First time dm here. Any advice on how much to prep for the first session or any tips on how to create a campaign that doesn't suck ass?
>>46413539
Remember that anything the players haven't directly experienced doesn't actually exist. Feel free to move around ideas for things they can encounter.
If you were planning on having them go to a lava temple and they decide to go elsewhere, make it an ice temple and just switch the descriptors.
Reskinning monsters can make the players think they're a lot more bad-ass than they really are.
If you're using a D&D system (sounds like you are), have some pre-made statted characters that you can drop into a scene if you need an NPC. Otherwise, don't bother writing down full statblocks for every single NPC, because you'll never need 95% of them, and the remaining 5% can just be layered over the premade statblocks.
Keep the action going. If you have to ask the players "what do you want to do now", you're doing it wrong. Give them a sense of immediacy. Start them in a situation where they need to act in a heroic manner. Force them to react to the world around them.
Keep your cool. Remember that it's a game, not a novel in progress. If you think you made a bad call or something else should have happened, don't be afraid to see if everyone is OK with rewinding and saying it happened differently.
>>46413539
Personally i would recommend that you run a module for your first attempt, it really helps you learn to build encounets.
>>46413539
-throw dices and keep statistics behind a shield/cover so they can't see you. this allows you to cheat to avoid unfairly killing players or to add hp to monsters if the encounter ended up being too easy.
-you should be able to read anything you have prepared within 10 seconds. printed stuff or everything in one PDF on a well charged laptop is good.of course you will keep track of stuff like hp of monsters on pencil+paper.
-if you tell us the system you are using and what characters your friends made we might be able to tell you what balance problems you might find
-speak clearly, ask players to focus, remind your players of what they are doing. you are the one to blame if the party loses interest, there are dead times, some player lose focus or doesn't know what the group is doing.Feel free to ban any activity not related to the game, decrease rule search
time by forcing players to print their spells.
-try to not interrupt the gameflow. Inventing a rule or asking your best player if they remember the rule might be better than spending 10 minutes searching for it. Unfortunately players who are new to a system might invent something really awful for game balance. as long as players don't die it's ok. at worst you will modify the rule the next day you meet.
-You should be the one that set the standard and the example for roleplaying. if someone doesn't talk much or doesn't roleplay you should encourage him.Describing your actions in combat is the first easy step for people who don't know how to roleplay.
-you are not the enemy of the party. you are the one that collaborate with them to let their character tell a good story and you can do anything in your power to make it sound cool for everyone.
-if someone knows the system more than you ask him for help sometimes.
-Players that feel discriminated against might get angry if they see someone else get rewarded more than them. try to be comunicative and fair to everyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8
he has some advice, i'm sure you'll be smart enough to filter out the bad stuff
>>46413539
In terms of plot that doesnt suck throw a bunch of creatures/locales/NPCs/antagonists at them and see which ones generate interest then integrate the objects of your characters affection/hate into the overarching plot. this fluid way of creating your campaign is great as you can tailor the details of thee campaign to what your characters actually want and they never even have to know you changed it.
In terms of prep having a mastery of the rules and a general idea of where you want the plot to go is more important than any actual preparation. If you feel overwhelmed or run out of material just come up with some combat encounters to run down the clock.
>>46413539
>encourage reaction from your players; when in doubt, throw mooks at them
>The only things that exist are what your players see; there is nothing in the game that isnt IN THE GAME
>plan plots less; plan NPC motivations more.
For example:
DONT tell the players they need to go to dungeon X to defeat badguy Y
DO have them run into bad guy Y doing bad, and then leave hints/directions that lead to dungeon X
>>46413539
>>46413832
more:
-it's a good idea to use a premade adventure/module. But use them as a starting point, a guideline. they have been probably playtested far less than what you would expect and they don't provide an answer to everything that the party might do.
you should add stuff to implement the background of your party members into the story or to support a particular idea the party had.feel free to modify. but alwaysbe chapters ahead in reading it.
-ILLUSION OF CHOICE. There are 3 doors. you can open only one.This mean that you, as DM, can secretly create only one room and present your players with that room regardless of their choice.The same criteria can be used with a lot of stuff. From minor quests, to NPCs populating a tavern, to encounters.
-Always have sheets and personality of 3-4 NPC written down. 1-2 random encounter written down, 1 ally NPC, 1 treasure. they can be used in emergency cases and thanks to the magical power of the illusion of choice they can truly be everything you need.Also you can recycle anything that your player skip.
