I've played D&D for on and off for 35 years. In every game I've played, I always wanted to be the good guy. I've played Paladins and Rangers. Clerics and Fighters. Elves, Dwarves and Humans. For me, being the hero of the story is where it's at.
Last night, I gathered together a group of n00bs to get a D&D 5e game going. I gave them handouts for the classes and told them to choose what they like. I explained many of the things they needed to know, Ability scores and modifiers, Armor Class, Hit Points, Saving Throws, etc. When it came to Alignment, I told them it was a moral code and a way to express your view through play. I got two Neutrals, two Chaotic Neutrals and a Neutral Good. And one of the CN's wanted to be Chaotic Evil.
All of the campaign ideas I had are out the window. It was supposed to be the characters fighting it out with Gnolls and Bugbears early, while unraveling the networks built by the evil dragons in the area. The Theocracy of Volnaya is a good aligned kingdom that was to send Clerics and Fighters to the battle against the Dragons and their minions that the heroes were supposed to gather to stop the Dragon Cultists from raising an undead Dragon as the culmination of the campaign.
Now, it looks as if I am going to have to scrap the original plan and have all of the bad guys court/thwart the PC's. Let the characters have some control of all the bad events that could happen. I'm really bummed about that. I'm a white hat kind of guy and I don't understand where these players are coming from in universally making the choice to be bad guys. What are some of the experiences you guys have had running or playing in games? Is it usually this way? Or do you usually have players wanting to play good guys?
I've played good and evil characters over the years and I've known plenty of people who wanted play the "bad guys" (not sure if I've ever had an entire party go that way). I have had characters that I started out playing as good and end up pretty evil. And vice-versa.
Most of the time, we haven't been too hung up on alignment. Usually there are sufficient individual reasons for party members to want to cooperate and complete the "mission". The end of the world is bad for everyone.
I guess what I'm saying is, "I'm fuzzy on the on the whole good/bad thing".
Thanks for the viewpoint. It just seemed like from the table talk that the players wanted to wreak as much havoc and chaos as possible. I'm not mentally geared in the direction. So it's going to be difficult for me to wrap my head around. I guess I will co-opt the bad guys plans and open them as avenues for adventure to the PC's.
I've never played with a group quite like that. Even when playing the bad guys, there's been some motivation for it. Just sowing death and destruction for it's own sake doesn't make for a very fun game.
I guess there are ways of handling that as a game master. If the PCs decide that are going to pillage the countryside, they are going to quickly run afoul of more powerful forces of good. Let Gandalf and Aragorn teach them a lesson ;)
1. Chaotic Neutral is very, very tough to play, even for experienced people. They are the Harley Quinns of the world who just want to wreak havoc for its own sake.
2. Have them raid a village. Rape, pillage, maul, etc. Then next session, give them the "good guys" and have them return home from an adventure to find their village in ruins - the aftershocks of the raid they'd just conducted.
Do you guys play characters strictly according to alignment? I've always treated it more as a guide or framework to build characters around. Sure, if you're lawful good you're going to behave in a certain way overall, but I don't make alignment the main component of a character.
I'm also not a rules purist though either. We tend to play broadly within a rules set, with a lot of discretion left to the GM.
This is my first go round as a DM. This is the first go round for each of the players with D&D. I want to give them a good time so that they will want to play some more. I'm not suggesting Monty Haul, but, to give them their head in telling a story they want to hear.
I'm not an alignment stickler. At least I don't think I am. But I want them to have some kind of rationale for the way their characters act/react. I intend to give them unfavorable reactions from the good guys forces if their actions call for it. My main problem is going to be, what to do with the Neutral Good guy? He's a Bard, so, I've suggested maybe a 'clinical' interest in staying with the group. Doing research for an epic or something.
Something they have done away with is Alignment requirements for classes. I haven't read all the class descriptions, but, the ones I did had no mention of having to be a particular alignment. Not even Paladin. Weird.
Quote from: MetalDog on February 21, 2016, 12:34:57 PM
Something they have done away with is Alignment requirements for classes. I haven't read all the class descriptions, but, the ones I did had no mention of having to be a particular alignment. Not even Paladin. Weird.
