D&D General worst (real) advice for DMs

[Thomas Shey]

It probably helps that only one of our group is a caster.

If there's much meaningful choice for everyone else, I'm not sure that'd help (though it gets particularly thick with casters in D&D derivatives).

 

[dave2008]

If there's much meaningful choice for everyone else, I'm not sure that'd help (though it gets particularly thick with casters in D&D derivatives).

We are old school - there are always choices. My group was raised on having no options except your imaginations, so that is still pretty much how we play. My players have never felt limited to just what is listed in their class!

 

[Thomas Shey]

We are old school - there are always choices. My group was raised on having no options except your imaginations, so that is still pretty much how we play. My players have never felt limited to just what is listed in their class!

I'm not going to get into my opinion of "decisions only as meaningful as the GM lets them" again, but yes, if there's no extent mechanical heft to engage with, that will often make for faster decision making.

 

[Lanefan]

And, there's another point to be made here. 7 PC's, with surprise, can pretty easily do 42 points of damage (which is average for a hill giant). Potentially getting 1-3 rounds of actions before the hill giant?

They charged, yelling, across some open ground, a couple of rounds worth if memory serves; the Hill Giant was neither deaf nor blind and thus wasn't surprised. He didn't have anything like a boulder close to hand to throw and had to find one, thus only got one throw in before anyone got to him.

But these were squishy 1st-level characters, and unlike 1e I give monsters their strength bonus to damage.

That's probably something like 18 longbow attacks, spells, and multiple melee weapon attacks. I'm actually surprised they lost a single PC. That must have been very, very bad luck on their part.

I forget the specifics now, other than when it realized it was losing the Giant - aided by a blown morale check - tried to cut and run; this would have worked out for it had the party not got lucky on some missile fire, slowing it down enough that they could catch it and finish it off (and one of the deaths came during this finish-off part).

As an editorial comment, though - this is something I very much like about 1e: the flatter power curve that allows something big to be beatable by a lucky low-level group yet still present a real threat to an unlucky high-level group.

 

[Lanefan]

Most players I know would consider that just as bad as a tpk.

That's...kinda sad, really.

Here's the thing: that was a fair and balanced encounter. If they had played halfway smart, then no one would have gotten hurt. An unbalanced version of this would be a dragon flying by, sensing the party with truesight, and deciding to kill them. There's nothing the party could do in that case.

True. But it seems there's some who wouldn't even want to put the PCs in the position of being able to make the choice as to whether to engage above their pay grade ot not.

Fair fights and fair encounters are not he same thing.

Indeed.

 

[jmartkdr2]

That's...kinda sad, really.

Yeah, I hate it when players get invested in the game. Them caring and whatnot is such a drag. /s

Given the hours (sometimes weeks on and off) of effort it takes to write up a character and backstory in current editions/styles of play, losing a character is always a big loss, so I'm not surprised when people don't like it.

 

[Hussar]

They charged, yelling, across some open ground, a couple of rounds worth if memory serves; the Hill Giant was neither deaf nor blind and thus wasn't surprised. He didn't have anything like a boulder close to hand to throw and had to find one, thus only got one throw in before anyone got to him.

But these were squishy 1st-level characters, and unlike 1e I give monsters their strength bonus to damage.

I forget the specifics now, other than when it realized it was losing the Giant - aided by a blown morale check - tried to cut and run; this would have worked out for it had the party not got lucky on some missile fire, slowing it down enough that they could catch it and finish it off (and one of the deaths came during this finish-off part).

As an editorial comment, though - this is something I very much like about 1e: the flatter power curve that allows something big to be beatable by a lucky low-level group yet still present a real threat to an unlucky high-level group.

Well, yeah, I suppose trying to ambush something 300 feet away is probably a bad idea.

Definitely a 1e game though. 2e would have obliterated that encounter. I do like that in 2e fighters were absolute combat gods. I would like to see that come back.

 

[Lanefan]

Given the hours (sometimes weeks on and off) of effort it takes to write up a character and backstory in current editions/styles of play, losing a character is always a big loss, so I'm not surprised when people don't like it.

Yeah, that's one aspect of the game that IMO WotC-era D&D goes a bit nuts on: the increased focus on - and resulting complexity of - the char-gen sub-game.

IMO generating enough of a character to get it playable should ideally take 15 minutes, tops, assuming some familiarity with the system. Don't bother with any long backstory etc. until it's clear the character is going to last a while; and never assume that it will because as soon as you do, that's when it won't. Just get it in play and let it develop - or not - as the game goes along.

 

[Lanefan]

And its about as non-heroic as you could want, and I'll repeat that if people think the majority of people in the D&D part of the hobby--even in the beginning--were there not to be heroic, then perhaps giving so damn many heroes in examples of the kind of stories they were supposed to represent was a big mistake.

The stories tell tales of heroes.

What they don't tell is that for every hero, ten others tried and died along the way. That's the story the game tells; not just that of the heroes, but of those on whose dead shoulders said heroes stand.

Only for people who consider abandoning allies acceptable.

If you want to stay in and go down with the ship, that's your choice. Me, if I'm in over my head and have a chance to get out I will; and if later I can somehow find a way to bring the lost back to life I'll follow it up.

Noted. Disdained, but noted. No, I don't think expecting people to be forced into a situation where they have to throw their allies under the bus to survive is a virtue.

Whose survival and continuance is more important: that of the party, or that of any one individual? Pick one; "both" is not an option.

Or, put another way, sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - or the one.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, yeah, I suppose trying to ambush something 300 feet away is probably a bad idea.

Definitely a 1e game though. 2e would have obliterated that encounter. I do like that in 2e fighters were absolute combat gods.

Even at 1st level?

I would like to see that come back.

I don;t mind the idea at higher levels but at 1st nobody should be a god at anything - yet.