-No matter how much you prepare you will sometime have to improvise and invent stuff on the fly.It's a good idea to know the enviroment and the story so whatever thing will come to your mind will make sense (stupid example: if they decide to hunt in a tundra you can provide a decent answer only if you have read what kind of animals live in the tundra).
-party members need a strong reason to stay in a party and a strong reason to work toward whatever goal they have. you can't afford to have one player suddenly realize his character has no reason to be friendly with other or has no reason to enter a certain dungeon to kill a lich.Feel free to enforce stuff in the background of the characters.It's a really bad idea to have a chaotic evil bard that "want to explore the dungeon because it sounds cool" in your D&D campaign. it feels bad to " railroad them" to the next chapter but sometimes it's gonna happen.
-
MY DM IS PRETTY COOL:
after every session he talks privately with the players and ask them or criticism and suggestions, tow hich he is quite open.
He even ask us to rate our own roleplaying,w hich i suspect is some jewish mind controlling technique to make us feel bad about sucking at roleplaying and therefore wanting to improve.
>>46413539
Take a look at this OP - it'll help.
https://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1393/55/1393556080320.pdf
It's Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering (by Robin Law) and it's excellent.
>>46413539
The greatest trick in a GM's arsenal is the ability to create the FEELING of open, sandbox play, while actually railroading the players. The best way to do this is start off with some very easy to understand structures that will help steer their behaviour - "you are soldiers, your orders are X" - and trying to get a read of how they function as much as possible.
I'm seeing a lot of suggestions to present the players with only the illusion of choice. But real choice requires some feedback which the players can see.
>>46415124
i dont' really understand what you are saying...the feedback can be identical for all choices as long as the players will only experience one, and you can also slightly variate the feedback to make it look like a real choice.
you can create real choices for your players... they just take two or three times the work to prepare so you are better off doing it sparingly.
Best advice I can give is to never take advice from /tg/.
>>46414781
I disagree. Here OP, have a chart.
Figure out which one you want to do and make sure your players have the same expectations out of the game you do.
>>46414781
This is the most true thing I have ever read on /tg/
>>46415372
Or you can, you know, base your next move on what they have already done without planning the game like you're writing a module.
>>46415386
If You Play A Module, You're Not Having "Real" Fun: The Chart
>>46414781
>The greatest trick in a GM's arsenal is the ability to create the FEELING of open, sandbox play, while actually railroading the players
You have to caveat this by saying DO NOT ACTUALLY FUCKING PLAY OR RUN A SANDBOX GAME. IT WILL NEVER WORK. NO, WHEN YOU INSIST YOU/YOUR DM CAN DO IT AND IT'S AMAZING, WE KNOW YOU'RE LYING.
>>46415410
Yes, but some people aspire to play more than "Dungeon of the Week with extremely hackneyed plot tying each location together after the fact".
>>46413539
The number 1 rookie DM mistake that's perpetuated by awful advice and companies who want to sell you prewritten modules is trying to plan what's going to happen an entire session in advance.
You don't KNOW what's going to happen because the plot is whatever happens when the player characters interact with the world and some times have differences of opinion with it. That's it.
Instead of planning "encounters" or plots or whatever, focus on planning out what sort of stuff is going on in the immediate area.
Deciding that maybe the mayor is corrupt and that the horse dealer sells stolen horses, or that the innkeeper is almost bankrupt because his wife steals money for her lover and then just letting the players poke around in town and see what happens is WAY better use of your time than just planning that as soon as they reach point A, pre-scripted events start rolling.
Trying to plan too far in advance and "forcing" players onto the right path is the number one reason players feel like their actions don't matter and DM's get frustrated or burnt out because the players "don't do things in the right order" or whatever, and mess up his plans.
Don't plan. Just flesh out the surroundings.
The plot is whatever the characters get up to, not something you're supposed to try to rope them into by waving the magic DM wand and saying "you just started a quest!".
Also, the advice for hidden rolles
>>46413832
gives is terrible. Roll dice in the open so the players feel like everything is fair, the way to avoid "unfair deaths" is to not get in dangerous situations to begin with, not bullshit the rolls and pretend that nothing bad happened. When you fudge rolls you take away the meaning of player choices, let it be up to them if they want to risk dangers or play it safe, instead of feeling like no matter what dumb shit they get up to, you'll bail them out. That makes the experience hollow.
>>46415499
>>46413832
>open v concealed rolling
>objective and the same in every campaign
Ignore both of these people OP.
Speak to your players, see what they want, ask yourself honestly what you want. If they want to play narrative and story then use your screen and fudge dice occasionally as and when it suits the narrative.