I haven't picked up a D&D rule book in years, but that does seem weird. Alignment requirements for certain classes always made sense to me.
Good luck with your group. DMing is tough no matter what. Hopefully the group comes around a little bit as they become more experienced as players.
I haven't played in a long time but two of the best campaigns I played had me playing unsavoury types. My longest running character was a neutral thief who was just in it for himself. The GM did a great job of constantly having me have to deal with duplicitous fences, getting strong armed and screwed over by the Guild, and having to deal with the town watch. The other character was a lawful evil cleric who used the power of the church and the force of law to amass wealth and become a petty despot. That campaign didn't last too long (I got arrested by the inquisition and burned) but it was a different experience from the usual dungeon crawl, save the village type stuff.
I played a Deadwood type game several years ago. This was before I had seen Deadwood and I went in thinking it was just a Wild West game. I was planning on playing a roguish gunfighter (I modeled his appearance on Bruce Campbell as Brisco County Jr). I ended up working as Cy Tolliver's enforcer (he wasn't named Cy Tolliver, but it was clear that's who it was). For any of you who have seen Deadwood, you know that means I wasn't one of the "good guys".
My character had some measure of redemption in the end, but he roughed up a lot of miners and town folk along the way.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 21, 2016, 11:47:05 AM
1. Chaotic Neutral is very, very tough to play, even for experienced people. They are the Harley Quinns of the world who just want to wreak havoc for its own sake.
I'd draw a slight distinction here.
Chaotic Neutral is into the chaos, but doesn't have a vested interest in whether it's for good or evil. Or maybe they do, but want the chaos equally balanced between good and evil (think Random Acts of Kindness here).
Chaotic Evil - those are the insane people - the ones who want to see the world burn just to see it burn.
Quote2. Have them raid a village. Rape, pillage, maul, etc. Then next session, give them the "good guys" and have them return home from an adventure to find their village in ruins - the aftershocks of the raid they'd just conducted.
Agreed. Actions have consequences. Even if the local lord/king is Lawful Evil, he's going to frown upon characters messing up his order of things. Think of LE as the mafia - They have a strict set of rules. It may involve all sorts of bad stuff, but they apply it in an ordered sense within their framework. They're not above doing good works if it furthers their own ends. So in that regard alignment exists as something of a guideline.
Lawful Good OTOH is more like Superman. He may lie about his secret identity (lying is evil) but he's Good overall and about 99.9% through and through.
------
I thought it was just me, but the last several groups I've played/DM'd seem to have more Neutral types. I'm not sure if it's a reluctance/stereotype that "Good" guys don't have as much fun/as many options to accomplish their goals or not.
As a DM you need to be careful about walking the line between preaching from a Metagaming standard and keeping evil/chaos in check within the game structure. The two can overlap but, as you recognize MD, the meta can eclipse the game if you're not careful.
Brant's solution is best: let actions have consequences. A neutral/evil group that wipes out Bugbears still furthers the end of protecting the town (a good act). One doesn't exclude the other. But if the party robs some innocent merchants on the way there/back then the long arm of the law certainly can be extended to keep those actions in check.
Thanks, gents, for the thoughts and experiences. It's going to be hard not making this into a DM versus players game. Thankfully they are all in their 20's, so, they can grasp the concept of consequences rather than just thinking the DM is out to get us. And I will be sure to state ahead of time that this campaign will be about that, consequences. That way, if we all work together, maybe the story will still have a deadly or unhappy ending, at least we will know we got there on purpose.
As a DM you can have fun with this.
Let the Rogue pick a few pockets (and even fail) before he's caught.
Let them waylay a merchant or two on the highway before they're ambushed.
It'll be all the more fun when you drop the hammer on them!
Quote from: MetalDog on February 21, 2016, 10:36:22 AM
Last night, I gathered together a group of n00bs to get a D&D 5e game going. I gave them handouts for the classes and told them to choose what they like. I explained many of the things they needed to know, Ability scores and modifiers, Armor Class, Hit Points, Saving Throws, etc. When it came to Alignment, I told them it was a moral code and a way to express your view through play. I got two Neutrals, two Chaotic Neutrals and a Neutral Good. And one of the CN's wanted to be Chaotic Evil.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on February 21, 2016, 12:55:36 PM
I haven't played in a long time but two of the best campaigns I played had me playing unsavoury types. My longest running character was a neutral thief who was just in it for himself. The GM did a great job of constantly having me have to deal with duplicitous fences, getting strong armed and screwed over by the Guild, and having to deal with the town watch.
