D&D General I'm a new dungeon master!! Helpppppp

[antcangas]

Hey all!

I am excited to say that in a few weeks, I am hosting my first one off adventure! I have played before, but never DMed. I am hoping some vets on here can give me some tips and tricks about a few things. Thanks in advance!

So this is the main concern I have... I want to see if anyone has any advice for the social interactions between the players and the world. Specifically, has anyone found a format that allows the group to communicate with NPCs, explore, and do basically anything besides combat while still including the whole group. I have found that often times when the group is just 'let loose' on the world, there is often one person who takes the lead and the other players don't chime in as much as they'd like. I feel like if there was more of a structured approach to the social aspect of dnd, then the group would enjoy themselves more. Any thoughts or ideas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Celebrim]

So, yes. What you describe is a big problem and there is not an easy solution. One of the reasons that combat encounters remain the main focus of most RPGs is that combat (and simulations of combat, such as sports) have an almost unique aspect of requiring teamwork in which each member of the team is making important and meaningful decisions. Just about nothing else has that attribute. There are challenges that require a single person to make important and meaningful decisions, and there are challenges that require teamwork but where most members of the team aren't making a meaningful or skillful decision. Combat is different and that's the real reason it remains a focus of play.

So, yeah, this is a problem. What you'll find though is that frameworks that try to make social encounters more combat like have the problem of making social encounters more abstract than simply role-playing out scenarios resulting in a less satisfying transcript of play and less immersion. They also tend to not solve the problem as most social problems don't have the same time pressure as combat, so you can fight them as a series of duels just fine.

What I do is a buffet approach to adventure design where I try to create a mix of challenges such that even when they aren't working together, they are at least dependent on each other and sharing spotlight. Each character hopefully has things that they do out of combat, whether break things, investigate things, talk to things, or navigate so that each character gets a chance to step forward and help the party and contribute to success.

There are things you can do to force everyone to do social interaction, but it requires more complex setups to the social challenge than I'm comfortable advising a novice DM to implement and run. I've seen moderately experienced DMs struggle to run that sort of complex challenge, and also you run the problem that not everyone is into it and to keep the whole team entertained the players themselves have to be good role-playing entertainers. So yeah, it can be done with some hard work and the payoffs can be real, but I think that would be learning to run before learning to walk.

This is a huge topic and we could spend a lot of time talking about how to do it well.

 

[Andvari]

You can construct scenarios where some classes’ skill set is more obviously useful than others.

Locked doors or chests in a situation where noise is a bad idea, is an obvious scenario for a rogue to shine.

A hidden library with esoteric books providing clues to the villain’s identity is an occasion for the wizard.

A meeting with a group of creatures wearing religious symbols. The group’s cleric recognises the symbol and has familiarity with the religion’s tenets and customs. You could feed the cleric’s player with such information in advance, so it is naturally brought up by the player when they recognize the symbol.

 

[BookTenTiger]

When the group is interacting with an NPC I will prompt different characters into responding, just as if it were a group conversation.

Bard: Tavernkeeper, have you heard of a local group of bandits called the Fox Eye Gang?

DM: The tavernkeeper nods, but says, "Could be, but I don't give out drinks or information for free." Barbarian, you are holding the group's gold. Are you willing to pay him?

Barbarian: Gormak grunts and stands tall, staring down at the tavernkeeper.

DM: Oo, that sounds like an Intimidation check...

Barbarian: 15

DM: The tavernkeeper gulps. "Um, it looks like you've had a long journey. I can give you a little info for free. I've heard the Fox Eye Gang has a hideout in the Hagwood."

Ranger, you've traveled the region. You know the Hagwood is a dangerous forest full of goblins, spiders, and witches. How do you respond to hearing about this?

Ranger: "How do the bandits survive in such a dangerous area?"

DM: The tavernkeeper shakes his head. "I heard they made a deal with a Nighthag... But if I tell you any more they'll burn down my bar."

Bard, he looks honestly scared. This is your chance to play into that, or calm him.

Bard: Oh, I bet I can inspire him! "You can't run a rowdy tavern like this and be a coward! Pull yourself together, strike one against the bandits, and tell us what you know about this Nighthag!"

DM: Make a Persuasion check.

Bard: 18!

DM: The tavernkeeper nods. "You're right, I can't let these creeps scare me into silence... Sit down, have a drink, and I'll tell you all about it..."