If they want balls-to-the-wall realism and GoT-style merciless lethality, roll openly.
Of course in both cases there are situations where you want to mix it up. A boss who dies in one hit is no fun for anyone.
>>46414781
This is absolutely terrible.
Tricking the players into believing their choices matter is the worst way to run a campaign. You're basically lying to them.
If you want pre-written stories, write a story, don't invite 4 other people and then fool them into thinking they're the ones creating it while you read from the script.
Spend your time building the world and surroundings, if you have a good idea of what motivates the people the players come into contact with, their interactions will have interesting results as long as you let the npcs act according to their motivations. Don't just make the entire world a vehicle for railroading players.
Fooling the players into thinking they're the ones who matter while actually railroading them is like playing bad on purpose to let someone win all the time. They feel good, but in reality it's just bullshit and if they ever find out they will realize you have been wasting their time.
>>46415499
>You don't KNOW what's going to happen
Why do you keep acting like this is true? Unless your players are complete retards, slinging their shit around and stomping on the game like monkeys, it's pretty god damned easy to know what's going to happen next session.
Fun Fact: When you present a normal, functioning group of humans with a situation, they're not going to go ape-shit and run off into the mountains and become cave-people, or summon a giant bird and fly away. They're going to react to the situation you present them with, and they're going to follow the clue you give them.
If you're playing with people who are so fucking stupid that their actions can't be predicted from minute-to-minute, then you are a bad DM with a bad group of people, and nothing will ever help you.
>>46415386
What an absolutely awful chart to show a new GM. Why didn't you cut out the middleman and just tell him that he can only have fun if he plays like you want him to?
>>46415560
No, this is retarded. Narrative focus doesn't mean "Nobody is allowed to die so you have to fudge rolls"
You can play lethal narrative campaigns, as long as you avoid the whole "the party is 5 random people with no real reason to hang out except that's what you're supposed to do in a rpg" situation.
The character dies? Well maybe his squire/apprentice/friend/that cool npc they keep dragging along jumps in instead.
The whole "lethal is incompatible with narrative play" is only true if the DM is an idiot and forces you to start from scratch when you die. Just start as another character that's relevant to the story and you're good.
ITT: Sandbox faggots think that sitting at your computer working on your "super special and unique" setting and world map, crafting "super cool" locations where you envision awesome fights taking place one day, and populating it with generic races and things all given stupid names to seem new and fresh, and calling this shit "campaign building" is actually worth it.
No one cares about your homebrew world. No one wants to play your no-plot, episodic random campaign where every session is a new challenge that has nothing to do with the old one. No one wants to look at your world map and pick out which location they think would be cool to go fight next.
You're not accomplishing anything. You're pretending to be a fantasy author and then hoping your players will masturbate to your special homebrew setting as much as you do.
No one likes sandbox shit. No one ever has, no one ever will.
This is aimed at DMs with some experience, but the advice it gives is fantastic. As long as you've watched or played a few games, you should get the gist.
The author has another book aimed more at newbies called Dungeon Master Tips, but it's more 4E-centric and a lot of the same advice is repeated or summarized here.
>>46415619
wew
lad
you sure showed that strawman.
A good GM listens to the players, and gauges the game. High lethality is perfectly fine and creates its own style of fun. Low lethality provides a different kind of game. If you've got new players who are rolling up characters for the first time and making their first bold steps into playing a character and they die to a kobold throwing a rock and critting, unless they're aware that this is a 'no holds barred' style of game then that's no fun for anyone.
You, sir, need to take your 'one tone for all games no exceptions' shit and discover prostate stimulation with it.
Trial and error is a gr8 way to learn.
>>46415594
But you have no idea HOW specifically they're going to approach the solution to the problems they're given, if they want to collapse the whole cave entrance instead of fighting their way through the goblin lair, that's up to them, and your job is to figure out what the outcome might be.
I'm no talking minute to minute here you fucking sperg I specifically said en entire session in advance.
Don't overplan, focus on figuring out what motivates the npcs and entitites in the setting so you can figure out how they'll react to what the players did, instead of just scripting the whole thing.
Maybe the players decide to run away and deal with the consequences of that action instead?
>>46415594
Even the most cooperative players are going to latch on to an idea you didn't anticipate, or come up with a creative but sound solution to a problem that you hadn't planned for. Hell, I'd be concerned if everything went exactly as I thought it would. It probably means I'm leading or driving too much.