Sounds like angling toward this middle-of-the-road style of campaign is what MD's player group is looking for. Less of a goody-goody straightforward superhero style situation, and more of a gritty anti-hero feel. Which could be a lot of fun once figured out.
With more self-centered neutral characters, you can throw challenges at them from both sides. Since they're firmly in the center, then you should have all kinda of foils to draw upon. Not just from the usual evil side, but also more room for the law hounding them and associative yet often untrustworthy interactions with criminal and rebel factions and leaders. Could lead to discovery of secret conspiracies, especially within what was previously perceived as a Lawful/Good faction which had been hounding them. Such methods could still be used to pit them against the bad guys, although it may take some time & effort getting it to that point. Maybe such things will slowly bring them closer to your style of classical Good Hero play, in a roundabout way, to some extent.
This more free-wheeling neutral type of campaign is surely more difficult to do because it requires even more flexibility and ad-lib'ing. But if you can catch your feet, it has some of the greatest potential for enjoyment & character evolution.
EDIT:
Don't think of it as the fellowship, marching in a desperate bid to destroy evil, in LotR. Think of it more like a bunch of Han Solos who may eventually & inadvertently get mixed up in the rebellion. Or some of the characters in Game Of Thrones (notably the mercs) who end up benefiting by finding themselves in the lucrative employ of Tyrion or Dragon Lady.
Quote from: LongBlade on February 21, 2016, 01:36:04 PM
As a DM you can have fun with this.
Let the Rogue pick a few pockets (and even fail) before he's caught.
Let them waylay a merchant or two on the highway before they're ambushed.
It'll be all the more fun when you drop the hammer on them!
Quote from: Nefaro on February 21, 2016, 01:38:01 PM
Sounds like angling toward this middle-of-the-road style of campaign is what MD's player group is looking for. Less of a goody-goody straightforward superhero style situation, and more of a gritty anti-hero feel. Which could be a lot of fun once figured out.
With more self-centered neutral characters, you can throw challenges at them from both sides. Since they're firmly in the center, then you should have all kinda of foils to draw upon. Not just from the usual evil side, but also more room for the law hounding them and associative yet often untrustworthy interactions with criminal and rebel factions and leaders. Could lead to discovery of secret conspiracies, especially within what was previously perceived as a Lawful/Good faction which had been hounding them. Such methods could still be used to pit them against the bad guys, although it may take some time & effort getting it to that point. Maybe such things will slowly bring them closer to your style of classical Good Hero play, in a roundabout way, to some extent.
This more free-wheeling neutral type of campaign is surely more difficult to do because it requires even more flexibility and ad-lib'ing. But if you can catch your feet, it has some of the greatest potential for enjoyment & character evolution.
EDIT:
Don't think of it as the fellowship, marching in a desperate bid to destroy evil, in LotR. Think of it more like a bunch of Han Solos who may eventually & inadvertently get mixed up in the rebellion. Or some of the characters in Game Of Thrones (notably the mercs) who end up benefiting by finding themselves in the lucrative employ of Tyrion or Dragon Lady.
More good suggestions!
Quote from: MetalDog on February 21, 2016, 02:08:52 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on February 21, 2016, 01:36:04 PM
As a DM you can have fun with this.
Let the Rogue pick a few pockets (and even fail) before he's caught.
Let them waylay a merchant or two on the highway before they're ambushed.
It'll be all the more fun when you drop the hammer on them!
Quote from: Nefaro on February 21, 2016, 01:38:01 PM
Sounds like angling toward this middle-of-the-road style of campaign is what MD's player group is looking for. Less of a goody-goody straightforward superhero style situation, and more of a gritty anti-hero feel. Which could be a lot of fun once figured out.
