D&D General Being A Better DM

[Lanefan]

He was referring to a character that is a senile old man in a nursing home.

Ah. How sweet.

@Oofta , thanks for the clarification.

 

[Weiley31]

Was this 10th-level NPC put in the party 1) by your-as-DM choice, or 2) by player/PC request or recruiting, or 3) by the module itself?

IME if it's 1) things rarely if ever work out well, and if it does for you this time you're probably rather lucky; if it's 2) the players kind of brought it on themselves; and 3) sometimes can't be avoided if running a module as written (e.g. in the original ToEE the party has the opportunity of rescuing (or waking up?) a Paladin who is likely to be at least double the party's average level).

I try to make party-member NPCs at or slightly below the average party level when they come in, and they progress from there just like a PC would. If a party NPC isn't needed any more, or - as happened in an adventure I ran not too long ago - the part accumulates a bunch of them, I'm quick to pull the trigger on retiring them. (once back in town the 'bunch' all left to form their own all-NPC adventuring party, which gives me some potentially handy plot options to work with later )

The NPC WAS the one that pretty much hired the party for the module task at hand in the prequel sequence I made leading up to the module's actual starting point. He doesn't exist in the original module but was added in. That said, if the party goes by the module, there's no need to fight against him. But if there is a combat sequence involved, he's not gonna let himself get killed by the orcs attacking the party. Technically he's not even apart of the party during the main quests of the module.*

 

[billd91]

He was referring to a character that is a senile old man in a nursing home.

He’s not senile as much as he’s curmudgeonly and decidedly prefers the “old ways” of doing things.

 

[77IM]

If you and a player disagree about what their character is capable of, or even how the rules work with regards to their character, don't debate it. Instead, solve the disagreement with a quick ability check, and move on with the game. You can hash it out after the game, if it really matters -- but in hindsight, it's often the case that both of you had reasonable points and that either outcome would be fine for the game.

 

[S'mon]

Roughly-equal contribution to combat isn't really a concern of mine provided those whose contribution to combat is lesser can make up for it in other ways. In the Rogue's case, this make-up realm is - or should be - exploration.

Ranged sneak attack bugged the hell out of me in 3e when I met it there, and still does.

Definitely feels like you should best run pre 3e DnD or other systems where equal combat contribution is not a consideration.

 

[Asisreo]

My advice would be: it's a game.

Many people forget that games are meant to be fun, challenging, and interesting. And the best way to actually make the game fun is through understanding game design.

Too often, DM's forget that they're running a game and want to run their next LoTR or their next Star Wars (this is in general, I don't want to leave out other systems). They'll run it like a book or movie when they might not realize how bad it sucks to be a main character in some of these fictions. If I was a powergamer, I'd hate playing Frodo. I'd want to be Gandalf all the time, but the DM might say only this race is able of moving the McGuffin. There's some sequences in movies that are fun for the audience to watch but can be a slog when the 3 minute action scene turns into a 30 minute dice challenge.

DM's will also try to homebrew things into or out of the system without really taking the balance into consideration. Want to make a homebrew martial weapon that's versatile and does 2d4 when 2-handed? Sure, go ahead. Want to homebrew a sorcerer's sorcery points to recover on short rests at level 2? Whoa, slow down and think about what exactly you're empowering them with, and what you're taking away from classes like Warlock.

Good game design usually flows with the system, not against it. If you're trying to run high combat superhero adventures in CoC, you're going to face issues even at lower levels. If you're trying to play a survival campaign, you'll find yourself banning whole features, spells, and even subclasses in DnD. If you are stingy with magic items because of a low magic setting, your players in Pathfinder may seriously suffer. That's why I usually advocate for DM's to not be so stubborn about playing "D&D" but dismantling it until it's just Asisreo's amateur TTRPG system that is really only fun because the group Asisreo's specific table isn't mean/smart enough to break his system.

Try to design your games along with the system rather than against it. You'll usually find it flows better. If you can't get the system to feel right at all, try a different TTRPG and see how you like it. 5e takes all the spotlight now, and it's wonderful, but there's no need to stick to it if it just isn't working.