You can still create a skeleton of how you think an adventure or campaign will go, but over-planning's just going to leave you frustrated when the players completely obviate or avoid swaths of your carefully prepared material.
>>46415644
Did you seriously just say that the sandbox players are the retards pretending to be fantasy authors while at the same time advocating WRITING THE WHOLE THING IN ADVANCE?
The amount of doublethink you need to actually believe what you just said is staggering, but on the plus side it proves you have a very vivid imagination, so maybe there is hope for you.
>>46415644
I dunno, there are some players, rarely, who are adept at taking the setting by the reins.
>>46415684
You have yet to explain why fudging rolls is ever good.
If you want low lethality just pick a low lethality system, don't bullshit the players by adding extra layers of protection.
That only leads to them thinking they're capable of more than they are, which will just make them get into more situations like that, rather than learning their lesson.
If you fudge rolls you're taking away the players opportunity to make calculated risks.
If someone succeeds because you totally fudged the rolls, they're not going to be nearly as excited about it as if they felt they took a gamble and it paid off.
Your argument is basically "well, fudging rolls is good because maybe the players are clueless about whether or not the world is dangerous" well, no shit if you keep lying to them about it.
If you want a low lethality campaign, there are ways to do that that still let the players know what's going on and realize when they're at risk or not, you don't run it with a normal or high-lethality system and then just give them secret rerolls.
If people want low-lethality campaigns, great, there are great ways to do that, bullshitting the players on the rolls and making them feel like the DM coddled them is not one of them.
>>46414314
>>46414314
>jewish mind controlling technique What pol actually believes.
>>46415644
Are you OK? It sounds like you're speaking from (very bad) experience.
As a player, I love everything you described.
>>46415872
>But you have no idea HOW specifically they're going to approach the solution to the problems they're given
....of course I do. They're people, and people that I know very well at that. I know exactly how they're going to respond to situations I put them in. If you don't know how your party will react to things, either you don't pay attention, you don't care, or you are autisitc and don't understand social interaction.
Now, Imma tell you how my session prep goes, and then I'm gonna listen to you sperg about how it's wrong. I list the events I want to happen during the course of the session, and decide where in the later ones can make a natural "cliffhanger" stopping point. Then I plot out exactly how much time I am pretty sure each thing will need. 30 minutes to go check out this house over here, an hour to roleplay through this situation over here, 30 minutes on the thugs in the alleyway, one hour exploring the dungeon and one hour for combat in the dungeon. Give or take a few minutes in each place, and understanding players, I know what I can get done in the course of the session, how to lead players from one event to another based on what THEY react to, and I'm not constantly fumbling for what to do next because I know they're not going to fucking run off and decide to become hill people for no reason.
But please, tell me how scrambling to randomly generate encounters is better use of my time.
>>46415990
>I enjoy playing games one way, therefore all other ways are objectively not fun
>RAW should be unflinching and followed to the letter in all cases, see previous point
Together We Can Solve The Puzzle
> any tips on how to create a campaign that doesn't suck ass?
Either have the theoretical perfect playing group or write a novel. Players ruin everything it's just what they do.
>>46415905
>Did you seriously just say that the sandbox players are the retards pretending to be fantasy authors while at the same time advocating WRITING THE WHOLE THING IN ADVANCE?
Writing a decent narrative that you can play through, and writing a whole fucking fantasy setting full of countries, factions, people, and plot hooks, none of which will ever be touched by anyone (unless you force the players to venture around the world and see every location you "hand crafted") are not remotely the same thing.
>>46415872
This. Create scenarios, not options.
If you're an adventurer and you're given a map of a dungeon filled with traps, the smartest move is to buy some picks and shovels and dig into the treasure room. Let players do that sort of thing, even if you had an amazingly fun dungeon crawl prepared.
You can always reuse stuff later. There's no pressure forcing you to ask, "Really? You don't want to explore those catacombs? The entrance is right there..."
>>46416023
>But please, tell me how scrambling to randomly generate encounters is better use of my time.
You can still prep that stuff, maybe write up a random table. That way it feels dynamic not just for your players, but for you too.
If you're scripting set pieces on a time budget (checking out the house, handling the thugs in the alleyway, exploring the dungeon) what happens if something takes less time than you expected? It's rarely a problem if it takes more, but what if they ignore the thugs or don't care about the dungeon? What if they don't get sucked into any of your plot points, even if you know them well?
>>46416104
>Let players do that sort of thing, even if you had an amazingly fun dungeon crawl prepared.
No one is advocating "don't let players do a thing if they think it's a solution to a problem".