With more self-centered neutral characters, you can throw challenges at them from both sides. Since they're firmly in the center, then you should have all kinda of foils to draw upon. Not just from the usual evil side, but also more room for the law hounding them and associative yet often untrustworthy interactions with criminal and rebel factions and leaders. Could lead to discovery of secret conspiracies, especially within what was previously perceived as a Lawful/Good faction which had been hounding them. Such methods could still be used to pit them against the bad guys, although it may take some time & effort getting it to that point. Maybe such things will slowly bring them closer to your style of classical Good Hero play, in a roundabout way, to some extent.
This more free-wheeling neutral type of campaign is surely more difficult to do because it requires even more flexibility and ad-lib'ing. But if you can catch your feet, it has some of the greatest potential for enjoyment & character evolution.
EDIT:
Don't think of it as the fellowship, marching in a desperate bid to destroy evil, in LotR. Think of it more like a bunch of Han Solos who may eventually & inadvertently get mixed up in the rebellion. Or some of the characters in Game Of Thrones (notably the mercs) who end up benefiting by finding themselves in the lucrative employ of Tyrion or Dragon Lady.
More good suggestions!
Thanks MD.
Look at it as an opportunity to get off the beaten path a bit. Lotsa room for intrigue and other stuff to mix in.
While D&D and some other fantasy RPGs default to the LoTR style of black & white good versus evil campaigns, I think you can still have a wonderful time taking cues from less clear-cut and grittier stuff. There is a lot of ideas out there for it in movies, books, and even other RPGs.
While you may not directly think of it as being a "Shadowrun style campaign in D&D", such inspirations could probably help. Something I recall reading in a grittier RPG, Warhammer FRP, was a specific example of farming plots from heist movies, spaghetti westerns, war movies, Detective/Noir shows, etc. Modern plots, even.
While the suggestion isn't uncommon in RPGs, one of the examples really stuck in my mind. In that case it was an adventure hook they called "Kali's Heroes" where the somewhat rogue-ish party finds out that a Temple of Kali is hiding a horde of loot (from donations for the poor or whatever moral dilemma you may want to test them with) but is guarded by some special monsters/troops. Of course, the heroes will want to figure out how to get it, since their characters are driven by wealth & power, and not an overly strong moral compass, but you can still test them in extra ways. Even in a simple heist scenario. On the flip side, you could introduce it as the heist from an innocent temple, only to find they're some secret evil cult when they break in. Ends up being the PCs vs Evil scenario you were looking for. Perhaps one of their past ne'er-do-well partners finds out and attempts to beat them to it. Modifications are endless.
Lotsa ways to go!
I think you can come up with a lot more variety when the PCs are more interested in personal gain. Plenty plots to farm from media, too.
More good suggestions, Nef! I certainly fall prey to the Tolkien trap. It totally colors my perceptions of D&D. The more I think about this, and the more good suggestions I get, the more I am looking forward to doing this.
Funny, but I had a similar thought.
Remember that "evil" doesn't necessarily mean "always inflicts harm on others."
Think of evil as being highly selfish/disinterested in the welfare of others.
Quote from: LongBlade on February 21, 2016, 08:59:17 PM
Think of evil as being highly selfish/disinterested in the welfare of others.
Kind of like an Antisocial personality disorder.
Quote from: Staggerwing on February 21, 2016, 10:03:35 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on February 21, 2016, 08:59:17 PM
Think of evil as being highly selfish/disinterested in the welfare of others.
Kind of like an Antisocial personality disorder.
Isn't that a New York Dolls song?
MD, I think it great you've rediscovered tabletop RPGing.
What did you pick up? Starter Set? Or the 3 core books?
Personally I'd just make the first few sessions about learning the basic mechanics and learning to role play as a group. The group dynamics will take shape over time which will eventually will shape the "alignment" that the group's players will take on for their characters. I'd maybe do some smaller "side" quests in the beginning to set the stage for the town or region of the campaign. Let them work together to solve puzzles and beat encounters.
