cave-in, so we backtracked and found where the tunnel came out of the hillside, and followed the priests tracks on horseback, which led into wooded area. We continued to follow them to a log cabin, opened the door to find an aggressive dwarf minion, and no sign of the priest, after further tracking it seemed he had stolen a horse and ridden off, though the direction was impossible to ascertain since there were too many tracks. We gave up and headed back to town.

All through that sequence of events, I though the DM was basically saying, 'back off guys, you're not going to catch this priest', putting as many obstacles in our path as possible. I felt like we needed to continue because i'm stubborn and I wanted to prove a point.

But it turns out, he actually wanted us to capture him! That was what was 'meant' to happen, which I find pretty incredible. I guess we're just looking at things from different perspectives.

Does anyone else have any similar experiences and advice for how either our DM or us players can change the way we're playing to make this campaign run a little smoother?

[delericho]

Originally Posted by SigmaX0

We have a problem. As a group, we are very reliant on our DM of the last 10 years or so. Now someone else is running a campaign, and the weight of expectation itself is hindering his performance.

It's always difficult being the guy who has to take over from the successful old master. I don't envy him.

The key thing is for the group to talk to the DM. Point out that you know he's got big shoes to fill, and that you want him to succeed. But remind him that when your old DM started out, he was far from the finished article as well - the new guy should try to start small and build from there.

Also, you must be patient. Your new DM is probably his own worst critic - he knows the campaign doesn't have the nuance of the the campaigns run by the last guy, and he may well not know why. So, you will probably have to accept some very stripped down roleplaying for a time, and then some railroaded plots, and then the whole host of other mistakes that the other DM got past years ago. But if you do work through it, you should end up with an excellent DM for your troubles.

Remember: you want him to succeed.

Does anyone else have any similar experiences and advice for how either our DM or us players can change the way we're playing to make this campaign run a little smoother?

I tend to divide the job of DMing into three aspects: "rules mastery", "story mastery" and "table mastery". These should, ideally, be tackled one at a time, in that order.

Rules mastery refers to the mechanics of judging the rules. It includes knowing the rules (ideally, at least as well as the most knowledgeable player does), adjudicating the rules fairly, knowing when to apply the rules for best effect, and even knowing when not to apply the rules.

Your post suggests that your DM is doing a good job in this area. If he is, indeed, on top of the rules, then move on.

However, if there are significant problems with the way your DM is dealing with the rules, then I would recommend dealing with this before anything else - it's pretty foundational. Here, I recommend a quiet word, to straighten the guy out. Alternately, you could ask some leading questions: "I'm not sure how this works, can you help me out?", "Oh, you're not sure either? Well, let's see if we can figure out what the book says...". If he's having real trouble, it might be a good idea for you to work through some practice combats and practice scenarios, completely ignoring roleplaying or storytelling for the time being.

Moving on...

Story mastery refers to the business of constructing and running adventures, building worlds and NPCs, pacing, and all the rest of the business. This is where your DM seems to be running into problems.

Again, I recommend starting here with baby steps. I would actually recommend starting his first adventure with the party at the entrance to the dungeon, and keeping the adventure confined within the dungeon (but allowing the PCs free reign therein).

Then, move on to a more elaborate dungeon environment, with different monster factions at work, and various groups and contacts for the PCs to interact with.

Then move to the town, and introduce friendly and unfriendly NPCs. At about this time, consider giving a choice of adventures, or shady patrons who may or may not be trustworthy. And gradually build from there.

I would also caution very strongly against suggesting the PCs "should" or "should not" do anything... because they inevitably will do the opposite! In some ways, DMing is like writing half a story, and then letting the players influence and/or write the second half.

Moving on again...

Table mastery is my catch-all category for everything that is actually outside the game. This includes dealing with problem players, issues with the game location, and so on. Hopefully, there won't be any issues here - if it's a long established group then most of the issues will probably have been thrashed out.