But allowing players to creatively circumvent challenge is NOT THE SAME THING AS WRITING A DECENT PLOT OR RUNNING A DECENT CAMPAIGN.
Player freedom is not the end all and be all of roleplaying. It is not a goal unto itself, nor is it the deciding factor in whether a game is enjoyable or not. No story lives or dies on the ability for players to tunnel into a dungeon rather than run through all the traps. Saying "yes" to that plan does not make you a good DM.
Here's a piece of advice: You want to not suck as a DM? At anything? BE FUCKING SELF-CRITICAL. Stop thinking things are "good enough". Stop thinking you know what you're doing. Stop asking for praise. Criticize yourself, try harder, identify things you suck at and do them better.
Just deciding you're gonna "not railroad" players and "run a sandbox" is not a ticket to being a good DM.
>>46416196
So say you have written a decent plot and have exciting challenges, but the players (intentionally or unintentionally) avoid them.
What then? Do you find some way to put them back on track with what you've written? What if they care about something more than the plot you've written?
>>46416169
>what happens if something takes less time than you expected?
Nothing. Either the session runs a little short, or it runs a little long.
>but what if they ignore the thugs or don't care about the dungeon?
They won't, because they're -fucking players-. If they're ignoring the place the story wants them to go, it's because you failed to get them invested or convey the story to them.
>What if they don't get sucked into any of your plot points, even if you know them well?
They won't, because unless you're playing with fucking spastics retards who's goal when they sit down at a gaming table is to drool on the felt and throw dice at eachother's faces for four hours, the reason players play D&D is because they want to be engaged by the campaign. So unless they're actively trying not to, there's literally no reason outside of your own failure that they would avoid your hooks or clues.
Now, if you, as a DM suck and your method of delivering a story is "H-hey guys, t-there's um...there's g-goblins out in...yeah maybe if you wanna you uh....y-you can go maybe fight the goblins, I guess?", then obviously you'll have a problem getting players involved in any plot point.
But in my entire DM career, I have never once had a player turn down a hook. Ever. Because they fucking sit at the table to play.
>>46416286
Can you give an example of a recent campaign/story you've run and how it went for the players?
Do you ever think that the only reason players go along with your hooks is that it's the only choice they have? Does it ever feel forced? "Well, my character wouldn't care, but I guess it's the only option to keep the game moving..."
Not saying you're necessarily doing this, but it's a problem with a lot of GMs and certain published modules.
>>46415697
> Trial and error is a gr8 way to get people to leave a table after a session unless you have desperate players.
Fixed that for you, if you're a shit DM players will see it in one session and bale if they're worthwhile. If they're kissless virgins who desperatly need human interaction of some sort and roleplaying is only that they'll eat your shit just to fucking play and you'll do shit campaigns for the rest of your gaming life. I've seen it happen far too many fucking time.s
>>46416270
Are you asking because you don't know how to handle that, or because you want to know how I would deal with that situation?
>Players intentionally avoiding plot hooks
That's actively antagonistic to the campaign and I can't imagine anyone continuing to show up to a D&D game, but intentionally not being involved at all. I'd remove them or find a better group.
>Players unintentionally avoiding plot hooks
In favor of what? Usually when players don't pick up what I'm putting down, it's because of a lack of direction given, or clue provided to lead them to making the choice. I recently had players decide that a plot hook I had thrown at them didn't work, and they couldn't figure out a way to do the thing, so they just told the NPC "No can do", and moved on and solved the problem in a completely different way. Nothing about the campaign is changed, other than that they didn't spend a few in-game days trying to overcome a challenge that I thought would be cool.
>What if they care about something more than the plot you've written?
Why do they care about it, and what relevance does it have? Do they care more about protecting an NPC than saving a town? Drinking in a tavern rather than slaying a dragon? It's too vague to answer.
But generally? Provide urgency. Put the object of their fascination in danger, or have that person or thing lead them to the plot. Find out why they care so much about it, and do something with it that helps you solve your problem.
>>46416325
>>Can you give an example of a recent campaign/story you've run and how it went for the players?
Yeah. My players recently saved a small down from Goblins/Kobolds. When they got back, the Sheriff told them they're having a big auction in town, but traveling merchants told them about more Goblins attacking travelers on the road with stolen weapons. They agreed to exterminate the goblin tribe in exchange for a bounty.
Did they have to agree? I mean, technically no. It was a request, not an order or anything. But they wanted the money, and were concerned about the town's safety. If they hadn't taken the bounty, and had said no, I'd probably have had to come up with some sort of event or incident that forces their attention to the swamp so they can go there, not because of the goblins, but because there's a plot-hook/info they need in the swamp.