The reality is you have a group of "neutrals", which is really nothing more than people wanting to be individualists. Chaotic Neutral is a follow my own path kind of person. Rules and traditions don't matter. It's about what feels "right" to them to promote their own individual freedom. It's not about good or evil and certainly not about causing mayhem and chaos. That's the Chaotic Evil alignment. Neutral good is the same, but they will do what they "think and feel" is the "good" action to take even if it breaks the law or rules. Neutral evil is all about self interest. If it will better them personally, they'll do whatever it takes to promote their self interest. So they may break the rules or they may follow the rules as long as the outcome benefits them personally. The true neutral is really just about making personal choices without a bias toward good or evil (Unless there is a philosophical reason that is seeking the balance of good and evil). There is not a compelling interest for promoting good over evil or visa versa, but making choices that are simply in the interest in the person. Although I think there is a compelling case that they would prefer good rule over evil rule.
Now with all that being said and it's been many moons since I last DM a campaign. My words of caution to a new DM, because I've made all of these mistakes. :)
1. Giving out too much in the way of money or magic items can be bad. It sets an expectation of reward and can be hard to deal with as the campaign matures. The Monte Hall magical item world can be fun for a little while but it eventually gets boring just as never getting any can be equally unrewarding. It's a fine balance.
2. You are the narrator and guide of the story, but how the story unfolds...well that's a group responsibility. I'd worry less about every little detail, but more about the basic encounters. Does it matter if they take the right or left fork in the road? Maybe to them, but to you they can all lead to the encounter. Just don't get overly fixated on YOUR story and how YOU want it to play out. Let your players mold the story from the background you provide them. If the game starts to get away from you, then you can make adjustments later on if needed.
3. I'm like you I don't really like evil groups. I personally never found them fun to play with or DM for. And a single player if they are truly playing as chaotic evil will IMHO eventually destroy the group and campaign unless everyone else sort of bandwagons on but then it may not be very enjoyable for you. I had a play group that disbanded because one person just ruined the fun by running amok. Not that you couldn't play a campaign for that style, but I always found chaotic evil better for an NPC than a player character. Lawful evil and neutral evil are manageable, because there is a rational motivation. It may be warped, but it's still logical and can be worked into most campaign just because of the self interest aspect. The Paladin wants to destroy the dragons for disrupting order, but the evil Magic User may want an ancient text that the dragons possess. The evil characters can have a rational self interest that isn't necessarily about raping and pillaging the local countryside for no other reason then they can do it. I'd just caution you don't let one players "fun" ruin a new group.
4. However, a group of neutrals is really not much different than a group of good heroes. The motivation is a little different, but they aren't out to wreak havoc and chaos. I think Nef said it earlier, but the world is more like a Game of Thrones type world. No decision is ever cut and dry, but there sure as the hell can be consequences. So don't necessarily need to change the back story of dragons and their evil network, but you just have to create the back story for the characters as to why they want to get involved. And maybe rather than "evil" promoting dragons, it's about "power" and "control" hungry dragons. Same story but just a slightly different moral basis. You players should be able to feed you some background of their characters to help you out here. Maybe one gaming session is just them telling their characters' "story"?
5. Have fun man! I think it's awesome. I actually just pulled out my beginners box for Pathfinder to play with my kids, but I think I might go with the DnD starter set and work up from there just because of the streamline rules.
All good points, Bison. Thanks for taking the time to write them all out. I had no idea you were a DM from way back. O0
I bought the starter box back around Christmas. Hadn't really fooled with it much since the initial read through. Then my daughter came to me and said she had told some friends of hers that wanted to learn that her dad was looking to run a campaign. And the more I thought about it, the more I knew she was right. Then in one of those twists of life that happen, the next day, I texted a friend of mine I hadn't heard from in a year and a half or so. And during the back and forth, he said we should get together for some D&D some time. I immediately asked him if Saturday night was alright and he said he and his brother would be stoked to come. So, I immediately went to Books A Million and bought the DMG and PH. I didn't have the money to get the MM. I have a work around for that though.
Saturday night comes around and all I've had time to do is skim the PH. I had taken the time to make copies of the pertinent Class descriptions and had enough copies of character sheets. I explained some of what they were after, Ability Scores, Saving Throws, Armor Class, etc. And everyone started rolling dice and figuring out where everything went and what it was for. We all agreed to meet two weeks from last night for the next session. I figure that will be a learning session, too.
