GMing help

[GregoryOatmeal]

I used to be a high-prep DM and found it sort of boxed me in in many cases. I'd make an intricate plot for a player and that player wouldn't show up, for example.

For my own personal sanity I stopped prepping games (extensively) and catering to players. I made the dramatic switch to running modules. I didn't do this because I didn't have faith in my ability to create a game - I did it for my own sense of detachment from the plot.

When I designed my own adventures I tended to design a problem and a solution. If I didn't push the players towards the solution I was at least secretly hoping they would go in that direction. I would get a bit frustrated when they solved a problem too easily or averted the situation altogether. I think that's a natural consequence of putting too much effort into a detailed plot.

I switched to the pregen modules because they give a lot of content but don't flesh it out extensively (ideally - detailed entries require some time to digest). I found this can lead to a lot of improv or a situation being skipped over altogether. As a DM I'm not personally upset the situation I painstakingly plotted didn't go to waste. For example I had a really fun Castles and Crusades game playing Keep on the Borderlands recently. Despite the hack and slash nature of the module the players managed to squeeze in some significant roleplaying with the various factions in the caves. This was primarily player-driven. It occurred because I had a large world that I didn't really prep, the players had a lot of choice about where to go and I could react in the moment. The module looks god-awful on paper (no named NPCs, no real plot, just a bunch of caves to hack through) but people always seem to have fun with it.

 

[Aaziroth]

He doesn't min/Max per se, he has an acutely analytical mind, and has basically broke down every class from every game and figured out how to exploit their strengths and minimize their weaknesses
As far as the other charas, for what I have to throw just to score a hit on him, its almost a one hit/one kill to the other charas...


I'm going to think hard on what a lot of u have said, and take it from there..,

Thnx everyone

 

[Aaziroth]

I tried to run modules, but ran into a slew of problems such as when the module is written for a specific event to happen, the players interject preventing it from happening, or what I've had happen numerous times, the players have gone completely against the module... so I gave up on doing modules

 

[Janx]

He doesn't min/Max per se, he has an acutely analytical mind, and has basically broke down every class from every game and figured out how to exploit their strengths and minimize their weaknesses
As far as the other charas, for what I have to throw just to score a hit on him, its almost a one hit/one kill to the other charas...


I'm going to think hard on what a lot of u have said, and take it from there..,

Thnx everyone

your problem was exactly what kzach was complaining about in a thread called "is it wrong to optimize". He was the optimizer.

When 1 guy super optimizes and the others don't, it causes problems.

things to consider:

• check his math. I've known more than a few keen minds that don't notice that they misinterpreted the rules when it comes out in their favor
• scale back on the extra rule books. Every edition brings in power creep and problems like this with the add-on books. try core only.
• talk to him about the problem. He should understand the impact his style has on the Gm and the group.

 

[Gronin]

There have been several really good ideas to help you with your problem but I think one thing has been missed. It isn't just your responsibility to make the game fun. Much of the responsibility lies with the players. This isn't a competition. It is not the DMs job to defeat the party (although I, and I am sure many others, have had the misfortune of playing in that type of game), and neither is it the job of the players to break the scenario/plot/module (also been there).

As well as taking a great deal of the advice given earlier I think it might be a good idea to sit down with your group and explain that this is a game and sometimes if they just go with the flow they are going to find a storyline that is rewarding. They might find that it sometimes makes for a fun story/game to fall for the trap or to go into the ruined castle (even though it is obviously haunted). After all where would many good suspense movies (and virtually all horror movies) be if the characters did the sensible thing?

Just to be clear I'm not advocating playing characters as gullible twits out stumbling around the forest hoping to find a pot of gold but sometimes it doesn't hurt to (as a player) help the story develop.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Lots of good advice. Bottom line: "Write situations/setting with backstory", but dont' focus on the A-B-C plot train.

As a side note...from reading your responses, I think there's something else going on in your game. I don't think it's because one player is a "classic optimizer" and walks through things. What I think is going on is that your players have learned that there are no real consequences for their actions. Bare with me here...

If they just keep doing whatever they feel like (even if it's ultimately successful), you don't seem to imply that any in-game world consequences occure. Like someone said above, with the example of Intimidating a noble into doing/not doing something. There *should* be logical, in-game reactions to such a thing. With your encounters, word would proably get around at how bad-ass these guys are...and they could be targeted by bad guys who think they may come into contact with them in the future. Or maybe they get asked to take on some task that they probably can't actually handle. Think "victim of your own success".

Because you've been 'planning' adventures out, I suspect that after the players and PC's totally mess that up, you're more or less caught holding the bag wondering what just happened. Then, next game you start at square 1 and the PC's continue...as if the previous adventure didn't happen. You need to take a step back and think of what the adventurers just did to the campaign landscape. Did any NPC's die? Did those NPC's have family, friends, enemies that may care enough to confront the PC's about it? What about some powerful monster they just killed? Maybe the goblin hoard that was living 'just over the hills' stayed out of the area because o that powerful monster...and now that it's dead, well, they're free to move back in and start terrorizing the country side again. That kind of thing. Just think of the campaign setting and what ripples the PC's probably just caused.