I don't know what you mean by "forced". Players should feel "forced" to do things sometimes, that's what urgency is. They need to do something, and they need to do it now. Not because it's a good option, and not because it's exactly what they want, but because there's danger and they're the heroes.
I don't generally allow players with "My character wouldn't care" types at my table, because those types of PCs are actively antagonistic to any campaign.
>>46413539
1) Always be prepared
2) Always be prepared to alter and/or discard what you've prepared
3) Always be prepared to pull something out of your (figurative) ass at a moment's notice.
>>46415676
I like that guide too - the only that really sucks is John Wick's 'Play Dirty' which just screams "How to be a 'That GM' and total dickhead."
>>46415386
shit chart brah
>>46416588
>>46416686
>>46415499
>>46415560
i feel like i have to defend my advice for hidden rolls.
First of all i never said that it's ok for every group and system. for example it might not be needed in A group full of powerplayer and tactical players, or perhaps a system that has fate point safety nets to prevent random deaths. but most groups are not like that.
i don't advocate cheat-rolling everytime something goes wrong, but it's an option avaible that makes sense in some systems when the dices decide an outcome that is actually not fun for anyone and bad for the story.
if 2 critical hits in a row kill a player he might just drop out of the campaign and everyone is gonna feel bad.
it is better to give the DM the option, the power to choose if an RNG fuckup it's adeguate for the story or it's just an eliminable RNG abomination.
you can always choose to let the dices do their thing, perhaps to please the masochistic tactic lovers.
this can also cover the fact that the system is not perfect ( they rarely are), characters are badly optimized, you badly-calibrated the encounter, party composition makes balance too hard.And suddenly enable both you and the players to make tactically correct decisions with cutting-edge enemies instead of having to use shameful damage spreading tactics.
the only downside to using this is if your players are too mindful about it and they *feel* like they are being prevented from dying. but you can still keep the lethality up when and where you want it, trick them into thinking you are not dice-cheating in various ways, and even if you fail at it it's still somewhat worth the shame and not so disruptive in my opinion.
>>46416686
>>46416578
Great advice - prepare in advance, but be flexible and ready to see the players turn 90 degrees in relation to the plot line and do something totally unexpected. I'd also add 'have a living world' - plan out some local and regional events that happen in the world around the players (weather, seasons, wars, etc.) The players are a part of the world, but it doesn't revolve around them unless they act to influence it.
>>46416732
I've actually had players 'pre-roll' and write down a set of values on a 3 x 5 card. A row of D20 results, a row of D10, D6, etc. I let them know that some times they'll want low scores and others high so just be honest and write whatever you rolled down. Then I use those rolls as 'notice' checks, etc without having to tip off players that there might be something worry of investigation or that something is trying to attack them, etc. I just cross them out as I go. I also love occasionally just rolling random dice behind the GM screen and going "Hmmmm..." while acting like I'm looking at a chart. Makes the players a bit more attentive and keeps them on their toes.
What do you guys do when the players fight hordes exp wise?
Do you give them the base exp that they would get after it gets divided up and thats all, do you give a bit extra because fuck hordes, or do you have some sort of multiplier that you are supposed to use with x amount of enemies?
Recently my players decided it would be a good idea to charge an army of 2500+ undead and managed to kill 264 before they decided that it was time to get out. The enemies weren't anything extraordinary though, just basic bitch skellys and zombies so after the experience was calculated out it was everything but worth it for the time they spent killing them off.
In the past as well they would attack hordes of enemies and get barely anything out of it because they weren't fighting hordes of dragons for a shitload of exp , there is 6 of them so experience gets really diluted, and it just ends up being a giant waste of time.
How do you guys dish out exp for those types of encounters?
>>46417394
1. Don't make fighting hordes a thing that happens?
2. Don't use XP.
>>46415644
Go fuck yourself.
>>46417415
>1. Don't make fighting hordes a thing that happens?
They wanted to do it, I wont make invisible walls for encounters or situations they put themselves into if they want to do to something, are able to do said thing, or are stupid enough to have gotten themselves into that situation.
>>46417394
As a GM I use a loose rule of thumb about adding experience based on things like why the PCs are fighting. Is it just for themselves, or are they defending a village? I might well add anything from a 10% to 40% bonus if they're risking it all on behalf of others. I might also give out bonuses like an extra 5% to 10% if the player did something cool or entertaining during the course of the game or otherwise made excellent use of their character's skills.