...


It takes some practice, but I've found it's really engaged the whole group rather than just leaving it up to someone with high Charisma.

 

[aco175]

@antcangas welcome to the boards, hope you stay a while. Everyone here likes to help, but tiptoe around gnomes, bards, and gnome bards.

To answer your question, one thing I try to do is know what checks the PCs are good and ask for those in situations that let that PC shine for a bit. Maybe someone has animal something or another has Athletics. Ask for a check or even give them advantage if trained in it.

 

[toucanbuzz]

...format that allows the group to communicate with NPCs, explore, and do basically anything besides combat while still including the whole group...

I do something similar to what @BookTenTiger suggests. Everyone should have a chance to be in the spotlight. Not everyone takes the reins of the conversation, however, and some expect the DM to move the spotlight.

So, spotlight the character for a feature they have and use that as an excuse to get a particular player to talk.

If the Human Bard with 18 Charisma says "I'll talk to the Orcs, I have a great persuasion" (and by the way, no one should talk like that in game because people don't talk like that!), and you know the Bard has been in the spotlight a lot today, have the Orc shake his head no. "We will only speak to your Mok Nar. Only his kind has earned that right." You're making up everything as you go, so the Mok Nar happens to be [insert PC feature from player who hasn't been in the spotlight lately.]

This might be the dwarf because the orcs remember a great battle where dwarves were so fierce even the orcs were impressed, or a Druid because they respect the land, or a Wizard because the shaman commands great power in their culture.

You can apply this to mundane encounters. The little street urchin runs up to the warrior. "Is that a real axe? You use it in battle? I can shine it for you!" And, maybe this street urchin has a hook or a tip, or perhaps its just something to bring your game world more color and more to life.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

The more open you are to improvising—meaning the details of a prepped encounter or the entire adventure—the less you need to worry about a scripted, super-planned-out approach to spotlighting each and every PC. That and trying to make sure that every situation isn't inevitably leading to a fight. Combat can be a means to an end (fighting through a crowd to get somewhere in a hurry, rather than just fighting the crowd till they're all dead) or a fail condition, or even extremely dangerous, not overly, painstakingly balanced like 5e leans toward. Basically the more freewheeling and combat-optional (or even combat-averse) the situations you prep, with high stakes wherever possible, not neutral/no-stakes scene after scene, the less need there is to worry about keeping players engaged and their PCs sharing the spotlight.

 

[J-H]

Congrats!
1) Most mistakes you make will never be noticed by the players. Forgot a monster ability? Didn't add up HP right? Forgot to insert an NPC you had prepped? They won't know.

2) They're happy to be there and playing and probably aren't trying to derail things on purpose.

As far as non-combat interactions go, just keep general track of who's talking. Pick out the silent ones and encourage them with a "What does your character think/do/say" as appropriate. Note some people aren't as comfortable with this and may stay quiet on purpose... you'll figure it out if they repeatedly don't run with the prompts. New players may also need a reminder like ("Your character has the sage background. What is he interested in seeing in the wizard's tower?").

 

[Celebrim]

When the group is interacting with an NPC I will prompt different characters into responding, just as if it were a group conversation.

Bard: Tavernkeeper, have you heard of a local group of bandits called the Fox Eye Gang?...

The good part of this is that it's always a good idea to try to coax players out of their shells and encourage them to RP in character. That's definitely worth doing.

But I think your example is going to require players that consent to this play style both in the short and long term. In the short term, if you have experienced players they may rebel against railroading techniques like you are using where you are giving them 'choose your own adventure' type prompts. Very often you are going to get evasive behavior from players where they are going to refuse 'yes/no' type solutions. Players are frequently going to be suspicious of anything that takes away their agency even the tiniest bit.

In the long run, even if the players initially have buy in to this technique, I can see that they may start rebelling against it if one of these interactions goes badly wrong because of dice rolls. You've done the happy path on this where everyone has rolled well, but if you have enough of these sessions where things go badly as a result of leaning into your prompts then you will have incentivized the players to try to evade this behavior. Afterall, there is nothing really preventing Gormok from deferring to the Bard right from the start, and I'd be surprised if a group didn't object in principle to Gormok's player deciding either to intimidate an NPC (something that can go spectacularly bad) or spend party gold without consensus. If Gormok is trusted enough to hold the party gold, it's probably because he's trusted enough not to spend it without a party vote. If I'm Gormok, I spend my own gold to buy a drink, and I evade your suggestions:

"Me: Gormok pulls one of his own coins out of his pocket and says, "Gormok just thirsty. Ale for my coin, and keep it coming. Playing with words make Gormok more thirsty." I point a meaty thumb at the Bard and says, "Pretty boy likes words. Not me."

