Relatively new to RPGs, specifically DnD 5e.
My group's current DM is handing me the mantle of DMing for DnD games, because he wants to focus on becoming more familiar with other R{Gs, namely Dark Heresy. I have poured over the TPH, TMM, and DMG. The technical aspects I think I can handle.
Here's my question for more seasoned GM/DMs:
How do you keep a campaign tense and exciting, while still presenting challenges that your player characters will inevitably conquer? Is it better to let them fail? In your experience, how have players handled failure, or the death of their characters?
I feel like removing the possibility of death removes any tension from the adventure, but killing PCs could also turn off all future interest from their respective players. How should I handle this dilemma?
>>48120233
Failure isn't essentially lethal
Failure could be getting chased off by something far stronger, failure could be failure to successfully catch their target so on an so forth. And it's good to throw in the occasional "one or two of you will probably die" fight as long as they know it's that deadly and are the ones marching into it.
Put in the danger, just don't make the danger unable to be circumvented and don't make all potential fail states death and there you go interesting variation of potential success or failure without extreme mortality rate.
>>48120286
As an Addition to this a lot of times it's best to use failing forward rather than outright failure to prevent plot and gameplay failing.
Still completing the "necessary" part of the action but with punishments and draw backs.
>>48120233
Also, design all encounters as isolated "islands" that can be moved around and shifted freely to fit any circumstance rather than having either a single path or trying to plan for every possibility (Hint:you can't.).
>>48120286
>>48120325
The first thing that comes to my mind is a PC losing/breaking a valued piece of kit, or being so injured that they lose one of their abilities, temporarily or otherwise. Any more imaginative suggestions?
>>48120405
So basically don't make it a scripted corridor shooter. I have ideas of encounters I want to happen, but you're saying I shouldn't get hung up on the specifics, like the exact time or location they occur at, or what order they occur at in relation to each other?
>>48120507
>Any more imaginative suggestions?
Well first depend on the system losing kit is pretty brutal.
So I like are say failing to pick a doors lock still opens the door but trips an alarm altering the whole dungeon to the PCs presence so that they can't use stealth anymore.
Also having, say failing at searching somewhere for information still have the "core" of the information be correct but with false details or embellishments.
>So basically don't make it a scripted corridor shooter.
If you mean like a game then yes, also don't have like a large number of pre-planned alternate paths it's a waste of effort just alter and change what you already have on the fly.
Having some generic encounters that can be used over a long period of time is also a good idea if your group goes super off the rails.
>like the exact time or location they occur at, or what order they occur at in relation to each other?
Yeah exactly, have a set of encounters and scenes but allow them to be malleable enough to shift around and fit to what your PCs are doing and what time they're doing it at.
There can still be an order say a group of encounters that happen at the beginning, some in the middle and some at the end.
But allow moving between them to be as natural as possible.
Remember that an encounter does not exist until your players enter it so it can be changed as much or as little as need beforehand.
>>48120507
As an addition. An encounter will almost always exist as two separate parts.
The "Mechanical encounter" Whihc is your rules, stats, maps and all that; and the "Story encounter" which i your who, what, when, where and why of the encounter.
Now the story aspect is completely fluid and can be changed to fit whatever happens on the fly pretty easily and should be a relatively small part of your encounter planning. While the Mechanical aspect should comprise the 'majority' of what you plan ahead of time in the islands keeping in mind that shifts and changes of the story can and will happen before you get to them.
>>48120612
So essentially, failures by PCs essentially open up new doors towards the same goal with new challenges.
Thanks for your advice, by the way.
>>48120787
>So essentially, failures by PCs essentially open up new doors towards the same goal with new challenges.
Failures and any unexpected choices and action that are made.
Like if your PCs need to encounter a McGuffin have it appear where ever they're going. If they don't take it for whatever reason the McGuffin can change into something else or can be replaced with a different challenge altogether.
The most important thing it to remain flexible in your planning and in the process allow choices and failure to have natural results and consequences.
Also, something that may take a few sessions is figuring out how many encounters your group completes in the time that you have and only detailing the most likely options while leaving less likely islands as more general plans that you can detail out on the fly if necessary.
This will help stop you from overplanning things that your players will never see (Having a few extremely mechanically generic encounters is a good idea as well).
For some extra advice figuring out a vague plot path and theme for you game WITH your group is a great idea since you can make sure that everyone is interested and engaged.
Making characters together is also important especially to make sure everyone in your group has a reason to be together from the very beginning.Having a party that has no reason to travel and adventure together is a major issue for the RP aspect of an RPG.
>>48120966
I very much like the idea of creating characters together. It seems like a great way to get less creative or enthusiastic players to become more complexly invested in the story and their own roles.