Some of the things I've found in 5e that are difficult to get used to are classes aren't tied to alignments anymore. They finally have everything streamlined to the d20. The game is about the modifiers in play and not so much as the ability scores that determine them. The magic using characters have it much better now due to Spell Slots and you start with 3 Cantrips and 2 1st Level Spells. By 3rd level, you have 4 1sts and 2 2nds. It takes WAAAAAAAAY less experience to move up Levels. 300 XP to 2nd and 900 XP to 3rd. 4th is only 2700 XP. There is a reliance on added powers and perks at a fairly consistent pace and some of the other little concepts: Advantage/Disadvantage, using your Ability Score boost to purchase a Feat rather than boost Ability Scores, how they treat falling to 0 HP.
All in all, I like it. Still doesn't seem right you can play a non-good Paladin. Or that it takes 300 XP to gain your first level. I think we are going to enjoy this.
Well I the XP is pretty easy to handle because unless they have the books and are demanding that the "rules say" this is the XP, you can just adjust the amount you are giving them. Plus for example (I don't know the exact amount) but if a kobald is worth 10 xp divide that total amount the group. So 5 players each get 2 xp each and not 10 xp for the kobald. Also I think that the idea of 5e is to move away from the combat focus that was really prevalent in 3/4 ed to focus more on the role playing aspect. So the xp should on an average gaming night be much less then a combat heavy game if you are basing xp strictly off of monsters and defeated encounters. The reality is you could house rule the xp however you want so you can really control the speed that the player's characters are leveling.
Also get on the official site and browse the tabletop resources. Lots of free stuff there to view online, save as a pfd, or print. I'm pretty sure the digital dm guide has a decent number of monsters that will certainly get you through the first several sessions until you can get your hands on a MM.
Yeah I DM'd for many years. I bucked the games "innovations" and stuck with 1 ed. over 2 ed. Then I didn't play again until 3.5 and now that my kids are getting old enough to role play, I'll be picking up 5 ed. I like 3.5 and Pathfinder (same ruleset) but it's, as Longblade said, detailed and frankly all of the various dice checks can really bog a game down if you let the rules takeover the table and fun.
Also there are a lot of good channels on youtube that can help you learn to DM or understand the rules/concepts better. I actually like to listen to these guys talk about the game. I just like that you can tell they love to DM and RP, and they do have good ideas or at least you some food for thought about certain topics or issues that might come up in a game. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHLzgnQu3OWn31g2PebQV5Q
Quote from: MetalDog on February 22, 2016, 12:01:19 AMAll in all, I like it. Still doesn't seem right you can play a non-good Paladin.
I think the intent was to make the Paladin more of a religious fighter for any of a campaign's available religions than the LG ones us old school gamers grew up with.
Quote from: Double Deuce on February 22, 2016, 12:51:40 AM
Quote from: MetalDog on February 22, 2016, 12:01:19 AMAll in all, I like it. Still doesn't seem right you can play a non-good Paladin.
I think the intent was to make the Paladin more of a religious fighter for any of a campaign's available religions than the LG ones us old school gamers grew up with.
My playgroup had evil paladins back in 1 ed. by house rule. It never made sense that only a lawful good deity would have an order of holy knights to enforce the customs and traditions of the faith and punish those who would deviate from that truth. Many a good adventures were had against an evil order of knights seeking to impose evil on the world.
Eventually they added the Cavalier class in Unearthed Arcana. The Paladin was a sub-Class of the cavalier. The cavalier was essentially an alignment based "paladin".
Quote from: Wes on February 21, 2016, 10:54:58 PM
Quote from: Staggerwing on February 21, 2016, 10:03:35 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on February 21, 2016, 08:59:17 PM
Think of evil as being highly selfish/disinterested in the welfare of others.
Kind of like an Antisocial personality disorder.
Isn't that a New York Dolls song?
That would be 'Personality Crisis'. Great band, the New York Dolls. O0
I'll check in to those YouTube videos, Bison. Thanks again for the insight :)
Your topic worked out well for me too. I just pulled out the little DnD stuff I have remaining, which is now little more than the PHB, DMG, and MM for 3.5, and my PathFinder Core Rulebook and beginners box, and few really random remnants of 1 ed. As I was going back through the rules, I was just sort of meh about having to relearn and explain all of the various types of checks and rolls to a younger audience. So I started reading more on 5 ed. because it is supposedly more streamlined.