[vagabundo]

I wish my players would give me constructive feedback. So perhaps you should raise these issues with him.

It sounds like you are all having fun so focus on what he does well and what you'd like more off - good NPC interactions, etc...

[ExploderWizard]

It is quite possible that the frustrations of the pursuit were the direct result of giving the priest a 5 minute head start instead of giving chase immediately.

Ask your DM if things would have turned out differently had you not taken that rest. He might have been hoping that you would follow the priest quickly so he could be captured.

[avin]

Agreed with the ExploderWizard, if you took the 5 minutes nap to restore the encounter powers, is fair enough that a smart cultist would do anything he could to escape and save his life.

As for the npcs... I feel your pain... =/

[Riley]

I did my first regular DM'ing for a group that had spun off from a campaign with a great storytelling DM. Here's a couple of random thoughts that might make that transition from a great DM to a relative newbie easier:

1. Encourage the new DM to use/adapt/borrow from prewritten adventures early on. They do make the job easier when getting started. Heck, even the greatest creative DM's I've known liked to pull out a prewritten adventure now and again for a refreshing change of pace / break.

2. Feedback. Lots and lots of honest feedback. When I started DMing regularly, we ended each session with a few minutes discussing what everyone liked best, what they didn't like, and what they'd like to see more of. It was terribly useful then, and helped shape the campaign into more of what the players wanted. Actually, that's still pretty much how I end every session. In fact, the only thing that I do better than that great storytelling DM is probably that I more regularly incorporate my players' wishes and interests into the story we're creating together.

Good luck!

[Celebrim]

Originally Posted by ExploderWizard

It is quite possible that the frustrations of the pursuit were the direct result of giving the priest a 5 minute head start instead of giving chase immediately.

Ask your DM if things would have turned out differently had you not taken that rest. He might have been hoping that you would follow the priest quickly so he could be captured.

I agree.

There appears to be two potential problems here. From the description I can't tell which is more important:

1) DM not doing enough preparation and trying to run the game extemporaneously: Sorry, but a novice DM can't do this. I've ran scores and probably hundreds of sessions, and I can't do it consistantly. The sort of problems you are describing - shallow or non-existant NPC's, lack of clear goals, and frustrations when attempting to follow up on events - are problems I typically associate with too little preparation time.

2) DM is 'old school': I'm 'old school'. As soon as I read, "we were fighting a group of fanatics and the high priest escaped into a side room (of the underground chapel) whilst we defeated his summoned elemental. We decided on a short rest afterwards, then proceeded after the priest.", I said to myself, "There is no way they are going to catch up to that priest." The DM may have wanted this to be the outcome, but he's not just going to let it land in your lap if you don't work for it. Let me ask you, "Which was more important for you in this scene, catching the high priest or not risking your lives?" If the answer was, as it appears to be, "not risking your lives", congradulations, you now know why you didn't catch the high priest. 'Old school' Gygaxian gaming requires that the PC's stay very tightly focused on the goal and not get distracted even in the face of very real problems. Why were you in the evil temple in the first place? If you were in the temple in the first place to capture the high priest, then you should have made that your top priority at all times. Why did you stop to fight the cleric's summoned creature instead of pursuing the fleeing cleric? Couldn't someone tumble past the creature or otherwise find a way to evade it, overrun it, or bullrush it aside? If ever there was a time to split the party, this seems to be it. And why did you rest 5 minutes before pursuing the priest, if capturing the priest was your primary objective? I certainly would have guessed that the priest fled because he had prepared some sort of escape plan, and naturally assumed that if he was allowed to pull of this plan (whatever it was) without interruption that he would get away. This is, afterall, what evil masterminds always do in the stories.

[JoeNotCharles]

So I see "old school" is the new keyword you have to throw into discussions of playstyle now. You don't have to be "old school" to insist on actions having consequences.