It all comes down to how fast you want the characters (and thus the campaign) to advance and what sort of behaviors you want to reward them for / encourage more of in your game.
>>46415644
>No one wants to look at your world map and pick out which location they think would be cool to go fight next.
I do
>You're not accomplishing anything.
Fun is accomplished.
>No one likes sandbox shit. No one ever has, no one ever will.
That's the majority of what our group does/likes.
>>46416068
You can reuse the setting for other players, other sessions, etc
Did you think about it?
>>46417550
>lol dat sound fun
Yes, contrarianism is a thing.
>>46417496
Now explain to me why you think XP is a thing you should ever use, and why you feel the need to break your back trying to logic your way into making players killing 300 undead out of an army of 2500 make sense within the XP system.
Read this
>>46417585
RAILROADS. ARE. EVIL.
LOLRANDUMB is better than "DO WHAT I WANTED YOU TO DO SUCKAZ"
>>46417737
railroading is fine if you are dungeon crawling
>>46417737
First, not-sandbox =/= "railroad". Whoever told you those were the two possibilties lied to you, and you'd an idiot for believing it.
Second, "lolrandum" is never, ever better than anything.
Third, pretending that you enjoy your episodic dungeon-of-the-week campaign where every hole you look into happens to have a randomly generated dungeon full of random encounters and a pile of treasure at the end, doesn't impress anyone. You and I both know your campaign is trash.
>every hole you look into happens to have a randomly generated dungeon
Nope, world is static, this one cave is filled with filth and gnoblars, and that second one is the treasure one
Sandboxes are good for players who have a lot of initiative.
Railroads are good for players who don't yet "get" roleplaying.
For everyone else, Schrodinger's Railroad is the way to go.
>>46417394
>EXP
stop using that thing.When you feel like it the whole party levels up.
if you feel like your players strongly need a "carrot on a stick" and be rewarded everytime they defeat something use the following rules:
-ONLY encounters, tasks, challenges that advance the players in their mission ( or personal goal/development/moral system optionally) hands out experience. and they give experience no matter how the players defeat it ( killing or running away both works in the same way
-you can choose to give extra exp if players complete subquests, optional objectives and the like
-you can choose to give extra exp if players complete the challenge in the most tactically correct, safest, or narratively cool way
-you can choose to give extra exp to players that roleplay well
-you don't calculate exp based on any shitty formula. you just name how much exp a specific task is worth based on difficulty and relevance to the mission or pretty much anything you feel like.
-you don't want player's level to mismatch the challenge rating of the encounters you have planned or one player to get much better or worse than other so there is really no point in providing ways for the players to get variable amount of experience.
-can't you just make everyone level up after they complete each chapter of your storyline?
the horde of skeleton sounds completely optional to the character goals, so it should give no experience. if you decide otherwise then it should be either none ( if the horde is big enough to destroy the city it is heading to anyway) or 10% ( if the horde is going to be defeated by the allied kingdom at the expense of many soldier's lives lost).
>>46419208
XP is simply a way of assigning impartial character progress. The system of the DM deciding when the players level up can lead to an inconsistent levelling experience.
Horror stories like one PC becoming underlevelled don't actually happen unless that player never fucking does anything. If that's the case, you have bigger problems than balance. Maybe the guy who's only there half the time shouldn't be playing a PC, but rather a recurring character the DM assigns to him. It's also much more interesting for everyone involved.
>>46419739
>XP is simply a way of assigning impartial character progress
which doesn't need to be assigned and rappresented to be perceived IMHO. Players already feel the story progressing and if you want them to feel progressing into the next level you can give them partial level privileges or roleplaying signals or just tell them that they will probably level up at the end of the next session if they an finish the dungeon.
>The system of the DM deciding when the players level up can lead to an inconsistent levelling experience
there is no such thing as an inconsistent levelling experience this way because levels and EXP serve only 2 purposes for GMs in any RPG i know about:
-rappresenting the power level of a character to balance the current encounter difficulty
-respecting the usable-powers-per-levels/ number of encounters ratio ( example: players advancing too quickly in both exp and gold would make wands and scroll much better in pathfinder/D&D than what they should)
for the first point having complete control of when PCs should level up is better than having to do math to decide it and risk them levelling up/ not levelling up just before the boss encounter.
for the second point all the GM would have to care about is counting the number of encounters inbetween each level, which is much simpler than exp-count math and is only relevant if players are actively exploiting level-dependant finite resources. and it could also be counterbalanced by increasing/decreasing the cost or avaibility of such resources.
having 3 players at level 5 and one at level 4, 95% on its way to level 5, face a " boss encounter" sound much more inconsistent.
what if that player obtained enough exp to level up in the middle of the playsession, asking to take up 10 minutes to update his sheet while everyone else does nothing?
sound much more inconsistent to me.
