Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaculata" data-source="post: 6702394" data-attributes="member: 6801286">That is a great example. I love including hazards in my dungeons. It also allows for more creative use of knowledge skills. You can ask your players to do a "knowledge dungeoneering-check" to see if that ceiling is about to collapse. And a dwarf-character might be able to tell automatically, which makes the players feel like their race-choice matters. I know a lot of my players love gearing up for adventures, so it's great when the dungeons make use of those tools. Plus, not every hazard needs to be life-threatening either. Same as with traps, a hazard can also just complicate the dungeon-exploring experience. If a tunnel partially floods, this slows the movement of the players. You can't really run in waist-high water, plus there might be foes hidden underwater. Loose rocks can make it difficult to climb a steep slope. A strong draft can cause any uncovered light sources to go out. If the players need to shimmy along a thin ledge, then a strong draft can be even more dangerous. Hazards can also cause players to reconsider how much force they use. You don't want to be throwing around explosives and fireballs, when the ceiling of the dungeon looks unstable.Yes, if races and classes are that unimportant, it can really make a setting rather dull. Everyone is just one big happy family. In my own setting, dwarves do not take kindly to people calling them dwarves. They are a proud culture of people, and they consider the term "dwarf" an insult. Elves are a rare sight, and attract a lot of attention. Wizards are treated with more courtesy than some simple adventurer. In my setting the arcane arts are exclusive to the upper class and the learned. Wizards even wear wigs and flamboyant clothing, just to show the difference in status. Other magic users, such as the notorious Speakers of the Dead, dress as frightening as possible. They wear dark make up, blacken their teeth and nails, and wear bones and long black dresses. They bare names that remind people of poison, vermin and death. They use their status and appearance to put fear in the hearts of other pirates. And people would never dare anger a wizard, because they can do horrible things. Priests are generally among the most trusted in my setting, and are given proper respect. They are especially appreciated by the poor, the homeless and the hungry.Another thing that can be annoying:Npc's instantly know the class of a playerCan an npc instantly tell that someone is a wizard, a priest, or a rogue? Especially a rogue is generally someone a bit lawless, so would they proudly advertize that they are a rogue? Of course not. And unless someone dresses as Gandalf, or casts spells in public, can you really know that someone is a wizard? I think it's reasonable to assume that anyone carrying a sword is probably a fighter, soldier or mercenary, at least from the point of view of an npc (even if that isn't the case). A bard might be easy to recognize, because generally they would know a lot of people, and been to many places.I'll give an example. I took part in a lord of the rings roleplaying session once, and I played a wizard. But not just any wizard. A wizard who chose not to broadly advertize that he was one (he looked like an ordinary traveler with a simple wooden staff). The party was set upon by bandits, and my character simply surrendered. The DM kind of seemed to want to force all the players to fight the bandits, but I simply refused. They can have my money if they want to, I do not wish to fight them. But the bandits attacked anyway, thus forcing my wizard to use spells. This does not make sense. They are bandits! If an old man surrenders and hands over his money willingly, why would they attack him anyway? I suppose its not impossible for the bandits to be just complete murderous monsters, but considering they announced their robbery, it seemed odd that they would respond with hostility to a surrender. And of course some players fought back, and you'd think the heavily armed characters would be the one and only focus of the bandits. After all, why focus on a defenseless old man, when you have three more armed and armored foes in front of you?And the bandits did not seem the least bit surprised when eventually they were being attacked with magic. None of them were frightened or intimidated by it. In fact, much like in most dnd campaigns, it seemed like the most normal thing in the world to them.But this campaign became even more bizarre. Other npc's insisted to know "what it was" that my character could do. To which I replied, I'm a traveler. I travel. But they persisted. Can you wield a sword, or that staff you have in your hands? Do you have any magic? I answered that I was just an old man with a walking stick, on his way to the nearest town. The npc's seemed reluctant to believe me, even though they had not seen me fight, or cast any magic. Did these npc's have some of a radar for character classes? Did they need to know my class, so that they could hand out a quest? From the point of view of my character, none of this behavior made any sense. He was just an old man on the road, not looking for any quests at all, just a meal and a place to stay.I agree. The whole idea of "character class" is a meta-game concept anyway. It shouldn't really pop up in ordinary npc interactions at all. The players are just people with swords and armor, nothing more. I think it's also a good idea to always ask the players what they are dressed like. Are the priest and wizard clearly dressed as such? Is the priest openly carrying his holy symbol in clear sight of everyone?Some more that a friend (and