Anyway Longblade and DD are certainly going to be better references for the 5 ed. rules, but the craft of DM/GM is something that transcends editions or even RPGs. The challenges faced in one game are very seldom, outside of rule set variation, different between them. Such as the disruptive player, encounter design, encouraging RPing, and the like. It's all good stuff.
Quote from: MetalDog on February 22, 2016, 06:57:08 AM
I'll check in to those YouTube videos, Bison. Thanks again for the insight :)
There are definitely some good vids with important tips made by experienced DMs.
Quote from: Staggerwing on February 22, 2016, 06:25:52 AM
Quote from: Wes on February 21, 2016, 10:54:58 PM
Quote from: Staggerwing on February 21, 2016, 10:03:35 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on February 21, 2016, 08:59:17 PM
Think of evil as being highly selfish/disinterested in the welfare of others.
Kind of like an Antisocial personality disorder.
Isn't that a New York Dolls song?
That would be 'Personality Crisis'. Great band, the New York Dolls. O0
I know man...couldn't resist :)
I've played all class types (except for straight-up Wizard types 'cause they are so damn dull to me) and all alignments and I've come to the conclusion that at the end of the day, its the type of game the GM envisions that helps steer me to what is going to be okay to play overall. I'm in it to have a good time and make a good story when it is all said and done.
A purely evil character better have damn good reason to be in with a bunch of goody-two-shoes types and vice versa as there always, always, always is a clash within the group at some point when "that guy," pipes up and says, "well, my character wouldn't do _____ because their alignment is _____ and I don't care if the rest of the group wants to do _____," which then generally breaks the flow of things for a little bit due to arguments, de-rails and so on.
^ Yeah. I agree especially with the breaking of the flow of the game. It really depends on the group and whether they are rules sticklers or not. The overly zealous rules stickler can break the flow of the game over a thousand different disagreements on the interpretation of the rules.
So how do I keep it on track without giving in to wildly inconsistent requests? Do I just not care too much about what alignment they say they are?
Quote from: MetalDog on February 24, 2016, 07:46:52 PM
So how do I keep it on track without giving in to wildly inconsistent requests? Do I just not care too much about what alignment they say they are?
Well, you are the boss.
Without being bossy, you need to communicate that you're there to keep the game on track.
It does depend on the crew, but at times I've stepped out of the DM role to simply give some metagaming advice: "I haven't read that far, so how about you guys go right instead of left?" :)
Seriously, several of the pre-made adventures in 5.0 are really open ended. You simply cannot prepare for *every* possible move they're going to make.
Every time I've done it they've been entirely understanding and happy to move along.
Sometimes just a strong gaze as the DM will also lead them in a different direction. Sometimes proper voice inflection does it: "Do you
really jump into the pit of spikes?" (And dramatically pick up a d20)
reward add'l XP for playing alignment well
Quote from: MetalDog on February 24, 2016, 07:46:52 PM
So how do I keep it on track without giving in to wildly inconsistent requests?
The reality is that you just need to give yourself time to grow into the role of being the DM. It's something you will just develop a feeling about and "know" how to address. And there are ways you can help yourself out, but without knowing the details of what you have in mind for the progression or overarching story of your campaign its hard to say. I think the best way is to just start out will small encounters/adventures that let you get a feel for how the group interacts and it also gives them time to develop their characters and party skills. Don't rush into the main story. There's no need too. Work on the backstory and do manageable encounters. Small dungeons, caves, bandit/monster camps are easy encounter areas that you can develop and as long as they leave town, the opportunity to use the encounter will occur. So build a couple of small encounters. It'll help you manage things too. You know the story escorting a merchant get ambushed follow the trail back to a small cave explore cave kill baddies collect a few coppers and return the merchant back to town type deal. It may seem not very epic but there is a lot to learn from a small, simply designed encounter/story arch.
Quote from: MetalDog on February 24, 2016, 07:46:52 PM
Do I just not care too much about what alignment they say they are?