I'd say the DM blew it by not providing some exciting alternative encounters to happen when he found out you did the wrong things to catch the priest. You could have at least found a clear trail so the campaign can turn into a long-term stalking, or some dropped item you could take back to town to analyze for clues about his whereabouts, or both if he wanted it to stay open-ended and give you a choice.

[Celebrim]

Originally Posted by JoeNotCharles

So I see "old school" is the new keyword you have to throw into discussions of playstyle now. You don't have to be "old school" to insist on actions having consequences.

I'd say the DM blew it by not providing some exciting alternative encounters to happen when he found out you did the wrong things to catch the priest. You could have at least found a clear trail so the campaign can turn into a long-term stalking.

- emphasis mine

I love the irony.

[Oryan77]

Originally Posted by SigmaX0

Does anyone else have any similar experiences and advice for how either our DM or us players can change the way we're playing to make this campaign run a little smoother?

I'm not really seeing how the DM did anything wrong. You didn't give much of an explanation about how his NPCs are nonexistent, so I don't really know what to say about that. Maybe you guys could try roleplaying with the NPCs more and force them to be existent?

But for your cultist scenario, I'm actually baffled...what exactly do you think the DM did wrong? Is your complaint that he didn't "allow" you guys to capture him? While I was reading your scenario, I was actually getting really into it. I found the chase scene to be really interesting! I've never had an elaborate chase scene like that...you guys ran to point A, figured out where he went, ran to point B, found out he stole a guys horse, ect ect. That's pretty cool, especially if he made up the horse stealing thing on the fly (even if he had that planned, it's cool). I would like to plan out a cool chase scenario like that, where the PCs keep tracking him and finding out what he has done (knocked over a guys fruit cart, stabbed a woman for being in his way, stole a horse, ect ect).

It sounds like you guys are just mad that you didn't get your way. As others have said, you rested for 5 minutes? Do you realize how long that is? Have you ever watched an episode of Cops and seen officers completely stop for a 5 minute break? A lot can happen in 5 minutes. If you were more concerned with safety and getting powers back, then you have to assume you might fail at capturing the cultist. There's nothing wrong with thinking "safety first", but you have to be prepared for failure. Sure, the DM could have handed the cultist to you guys, but he was trying to be realistic. Honestly, I think being realistic makes for a cooler game. You really can't blame him for being railroad-y (you assumed he was and turns out he wasn't) when you guys were the ones metagaming (we'll rest & gain our powers first so it will be easier to fight him....we'll still catch up to him because it's a game & we should be allowed to catch him).

You're making one of the worst player mistakes which is having a Player vs DM attitude. When you think the DM is trying to screw you over, then you begin to hate the game & the DMing. Then the campaign crumbles and it isn't the DMs fault. Instead of metagaming and thinking you know what "should" have happened, you should keep it in-game and think, "Dang, we let the guy get away...he won't get away next time!" From your description, it's obvious what the problem was....you guys didn't stay on his tail like you should have. I don't understand why that wouldn't have been your first thought and why you blamed the DM first instead.

My advice is to "keep everything in-game". Don't assume you know what should happen and don't think about what the DM is or isn't doing. That's the problem. If you just go with the flow and keep what happens in-game, I'm sure you'll have less to complain about. Don't metagame

[LostSoul]

How did your old DM run things?

If he was the one running that game, and he wanted the priest to get away, would it have been possible for you to catch up with him?

[JoeNotCharles]

Originally Posted by Celebrim

- emphasis mine

I love the irony.

What irony?

[Hobo]

You think you have it tough? Our last DM wears glass slippers!

[Celebrim]

Originally Posted by JoeNotCharles

What irony?

Since you ask, you made two statements in quick succession.

1) You don't have to be 'old school' to insist that actions have consequences.
2) The DM blew it by making the player's failure actually feel like failure.

It seems to me that if you never have to feel like you failed and if whenever you fail there is an exciting consolation prize that lets you get right back on track shortly thereafter, then you really don't believe that actions have consequences except in the most trivial way.