fellow DM brought up)The DM enforces chess rulesThis happens occasionally, where a DM does not allow a player to take back their action. "You said you were going to do it, so thats what happens". Often a player might choose a course of action that is not so clever, but he may have forgotten about certain details, and his fellow players will remind him of those things. Hearing those things, the player reconsiders, but the DM does not allow him to reconsider. That is bad. In any DnD campaign you can be playing up to several hours, and you won't always be 100% focused and at the top of your game. There can be mix ups, you can forget about things that your character would logically know about. There may be details in the environment that the DM described, but you missed, because you (the player) were distracted or just not paying attention. DnD is not a game of chess. You are not in any hurry, and the actions during a round can be discussed and reconsidered for as long as the players want to. Allow your players to reconsider if they believe they've made a mistake, and if no dice have been rolled yet. Ask them if they are happy with their choice, before moving on to the next character/player/enemy. The DM is a stick in the mud regarding appointmentsThis is less about running the campaign, and more about getting together and having a nice session in general. DnD often makes great demands on people's free time. You need everyone to be available on the same day, for several hours. And more often than not, people will not always be available. Its great if you can meet up on the same day, at the same time, every single week. But that is not always a reality. The DM (and the group in general) should be reasonable regarding these appointments. Is it really a big problem to move the session from saturday to sunday? Does it really matter if the players come in at 3 or 4 o clock? Is it really a big issue to skip the session this week, and move it to the next?When I run my campaigns, I tell my friends that they are welcome to show up on my doorstep from a certain hour, or later. And I'll wait and see how late they show up exactly. If they show up later, we start the session a bit later. If they want to have dinner first, then thats what we do, and they are welcome to bring what ever food to my house and eat it there. Make clear agreements regarding what is acceptible, and don't be too fuzzy about the time. If you don't want your players to leave a mess, then ask them if they would be so kind to bring any left over junk with them. Sometimes people will suddenly have to work on that saturday that was supposed to be our DnD night. So be it! We move it to sunday. As long as everyone is informed, I don't see what the big problem is. And if someone isn't free on sunday, well then we move it up a week. Also not a problem.Players are more occupied by their phone than the gameThis is a tricky one. Occasionally you will have players that are paying more attention to what ever gadget they have on them, than the game itself. And it can be really bothersome if the DM is trying to tell a story, and that one player is checking out his phone. Getting mad about it is obviously not the right way to go about it. But I do think that as a DM you should bring it up, and make clear agreements about it with the players. You can't force the players to pay attention, but it is not unreasonable to ask them to be involved with the game they came over to play.Oh  that is very recognizable. I remember a Star Wars campaign that all  lead up to an epic confrontation between our Jedi party member, and a  Sith. Of course the first thing we did as a party, was to all open fire  on the Sith together. This was of course not according to the plan of  the DM (but seriously, would anyone in any real world scenario have any  time for personal duels?). And this takes us to yet another common  problem in campaigns.     One party member is the hero     In any given party, everyone is supposed to be the hero. You can't  have one of the party members be the chosen one, the jedi, or what not.  That doesn't mean that you can't have personalized quests that focus on a  single party member. But you can never make one party member the entire  center of the campaign, it just doesn't work. Because if one player is  the hero with all sorts of super powers, how do you scale the battles  for the other players? You'll end up with enemies that are either way  too easy for the hero, or way too hard for the rest of the party. And  then they'll work together to find some way to defeat the bad guy  anyway, and you can forget all about scripted duels at that point. Just  don't do it. Don't single out one player as the big hero. Treat your  players as a party of adventurers who all get to be the hero at some  points in the campaign.     Introducing famous characters     Don't introduce celebrities ever. Don't have Darth Vader pop up in  your Star Wars campaign, or Gandalf show up in your Lord of the Rings  campaign. I know how tempting it is to introduce these well loved  characters, but there is a huge risk that you will not do them justice,  or that some harm will come to them. If you're fine with Gandalf being  killed in his sleep by the players, then by all means. But if that is  not part of your plan, then resist the urge to introduce him in the  first place. DnD by its very nature is an open none-linear game, where  players make their own choices. Many well established characters already  have their own journey, and this will often get in the way of telling a  none-linear story. And following them around on a linear path isn't all  that much fun either. Besides, players are notorious for messing up  well crafted plans, and if they meet Frodo they will attempt to steal  the ring. You can count on it. Instead, try to create your own heroes  and villains. Use those famous characters as inspiration for characters  of your own.  