The story, however, I think I would like to keep it to myself, to keep the element of surprise intact and make reveals more grand.
>>48121167
>The story, however, I think I would like to keep it to myself, to keep the element of surprise intact and make reveals more grand.
Again man, it's not the story rather the very broad idea.
So that you're not say running a war story for people who would rather do a criminal underground story yeah.
>>48121195
Mmm okay now I understand what you mean. That's a great idea.
>>48121240
Well, I'm glad to help sempai.
Got any question or anything like that?
In general, never tell your players "No."
Typically, the use of the "Yes, and..." or "Yes, but..." are the better alternatives. No matter what you want to happen, it is the players who are in control of the story, you are a narrator. You describe the people and places, but the players decide the direction they take.
You can use hard, "No." and outright failures, sometimes they are what a situation calls for, but usually you want to try to engage your players as much as possible without making it seem like you're pandering to them.
>>48121310
Balancing lettings the players control their path without giving them everything they desire sounds like it will prove to be challenge.
To circle back to the OP.
Killing PCs, yay or nay, in any circumstance?
If I can't or shouldn't kill PCs, how do I keep the players believing that I still might?
Has anyone ever killed a PC, and then allowed a player to create a new character that can join the party at the tavern in the next town or whatnot? Just something I thought of.
>>48121468
>Killing PCs, yay or nay, in any circumstance?
Personally, I prefer to keep killing PCs to more plot interesting point and at all times it depends on the tone of the game.
>If I can't or shouldn't kill PCs, how do I keep the players believing that I still might?
Descriptions and injuries can work. Ut depends on your group and it's something you'll have to get a feel for from your players.
>>48121468
Kill the bastards if they walk into it, never pull your punches, and stay true to the dice throw.
It's hard, and it's tempting to fudge numbers to give the PCs an edge, but honestly sometimes shit happens.
Try to build an encounter to be around their level, both literally and their skill levels, always challenge the players.
>>48121585
What's your experience with ending a PC, even at a climactic moment? How do players react to essentially being kicked out of the game?
In a different circumstance, I foresee having to smiting PCs played by some of my groups less mature and engaged players. This would all be prefaced by stating that I will be less lenient toward distracting, immersion breaking, and childish behavior than our previous DM. So hopefully RPB-shitposting will be avoided, or at least it will not come as a surprise when a bothersome PC is fried by lightning or raped to death by a pack of yeti-orcs.
Have any of you smote an annoying PC?
>>48121468
>>48121665
Also, as a rule I always let them make a new character after if it happens.
>>48121678
If a PC dies at the climax, I try to make the death meaningful in some way, or have some kind of impact on what happens after.
And no, as much as I've hated some dickbag players I try to remain neutral. I've never smote anyone out of malice. Doing so quickly makes you "That DM"
>>48121678
>What's your experience with ending a PC, even at a climactic moment? How do players react to essentially being kicked out of the game?
My group is pretty cool with anything really and we all take turns at GMing and such with different system.
In general, we'll either introduce a new character for that person to play as naturally as possible or they may just bow out of the game entirely (We have multiple games running simultaneously with different GMs and the group is about 15+ people)
>I foresee having to smiting PCs played by some of my groups less mature and engaged players. This would all be prefaced by stating that I will be less lenient toward distracting, immersion breaking, and childish behavior than our previous DM.
Well this is a line I haven't walked myself so I'm swinging in the dark here but I'd say tell them you're running a more serious game beforehand and that you don't want lolrandumb stuff in your game and explain that consequences will exist for stupid actions.
>Have any of you smote an annoying PC?
Again not really a problem I've really had.
>>48121701
What if the rest of the party were similarly annoyed? Would you consider letting misfortune befall a PC then?
>>48121727
Ah, I wish I had a group that big, or consistent.
I wonder how the idea of death followed by new character creation will be received.
Thanks again, chaps.
>>48120233
>>48120286
My first time DMing went like this:
>handhold the PC's, even brought one back to life, but mostly they knew when shit was dangerous
>they would wipe my encounters to kingdom come
>put them in ravenloft, get sick of their encounter wipes, sometimes they win, other times they almost die
>now they are out of ravenloft and I'm setting up encounters with Dragons that will slam into the floating islands they will travel two while two vampires fight them inside and the whole thing will eventually come crashing down into their home city
the kid gloves eventually come off, and the players will lose their training wheels. believe me, you'll end up wanting to challenge them just to make it interesting. being creative really helps.
I think if you come up with really interesting setpieces, or at least a few really dangerous ones, they'll get the picture. Lava, black holes, giant sea monsters, gods, avalanches, cave-ins, the list goes on.
your game will be shit, don't worry about being worse than the previous dm you don't have the experience that they do. if shit goes down that you can't deal with, take a quick break (either a fake piss break or just say so) so you can figure out how to deal with it
make sure you have the only rulebook, the rest of the nerds don't need it
>>48124950
Describe handholding them. Were you DMing for a group of less than enthusiastic players?