I'm involved, but as a player I'm not going to accept that I have role in this challenge. The party has a face; he does the talking on the party's behalf. It's possible the party even has a leader or defacto leader. I'm not going to try to intimidate anyone until the face or leader in the group suggests that as a strategy.

 

[Rune]

As long as you know what your NPCs’ agendas, motives, and methods are, you’ve got most of the tools you’ve got most of the tools you’re going to need to navigate through any social scene unscripted.

You don’t really need to worry too much about guiding the players through it. Let the conversations play out naturally unless they stall. You can prompt players along the way, either with out-of-character questions, or directly from the NPCs. Maybe the NPC thinks they can take advantage of a less vocal PC. Or maybe they just take a liking to one of them. Motives and methods.

If you’re worried about getting players involved in non-interactive scenes like mission-planning, you still can subtly influence things by pointing out potential logistical challenges that might need to be overcome or just outright ask questions along the way. The goal here is to provide room for the more passive players to add input to the process. Of course, all that assumes the players are even willing to discuss such things in front of you. Some players are paranoid about that.

Which reminds me of another thing: your job will be easier if they don’t have good reason to be paranoid about strategizing in front of you. You can build your tension through NPC machinations and escalating situations. Don’t abuse information that the NPCs wouldn’t have.

Finally, establish clear stakes early and build on them. Many times, when players seem to be aimless and the game stalls out it’s because stakes aren’t clear or compelling enough. If they are clear and compelling (and if your NPCs act on their agendas), you should be able to manage the pace of the session without much interference at all.

Above all, don’t worry about being perfect. Trial and error is an important part of finding your voice as a DM. If something you try doesn’t work for this particular group, just take note of it and move on.

 

[Professor Murder]

Hey all!

I am excited to say that in a few weeks, I am hosting my first one off adventure! I have played before, but never DMed. I am hoping some vets on here can give me some tips and tricks about a few things. Thanks in advance!

So this is the main concern I have... I want to see if anyone has any advice for the social interactions between the players and the world. Specifically, has anyone found a format that allows the group to communicate with NPCs, explore, and do basically anything besides combat while still including the whole group. I have found that often times when the group is just 'let loose' on the world, there is often one person who takes the lead and the other players don't chime in as much as they'd like. I feel like if there was more of a structured approach to the social aspect of dnd, then the group would enjoy themselves more. Any thoughts or ideas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Try not to expect that any given social encounter will engage all your players. Instead create scenes that will have connections for specific PCs to shine and mix it up. A visit to the temple lets the Cleric shine. Speaking the the reclusive spirit of the woods means the Ranger or Druid gets to flex. That Crimelord? He's the gnome's "Uncle."

Also, if you find that a given player just naturally jumps in all the time, to the detriment of the others, take them aside between games and talk with them about it.

Reward RP with inspiration generously.

 

[BookTenTiger]

The good part of this is that it's always a good idea to try to coax players out of their shells and encourage them to RP in character. That's definitely worth doing.

But I think your example is going to require players that consent to this play style both in the short and long term. In the short term, if you have experienced players they may rebel against railroading techniques like you are using where you are giving them 'choose your own adventure' type prompts. Very often you are going to get evasive behavior from players where they are going to refuse 'yes/no' type solutions. Players are frequently going to be suspicious of anything that takes away their agency even the tiniest bit.

In the long run, even if the players initially have buy in to this technique, I can see that they may start rebelling against it if one of these interactions goes badly wrong because of dice rolls. You've done the happy path on this where everyone has rolled well, but if you have enough of these sessions where things go badly as a result of leaning into your prompts then you will have incentivized the players to try to evade this behavior. Afterall, there is nothing really preventing Gormok from deferring to the Bard right from the start, and I'd be surprised if a group didn't object in principle to Gormok's player deciding either to intimidate an NPC (something that can go spectacularly bad) or spend party gold without consensus. If Gormok is trusted enough to hold the party gold, it's probably because he's trusted enough not to spend it without a party vote. If I'm Gormok, I spend my own gold to buy a drink, and I evade your suggestions:

"Me: Gormok pulls one of his own coins out of his pocket and says, "Gormok just thirsty. Ale for my coin, and keep it coming. Playing with words make Gormok more thirsty." I point a meaty thumb at the Bard and says, "Pretty boy likes words. Not me."