That's  a great one, thanks Dafrca. Yes, I never understood why a party would  "need" to have a cleric. Why not make a party without one? Make the  players reliant on healing potions and npc's to receive healing. If  anything, it encourages the DM to be creative with his encounters, and  balance them around the fact that they don't have a healer. As a matter  of fact, my current group of players doesn't have a dedicated healer  either. They have one druid who can do a little bit of healing, but they  are mostly reliant on bringing their own healing. And that makes  battles more exciting.     And regarding playing the same class, it is pretty bad if the DM  wants to decide for other players what they should play. I have a friend  who always plays wizards and sorcerers, but he likes to try different  specializations, multiclasses and prestige classes. Thus making every  wizard he plays still different. But even if they were all the same,  what would it matter? I would be more worried if a player kept playing  the same character, with the same personality. But even if this is the  case, and your player isn't such good at roleplaying, you can always  come up with tricks to help your players a little in fleshing out their  character. One such method is one that I proposed in the House-rules  thread, the idea of letting players pick an interesting character  background fact from a list that the DM makes, and can then work into  the story. So even if players are bad at writing backgrounds for their  characters, they would at least have this simple outlne to fall back on.  It gives them a simple foundation to build the rest of their character  around, and it's not mandetory either, it is entirely optional.  ↵That is how I approach it as well <a href="http://community.wizards.com/users/Dreadnought12" target="_blank">Dreadnought. </a>I  create a sort of sandbox for my players to play around in. Kind of like  being in Disneyland, and seeing all sorts of magical things. I have a  few rough plot points that I weave into the story, depending on what the  players choose to do. For example, my players have currently accepted  the daughter of an influential Marquis as part of their pirate crew.  This is an excellent opportunity for one of my villains, to hatch a  devious scheme, where the party is accused of kidnapping the daughter.  I'll try and slowly set that up, and I hope the players walk right into  it. Everything that happens in the campaign is a direct result of the  actions of the players.     For example, when my players returned to the city of Vertesaux, I  informed them that a local dwarven captain was imprisoned, for starting  riots among the dwarven population (they want justice, after one of  their ships was destroyed). This was a set up, because I knew the  players would need to go through the Captain of the Guards (who is an  impossible man) to get to this dwarf. And since they are trying to  recruit all the pirate factions in my campaign, I knew that a dwarven  pirate captain would draw their attention.     But here is the twist. I knew that they would soon meet with the  leader of the local thieves guild, who would offer to set up a meeting  between the party and one of his informants. This informant is none  other than the captain of the guards in disguise, playing two sides. He  wants the players to investigate a fanatical group of knights, and in  return he'll do what ever he can for them. Of course they ask him to  break the dwarf out of jail, to which he replies: "DONE! He'll be a free  man come morning."     This is a simple way in which you can move the plot along, without  railroading the party. The party did not have to meet with the  informant, to get the dwarf out. maybe they could have bribed the guards  and have a talk with him. Maybe they could have blackmailed the captain  of the guards, or simply broken the dwarf out the old fashioned way.  Even without meeting with the informant or the Thieves Guild, they would  have run into the fanatical knights in one way or another. Getting the  dwarf out was not even important to the story.... yet. But maybe as I  further expand on the story, that his role gains more importance. For  now, I just wanted to establish the fanatical knights as new enemies,  and slowly reveal how they are spreading their influence.     But its even more clever than that. I first establish the Captain of  the Guards as an unlikable douche, so the players hate him. And then  later on I let him be a good guy, and help the players, while sharing a  common enemy. The anger of the dwarves is also a plot point that ties  into the main plot, because the dwarves think that their vessel was  destroyed by the crown. In fact, it was destroyed by a foreign country  who is sending a fleet of pirate hunters their way. The party will  eventually have to fight this fleet, but for that they need to recuit  more pirate captains to their cause. So its all part of a bigger whole,  but it doesn't hinge on just one plot point.     The fanatical knights are also not so black and white. During  yesterdays session, one of the players was saved by one of these knight  that they so despise. Unknown to the players, this particular knight is  having doubts about whether his order is truly dealing out justice. The  order has been rather harsh towards criminals, severing the hands of  thieves and such (even children that stole something). They may be able  to pursuate him to abandon the order, or to be their inside man.</blockquote>

Verification