By wipe your encounters, does that mean your encounters were generally too weak to present a real challenge to the players?
>>48125766
>your game will be shit
kek, I hope not. I'm pretty creative, or at least I can be.
Our last DM would wing everything when thrown a curveball, sometimes to his disadvantage I feel. I have no problem with taking short breaks to think up what happens next.
>>48120233
Ask your players.
Ask your goddamned players.
IN THE NAME OF CHRIST AND ALL THAT IS FUCKING HOLY, ASK YOUR GODDAMNED PLAYERS.
>>48127604
If they're okay with being killed?
I feel like involving them in too many of the decisions and my thought processes kills some of the mysticism.
>>48127786
Role playing games are a social exercise. It's somethign you do together in your group.
This means what matters is what the group (including you) think is good. You can only learn this by talking with your group.
What a bunch of random assholes on the internet thinks about things is, frankly, more or less irrelevant.
Been wanting to do some short one session space adventures with my regulars. Let them make characters and crew a ship while they do jobs avoiding space pirates and such.
Can anyone recommend a decent but easy to pick up set of space rules?
When the resident powergamer/ruleslawyer starts getting a bit hysterical, don't let his emotional anxiety get to you.
>Stay calm
>Don't let him drag you into his quagmire of assumptions and circular logic
>Reply to threats about leaving and somesuch such with "okay, if you feel that way I'm not going to stop you".
I swear to god, my powergamers always have literal mental breakdowns from the stress of chargen
>>48128459
New to /tg/ and somewhat new to RPGs
Describe a powergamer/ruleslawyer.
>>48128842
Powergamers play the game not to create a story together, but to "win" via mastery of the game system. They want the riches, the rewards, the thrill of victory, and the feeling of being powerful. These things can and should bring joy in an RPG, but they shouldn't come at the expense of others or the collaborative power of the RPG experience. Powergamers are the people who go on and on about how powerful their characters are, how much damage they can deal in a single round, how their spells can reshape reality, and how you're stupid for playing a weak class like a monk or a fighter.
I cannot believe I'm saying this, but this is actually a pretty great and useful thread, several tiers above what /tg/ usually does these days.
>>48127564
it's not that they weren't enthusiastic, they just didn't want to step on each others toes, or mine. but they did want the carrot on the stick.
I would think the encounters were strong, but they were playing mostly casters. mostly I wasn't using cover and fodder monsters, but I think mostly in terms of plot, drama, and characters, and less of battlefield strategy and tactics.
>>48128933
I dare the powergamers
it makes things fun, plus they usually have 5e because it's the "dm decides edition"
typically, if you read more of the rulebooks than the players do, powergamers are never much of a problem. they actually are good, because they are a great incentive to read the books...in order to wipe that smug smile of satisfaction off of their faces when shit doesn't go their way.
>>48129485
they usually hate* 5e because it's the dm decides edition
>>48129815
This looks cool, thanks for sharing
>>48120233
>How do you keep a campaign tense and exciting, while still presenting challenges that your player characters will inevitably conquer? Is it better to let them fail? In your experience, how have players handled failure, or the death of their characters?
A lot of your questions are only issues with a particular style of game.
For example, if you are running a "scripted" game where the expected output would be something like a movie or a TV series, then of course it's very hard to let the main characters die. On the flip side, this robs a lot of tension and potential freedom out of the script. D&D is in my opinion a poor fit for this sort of campaign; none of their mechanics account for creating and rewarding the inter-group tension you would find in a character-focused drama. A system like FATE would be better.
On the flip-side, if you are running a "sandbox" game, the story is an emergent property that comes from the sum of the group's failures and successes. The classic dungeon-crawl, though sometimes vilified, is a good example of an emergent sandbox. Individual characters may die, but the overall "story" is about the group as a whole; their exploration of a massive dungeon complex and surviving/succumbing to the odds. This is what D&D excels at and it's mechanics are built for.
>>48130070
Despite D&D being touted as "the" fantasy ruleset, it's actually really bad at trying to emulate high fantasy fiction - the game requires a ton of work outside the rules to get something like Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones.
Again, there's no rules or guidance to get players to engage in character drama, debates about ideals, or any of the sort of stuff you see in typical high fantasy. There's nothing stopping players from bringing this in, but neither is there anything to encourage it.
Instead, D&D rulesets tend to emphasize treasure hunting, dungeon crawls, combat, and tactical teamwork among various specialist classes. This makes them a better fit for "heist" genre or "sword-and-sorcery" fantasy - where the PCs are out to make a big score.