I'm involved, but as a player I'm not going to accept that I have role in this challenge. The party has a face; he does the talking on the party's behalf. It's possible the party even has a leader or defacto leader. I'm not going to try to intimidate anyone until the face or leader in the group suggests that as a strategy.

I will just say, in my experience of DMing a mixed group of new and experienced players, my technique worked really really well. It kept conversations flowing and everyone involved. Then again, we also have a system so a player can signal they have something they want to say. In person, they move a Huge Miniature (a giant or dragon or some such) forward on the table. On Roll20, they type in an emoji specific to their character. If I see that, or a player just starts talking, I always shift to them.

 

[Imaculata]

I approach these sorts of situation, the way a dialog may play out in a movie. Even when a character isn't talking, they may be involved in the conversation in some other way. They may have knowledge, or a realization, that the others have not. They may notice something during the conversation. Or maybe an npc flat out asks for their opinion. It's all a matter of spotlight management, and drawing everyone into the scene.

 

[Celebrim]

I will just say, in my experience of DMing a mixed group of new and experienced players, my technique worked really really well.

One thing about being a GM is that "Works well at my table..." is in fact the whole art of being a good GM. Every group of players is different, and figuring out what works well for the group in front of you is being a good GM. There is no magic formula to that.

But to the extent that there is, the zeroth maxim of good GMing is "Be the GM that you would want to have as a player."

My comment is very much geared to, "Too much of what you are doing probably wouldn't work for me, and this is why." But there is core thing you are doing that I'm not surprised is working well, because encouraging RP and sharing spotlight between players are advanced skills that show quality in a GM.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Welcome to DMing! You can pick up your bottle of Tums on the left, along with the tax forms, pencils, and notepads.

I've got a couple techniques for looping in the whole group outside of combat.

1 - Maintain a semi-initiative outside of combat. It can be as simple as just going around the table (or Discord/Roll 20 screen) clockwise. If the party is interacting with an NPC or exploring. Even if when asked a player says "no, I don't have anything to say," they've at least been given the opportunity to contribute. It also keeps one or two players from monopolizing the talking air.

2 - If I notice a player is fading to the background, I will address them specifically, whether by having the NPC talk to them or them noticing a detail specific to their character (i.e., if they're a ranger in the wild, maybe they're the ones that notice those strange tracks).

3 - Give them prompts. If there's a shady NPC they're talking to and the PC is a rogue, the NPC might appeal to them directly with something like "But you know how it is at the Thieves Guild - remember that time with Glort the Greedy taking that high tithe from everyone? Do you know what happened to him?"

 

[Celebrim]

So I'm going to move the direction of the conversation a little sideways. Hitherto we've just been addressing the part of the OP's question that has to do with interaction between PCs and NPCs. But the OP correctly broadens the question to note that this problem with social encounters tends to extend to almost all interactions between the PC's and the world. For example, if the PC's are in a raft floating down the river, it tends to be that one character that is good with boats that makes all the rolls with the raft goes through rapids. Or for that matter, it tends to be that one PC that was good with crafts that made the raft from available natural materials. In general, for non-combat challenges the one player that is the best does all the important work and at best the rest of the team is making rolls that assist that player (helping their chance of success) but which don't involve making any real choices. The PC ranger is the one that makes the wilderness lore roll to see if the swamp hazards can be avoided, and so forth. All of these amount to one person does something while the other players watch, and hopefully those other players don't have phones to distract them.

The solution to this problem is good encounter design. Good encounter design forces everyone in the party to pitch in on the problem in more complex ways than just rolling to assist. And while good encounter design is too broad of a topic to cover in one post, I'm going to try to get the big stone ball rolling on one particular encounter type and that is the trap.