They - the players - blew it. The players blew it in a really big an obvious way - stopping to take a 5 minute break instead of immediately pursuing (to say nothing of completing the combat with the minion rather than trying to push past it). Those choices had a very unpleasant consequence, "The priest got away.", which I gather that the original poster is not used to experiencing because he said:

"All through that sequence of events, I though the DM was basically saying, 'back off guys, you're not going to catch this priest', putting as many obstacles in our path as possible. I felt like we needed to continue because i'm stubborn and I wanted to prove a point.

But it turns out, he actually wanted us to capture him! That was what was 'meant' to happen, which I find pretty incredible. I guess we're just looking at things from different perspectives."

The perspective of the OP implies that the OP is used to playing in a game where the things that are intended to happen by the DM, generally do happen regardless of what the players do. In this perspective, you can blow off chasing the priest until you want to, and that trial never goes cold nor does the priest ever get a headstart sufficient to get away. And that is ultimately what you seem to suggest to when you say, "The DM blew it." and "You could have at least found a clear trail"

If the player actions only had the consequence, "The priest got away today, but you'll be given another chance to get him tommorrow.", then there is really no way for the priest to get away because 'catching the priest' is the intended result. The OP's DM however seems to be suggesting that sometimes when you make an error you might not be able to recover from it at all (much less quickly) and that sometimes actions have real lasting consequences.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Celebrim

Since you ask, you made two statements in quick succession.

1) You don't have to be 'old school' to insist that actions have consequences.
2) The DM blew it by making the player's failure actually feel like failure.

It seems to me that if you never have to feel like you failed and if whenever you fail there is an exciting consolation prize that lets you get right back on track shortly thereafter, then you really don't believe that actions have consequences except in the most trivial way.

Agreed. The players were provided with a meaningful choice. Either they didn't want to catch the priest that badly or they chose poorly.

[JoeNotCharles]

Originally Posted by Celebrim

Since you ask, you made two statements in quick succession.

1) You don't have to be 'old school' to insist that actions have consequences.
2) The DM blew it by making the player's failure actually feel like failure.

It seems to me that if you never have to feel like you failed and if whenever you fail there is an exciting consolation prize that lets you get right back on track shortly thereafter, then you really don't believe that actions have consequences except in the most trivial way.

Yes. No contradiction here, unless you think "consequence" means "failure".

Blundering around until they finally decide that the priest must have gotten away is a highly unsatisfying way to spend a session. Either make it clear up front, almost immediately, that the priest got away, and that's the end of this part of the adventure, or have their blundering around looking for him have some further payoff. The DM just had them run a long way into a long dead end, and then have to backtrack out of it.

I thought it went without saying that, since the priest got away, "finding a clue" wasn't going to put them back to being one encounter behind him. It could take many more tough adventures to find him again now. The story's on a completely new track now, of tracking the priest down rather than nabbing him just after fighting his minions - that's a consequence. It doesn't have to be an unsatisfying one.

I mean, in-character the PC's failed, and NPC's should treat it that way. Out-of-character, the players haven't "failed" - they've made a choice to rest up instead of going after the priest immediately. If that's "failure" the DM should just say, "You chose poorly, and lost the game." But that's not the way D&D works.

[MrMyth]

Originally Posted by Celebrim

Since you ask, you made two statements in quick succession.

1) You don't have to be 'old school' to insist that actions have consequences.
2) The DM blew it by making the player's failure actually feel like failure.

Hold up a second - I don't think those statements are opposed in any way. You can easily have a result of failure without it involving... the plot coming to a halt with no direction to go from there. As mentioned, you could have some alternate exciting encounter that is a direct consequence of their action (and may involve other in character problems).

But the thing to keep in mind - you never want to punish the players. If they make a bad call in character, by all means, have consequences. For the characters. Remember, you are playing a game, and the goal should also be that the players remain invested in the story, rather than being punished for a bad call with boredom and frustration.