>>46419739
>XP is simply a way of assigning impartial character progress.
No, XP is a limiting tool that amateur DMs feel the need to constrain themselves to because it's a reward system they think is more important than making sure they're telling an actually decent story.
There's no reason to tie yourself to an XP track because all you're doing is limiting the amount of time you have to tell your campaign's story. And if you think rewarding the player for killing a goblin or successfully rolling a Diplomacy check is more important than having a plot that takes as much time as is required to for NPCs, hooks, and twists to be set up and paid off, then you are literally beginner-tier DM.
>>46420305
>all this buttmad
Anon, how do you even expect me to take your point seriously when half of it is just calling people stupid for disagreeing with you? You sound like an inflexible, no-fun-allowed windbag. For your players' sake, I hope you don't act like this at the table.
>>46421101
>lol u sound mad ;^)
Solid case you make there.
>>46420305
Having played with gms that put their story before the game no matter what, I can tell you to fuck off and write your shitty novel elswhere.
We are playing a game, we are not here for you to teach us a lesso.
Along with this, dnd is NOT the only system. You can eek by on level progression systems with your bullshit, you will not in another system or even in 3.5/3.0 where xp is tied to item creation.
>>46421469
Saying "I've playing in <some random type of game we're not talking about> so I can say for a fact that it sucks" is not an argument or defense of anything.
You want to explain why you think XP isn't a baby-system that only limits and drags down the quality of games? Explain your position. Don't say "lol i played dat nd it suck" and assume anyone gives a fuck.
>>46421567
You wang my thesis, show me yours.
Use something to harpoon my anecdotal evidence so you can shut me up.
>>46421607
>Use something to harpoon my anecdotal evidence so you can shut me up.
Uh...you're lying when you say you played in those types of games? Fuck, that's about as substantial and likely as your claim.
>>46421639
Nice evidence
>>46421670
I don't think you understand why annecdote is irrelevant in argument. You don't see me demanding evidence that you have, in fact, played in the games you say you did because A.) There is none you can provide, and B.) It doesn't fucking matter.
You have a problem with my description of XP as a crutch used only by those who don't care about the quality of the story they're telling and who feel the need to be chained to specific numbers and frequencies of encounters in order to progress a story because it's linked directly to the level the players are at the time? Then explain why using it better than not. Go ahead.
Otherwise, why are you posting?
>>46421724
Might want to take your own advice their champ.
>>46421295
You're being a dickbag, Anon. And your opinion sounds stupid because of that. That's all.
>>46413539
Even if you're running a sandbox-y campaign, you have to force the first adventure on the players. Start out with a firm first hook -- they're being payed handsomely to do a job, or they're all slaves on a ship, or they've been sent through a mysterious portal, or whatever. You have to build up some context before the players can make intelligent choices about what they want to do next.
Other than that, expect your game to suck ass. GMing is mainly about learning all the little things that work and don't work through experience. Just try to make sure everyone's having fun and that you're learning from your mistakes.
I ran a very short session for a friend a while ago, and I felt like I was approaching the session like I was telling a story. A couple of times I told my friend what he was doing before he even did it because it was the logical thing. I felt like I took away his agency because I was too anxious to run the game.
I'm going to run a bigger game soon, and I hope it'll be better.
To be a good GM, should I strive to be more passive? Like should I just stick to being "the world" if that makes any sense? I figured I should be reacting to the players actions instead of forcing them to react to me. Obviously you want to present hooks through NPCs and such, but generally isn't it better to only provide information when it's necessary ("You enter a room. It is a typical motel room, although dusty.") or when they ask for it?
These questions may sound a bit vague since I'm tired
Greatest advice I've ever received:
Know your antagonist. No matter how badly your players surprise you, if you know what the BBEG wants, and why, you will (almost) always be able to respond appropriately.
Never be afraid to say "Hang on guys, I need a minute to think." Most players won't mind; in fact, they'll feel cool for 'stumping' you.
When in doubt, favor the players, and/or do whatever is most interesting.
Remember that problems are there to be SOLVED.
>>46423300
The problem with the BBEG advice is that it seems to be too often that the BBEG's best option is just 'ignore the players, walk/teleport away'.