The vast majority of traps in published modules are badly designed, and there is very little published that I know of that really gives a new DM good advice on how to make good trap encounters. Traps as they exist in most modules are taxes on party resources with payoffs in play that aren't worth it. Nothing particularly fun tends to happen if the players get caught in the trap, and nothing particularly fun happens if they don't. Not getting caught in a trap is at least satisfying on the level that you can feel satisfaction at skilled play, but ideally getting caught in the trap ought to be fun as well.

So first let's talk about why most traps fail to be fun. The attributes of most traps in most published works are:

a) They are placed in arbitrary and sometimes nonsensical places in the dungeon. This forces players to search for traps reflexively everywhere because they could be anywhere.
b) Searching for traps generally involves one character that is skilled at finding traps repeatedly doing the same thing.
c) If the trap is found it's easily avoided or if not easily avoided involves the one player that can disarm traps repeatedly doing the same thing.
d) If the trap is not found it does a large amount of damage in an instant and then the trap has done it's thing and any further interaction with the trap is anticlimactic. Often dealing with a trap in this case involves the cleric casting one cure spell and the game continues with the trap having achieved it's goal of consuming resources.

This almost guarantees an unfun experience by all. While one player does get a lot of spot light, everyone else can only watch. And while there is satisfaction in winning against the traps, there isn't a lot of satisfaction when the dice tell you that you've been caught in the trap.

Good traps on the other hand:

a) Are placed in places where it makes sense for a trap to be and make sense for the purpose of the trap. The players should sort of know from environmental clues that this is a likely place for a trap. People don't generally build death traps in well travelled corridors. They might build an alarm in an entrance to alert intruders, and an alarm (as we will see) is an example of a good trap.
b) Good traps create predicaments that the whole party must work together to solve. In effect a good trap is one that puts the party in combat with the trap. Good traps can isolate the party that is in the predicament, but never so much so that they rest of the party can't observe the predicament and interact with it. A trap that drops or worse teleports the other party member out of sight leaves those left behind with insufficient information to engage with the predicament. It's important that the party not be split up to the degree that a part of the party is out of the encounter.
c) To do this, good traps don't do a lot of damage up front. Instead, good traps do a smaller amount of damage over time, with the maximum damage reached only if the players fail to win the combat with the trap and mitigate it's effect. That is to say if the party extricates itself from the predicament efficiently, then they take less damage, but if they fail to extricate themself then they take a lot of damage.
d) Good traps tend to snowball with the trap getting worse and worse over time, increasing the tension on the party, and therefore ramping up the tension and excitement.

I don't want to give away too many of my tricks, but as a very simple example a trap that sprays an area with acid that does 1d8 damage to all effected for 4 rounds is a much better trap than one that does 4d8 damage to the party instantly because the first trap creates an ongoing predicament that the party can work together to solve. More dice will get thrown and more decisions will be made by more players in the first case. Players for example can try to pour water over each other to wash off the acid. A spell caster may need to make a concentration check to cast a spell to create water.

Or consider examples like the following:

a) A harpoon trap reels a player up to the ceiling.
b) A cloud of stinking gas that forces a con save every round to avoid choking and retching engulfs the area while doors open that release battle-axe wielding zombies into the room.
c) The door slams shut and the room begins to fill with scalding hot water.
d) A metal grill covers a pit trap, and the portion of the party that escaped the fall can see that a monster has been let loose on the portion of the party caught in the trap.

Think about all the things that the players then might do to work together to defeat the trap. Every archetype in a typical adventuring party has something that they might do. It's not just about the thief anymore and how much patching up the cleric has to do.

Now, I'm not saying that these are hard and fast rules. Once you know what you are doing you can break these principles. Nor am I saying that every encounter needs to be heavily designed. Verisimilitude will create situations of encounters that are more mundane. But I am saying that if you work on having encounters that are good show pieces and focus the game time on those you'll avoid the problem you've noticed.

 

[thom_likes_gaming]

As the DM you can steer things and spread the spotlight.
-- ask a players that looks like they're being left out "and what are you doing in the meantime"?
-- have some NPCs specifically interact with quieter characters.

Those two are easy enough and quickly learned. Keep in mind, some players actually prefer to be in the back row. Don't push stuff onto them. Though I would still throw the occasional hook out to them, just to see if they bite. Maybe they just need to work up the courage to step up to the plate.

Most importantly: don't sweat it or over think it. Give it a go. And afterwards talk to your players and get feedback. You get better by making 'mistakes' and learning from player input.