Then, take the advice given in this thread and write some stuff down for next game.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Merkuri]

Furthermore, once they react to it, you then plan the consequences. If they help group B and oppose A, but A is the "Good guys" in this situation and B are the bad guys, let the players figure this out after attacking group A or helping group B. Let them discover what their actions have caused.

There *should* be logical, in-game reactions to such a thing.

I very much agree that the world should have logical consequences to the players action or inaction, but be careful here. Avoid the temptation to punish the PCs for doing or not doing something you think they should have done.

To use the example where the party alienated the "good guy" group and allied with the "bad guy" group, your first instinct may be to make the bad guy group betray them so the party winds taking the blame for something and winds up in jail. Because, hey, they're not supposed to be with this group anyway, and you want to discourage them from working with them, right?

Don't fall into that trap. Resist the urge to "teach" the PCs which way they should go by having bad stuff happen to them when they zig instead of zagging.

Instead, wouldn't it be more fun if they successfully work with the bad guy group for a while and the group keeps asking them to do progressively more and more sketchy things? They start off with fairly normal quests, but eventually they may be asking the party to murder innocents or do other things that go against the party's morality/alignment. The PCs will probably get to a point where they need to decide whether they want to keep working with these guys, but they're already dug in deep and they'll have to be creative about how they want to break their ties with this group.

Note that the prep here should only be for the first one, maybe two quests that the group gives them. You can write down ideas about what quests 3, 4, 5, etc will be, but don't actually flesh them out. Expect that at any time the PCs may want out, so you may not end up needing quests 4 and 5. However, once they do break their ties with this group it's entirely possible that the group will try to do quests 4 and 5 on their own, at which point the PCs may cross paths with them again.

Or, depending on how much information you gave them about groups A and B, you could end up taking all of your plans for those two groups and just switch them. If the PCs never learned about group B's secret plan to kill the king and take over the kingdom then they probably won't notice when suddenly it's group A's plan instead.

If the PCs didn't know about it that means you can change it.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Don't be afraid to give the PCs major advantages if they earned them. That's tremendously fun and satisfying for them.

That is extremely important - when the players earn an advantage, let them use it. If they score a series of crits against a major bad guy, let them do it. I had several tough bad guys in my last campaign that ended up getting wasted way too quickly due to either good tactics or good rolling (when the dwarf fighter in melee with a balor rolls a natural "20" three times in his 5 attacks, what can you do as a DM but watch him dish out 200 hit points of damage in admiration... oh, and we make all our "to hit" rolls on the table in front of everybody if anybody was wondering about cheating.)

If Han Solo's blast had killed Darth Vader at the end of Star Wars, it would have changed the next two movies, but they'd still have Emperor Palpatine to deal with, who was pretty tough in his own right... plus, there would then be another Sith Lord apprentice coming, too. In other words, there are always more bad guys out there for the DM.

 

[Piratecat]

I have a player that knows how to break just about any class, and winds up at 3rd lvl sometimes with a chara that can't be touched by anything less than 3 or 4 or more lvls higher than he is, and even than they only scratch him, and he tears through them w/ relative ease...

This is great! Use this to your advantage. Townsfolk see his obvious combat superiority and start telling rumors about him: he's a natural prodigy, he's a demigod in human flesh, he's a more powerful warrior in disguise, he's sent by the gods to protect us. They then start to idolize him; little kids follow him around and pretend to be him. Townsfolk start singing songs about him, and bards carry those songs across the land. People buy the party drinks. Nobles invite the party out for festivals.

Then strangers show up asking for his help against a monster much tougher than he can handle. If he refuses them, it will hurt his reputation. Rivals who want to show how tough they are arrive to challenge him for prestige, like gunslingers in the old west, and some of these people are much tougher than he is even without magic items.

He has a choice: either put his life on the line against monsters and NPCs who can actually threaten him, or risk this cool reputation he's accidentally developed. It's the best of both worlds because it's an endless source of plot hooks, it celebrates what the player likes to do, and it gives scenarios where both the player and the rest of the party can be challenged by a boss monster and its assistants.

Just be careful that you don't award too much treasure for the tougher foes. That just compounds the problem.

I try to make my games story driven, but no matter what I do, they mess things up... ex. A group supposed to help the players and be semi-allies, from their actions they turn them into bitter enemies...

Don't assume the group is supposed to help the players. The group is neutral and CAN help them, but only if the PCs earn their trust and respect. Basically, make the players work for it. If the default state is "no free lunch," the PCs might try to win over the group just to be contrary.

 

[Kzach]

D20 system, we all hate 4e... lol

Ah, see now, there's your REAL problem