Celebrim
Legend
Which, I might point is exactly what he is trying to do anyway.
Help! There's a watery hole in my plot!
- Thread starter Bob the Wonder Dog
- Start date
Which, I might point is exactly what he is trying to do anyway.
First, I agree with using it as a hand out and not try and play it out. You must also remember the affect it will have on character classes.
A Paladin would be in world of hurt unless she became one after the intro. Less so for clerics and other divine types. Monks and similar lawful types will be affected. Now with that back ground you have just handed them a lot of good reasons to take these type: They are trying to make up for what they did, find redemption, insure that they don't do it again, ect.
Again, I suggest it as a written back ground. I, as player I would really not trust the DM after that type of start.
A Paladin would be in world of hurt unless she became one after the intro. Less so for clerics and other divine types. Monks and similar lawful types will be affected. Now with that back ground you have just handed them a lot of good reasons to take these type: They are trying to make up for what they did, find redemption, insure that they don't do it again, ect.
Again, I suggest it as a written back ground. I, as player I would really not trust the DM after that type of start.
Last edited:
Scripted first session with very little control of your character? You are going to get the session started on the wrong foot. What makes pen and paper RPG's so fun is that you actually have full control of your character. Starting the game without control of your character gets annoying very fast.
Personally I like starting campaigns with a BANG! Some bad situation the players need to get their characters out of. It helps to get the players into their characters and active.
Personally I like starting campaigns with a BANG! Some bad situation the players need to get their characters out of. It helps to get the players into their characters and active.
I'll agree with those up thread saying, if you're going to do this intro, do it as as a pre-campaign handout and a "theme" versus a first adventure.
One thing not mentioned yet: A good DM must have the trust of his players. Since this is your first time at the helm, you don't have it yet (even if these guys know you). Doing a first session where the players (and it is the players not just the characters here) are lied to and manipulated will likely fail to establish this trust and cause irreparable harm to this campaign and possibly future ones.
Think of it this way - do you really want the players double and triple thinking everything you tell them from this point forward (assuming this is not a conspiracy based game of course)? When you look at them and say "guys, this is pretty straight forward" - do you really want them to say "yeah, that's what you said the first session, and look where that got us!"
Edit: I will add there is absolutely nothing wrong with a "things are not as they seem" adventure, they can be great fun. But until the DM has the trust of his players they tend to go very badly.
One thing not mentioned yet: A good DM must have the trust of his players. Since this is your first time at the helm, you don't have it yet (even if these guys know you). Doing a first session where the players (and it is the players not just the characters here) are lied to and manipulated will likely fail to establish this trust and cause irreparable harm to this campaign and possibly future ones.
Think of it this way - do you really want the players double and triple thinking everything you tell them from this point forward (assuming this is not a conspiracy based game of course)? When you look at them and say "guys, this is pretty straight forward" - do you really want them to say "yeah, that's what you said the first session, and look where that got us!"
Edit: I will add there is absolutely nothing wrong with a "things are not as they seem" adventure, they can be great fun. But until the DM has the trust of his players they tend to go very badly.