[Celebrim]

Originally Posted by JoeNotCharles

Blundering around until they finally decide that the priest must have gotten away is a highly unsatisfying way to spend a session.

Well, possibly, that might be one of those non-trivial consequences I mentioned. Although, it's worth noting that one of the commentors in this thread was envious, because he's never been involved in a protracted chase scene like that. Which, you never would if people took this advise:

Either make it clear up front, almost immediately, that the priest got away, and that's the end of this part of the adventure, or have their blundering around looking for him have some further payoff.

Or in other words, the failure of the characters shouldn't carry anything but trivial consequences. And if the characters embark on some course of action that doesn't have a big payoff, they should be warned up front, right? So yeah, I do think the consequences of failure should be failure, and I don't think you believe that there should be consequences like I think there should be consequences.

The DM just had them run a long way into a long dead end, and then have to backtrack out of it.

You know what? Sometimes it happens. I've lost an adventure before. Your characters stand around and they are alive, but, you've still lost. The bad guys won, or at least, you didn't defeat them. You screwed up. It sucks. It makes you think, "Gee. That sucked. We really wasted our time here.", in character and out of character. But life is like that. The heroes don't win everything. Sometimes things happen that are downers. You buck up and you deal with it. The adventure after that was one of the best I've ever played, but we never did fix the mess we made of the previous one.

Now, by no means am I asking you to agree with me that this is the 'right' way to play. However, I think we can safely agree at this point that you and I don't agree on this aspect of how to run a game.

And that thing we don't agree on about what sort of consequences are possible: it's called 'old school'.

[JoeNotCharles]

Originally Posted by Celebrim

Or in other words, the failure of the characters shouldn't carry anything but trivial consequences. And if the characters embark on some course of action that doesn't have a big payoff, they should be warned up front, right? So yeah, I do think the consequences of failure should be failure, and I don't think you believe that there should be consequences like I think there should be consequences.

You seem to think "big payoff" means "congratulations, you caught him". By "payoff" I mean anything at all interesting. Anything. An unrelated encounter. The kickoff to an unrelated adventure. A colorful NPC who tells them how badly they screwed up in entertaining terms. Anything but wandering around doing nothing for hours! (He described a bunch of stuff that sounded like it could have worked - the dwarf minion could have been that colorful NPC - but he sounds like he found it boring and frustrating so I guess they just weren't very interesting?)

My first example was some sort of clue they could use to pick up the priest's trail. I guess that was a bad example, because you seem to think I'm arguing they must be given another chance to catch the priest. I just picked that because it was the first thing that came to mind as a satisfying way to continue - making the priest's getting away a setback rather than a total loss. But if the DM wants this to be their only chance to catch the priest, that's fine - but for the game to remain fun, he should then replace the catching of the priest with something else that grabs the players attention and isn't total frustration.

It sounds like in this case the players honestly thought they were mere minutes behind the priest and had a chance to catch up - and if that was so, the DM should have given them some sort of interaction. If not, he should have made it clear somehow.

You know what? Sometimes it happens. I've lost an adventure before. Your characters stand around and they are alive, but, you've still lost. The bad guys won, or at least, you didn't defeat them. You screwed up. It sucks. It makes you think, "Gee. That sucked. We really wasted our time here.", in character and out of character. But life is like that.

The point is that's not what happened. They rode around thinking they had a chance to catch him and eventually realized that they didn't. They didn't definitively lose, it just petered out and they came to the conclusion that they must have lost, because if they'd won something would have happened by now.

Now, by no means am I asking you to agree with me that this is the 'right' way to play. However, I think we can safely agree at this point that you and I don't agree on this aspect of how to run a game.

No, I'm still working under the assumption that you're not getting what I'm talking about, because by taking the position opposite mine you're arguing that the appropriate response to the characters losing is to bore them for the rest of the session. That can't be what you mean by "consequence", can it?

[LostSoul]

The playstyle difference:

Am I willing to put up with frustration based on my own choices?

Emotional risk is part of that playstyle.