I wouldn't. Let them role play most people IMHO never really give it too much thought unless they are heavy into the RP. You may have a more combat/action oriented group or a group that learns to love the interaction of RPing. Let it go unless its seriously disruptive.
I'm sure other have more and better advice, but that's my two cents. Start small and manageable and work your way up to more complex.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 24, 2016, 08:45:26 PM
reward add'l XP for playing alignment well
This is good advice too. Just be wary of the those who confuse "chaotic" and "evil" with unbridled anarchy and mayhem.
I really appreciate you gents taking the time to reply and suggest. Watched some videos on YouTube about DMing and encounters. I think I have a better grip on what I want to do now adventure wise.
I never liked the concept of character alignment, so didn't worry about it much other than as a very vague guide to possible NPC motivations & methods.
I think the first tip that experienced DMs give others is be flexible and don't try to ram your adventure path down the party's throat. Play it fast & loose. Let the players generally decide how the story progresses through your narrative (with a little nudging at times), but try not to constantly force them down a rigid path of your own making.
Prepare your story hook (maybe some sub-plots) and some NPCs, McGuffin(s), Enemies/Encounters, etc in a modular way. Because the players will always travel off your perfectly prepared path at some point, so try to keep it as flexible as possible and prepare to shuffle such modular prepared stuff on the fly. You can still get them to the content you've been working on, but maybe with some quick changes in the order/NPCs/intent. They will still feel like the experience is very open-ended (and, therefore, damn fun!). O0
Yup. Build a few small modular encounters and just be flexible good advice Nef. The best part is that those encounters don't go to waste. If you make 2 or 3 and only use 1, then you already have some built for a future need. And you can just build more intricacy into those basic encounters into the future to further the campaign narrative, fill in a down time or unplanned for party action. Also not every encounter has to be a combat/action sort of encounter. Some can just be an NPC or location concept. That's the beauty of it.
The encounter video I watched mentioned those along with puzzle and natural disaster. And all these people I am shepherding seem gung ho about doing this. Including playing parts and taking ownership of the story.
I always loved to see how they mapped out a dungeon afterward and compare it to what I had behind the screen. They can be wildly different. Either I sucked as a DM describing the size of rooms, lengths and turns of passages, or they sucked at listening. :) But it was almost always fun.
I like the occasional natural disaster type backdrop. And puzzles can be fun too, if they are well thought out and can be figured out by the players.
Quote from: MetalDog on February 24, 2016, 09:49:55 PM
The encounter video I watched mentioned those along with puzzle and natural disaster. And all these people I am shepherding seem gung ho about doing this. Including playing parts and taking ownership of the story.
D&D 5 does a nice job of "forcing" players to work on a back story. This gives a lot of life to them and the opportunity for more role-play. Again, you can reward this with XP.
Also, I've found that players seem to respond to a liberal use of "inspiration" rewards. Just make sure it seems like they're earning them.
one of the best background generators out there was in this one
http://rpggeek.com/rpg/3693/where-fools-dare-tread
but it's a more lovecraftian/horror theme
I got ahead of myself and told them to come up with some background details on their own. What they crafted doesn't jibe too well with the setting I am creating. However, nothing is set in stone in the campaign, so I am going to take each of them aside for some fine tuning of their back story.
I haven't role-played in a long, long time...then, though, as now, I much prefer 'good' characters over evil ones, and 'chaotic' characters over lawful ones. Chaotic Good is my favorite alignment. I prefer that in my electronic games, too...such as Mass Effect. Ultimately, being the good guy is great.
I have from time to time played Lawful Good, specifically Paladins of course, and a Cavalier that I recall, but rarely would that happen.
I recall my group did play an Orc campaign once, so I had no problem with the evil alignments in that one. In fact it was really good fun. I only remember one specific - when the Orc Shaman in our group said who his god was, I said, "Who that?" It didn't elicit a positive response.
One thing I've always wanted to try is an evil-themed party that ends up having to do good things and thereby become the unwitting (and unwanted) heroes to the land. Never got a chance to try that out.
I think a campaign like BC describes with a band of orcs is something that would work, but I think that's my point. Everyone has to be on board with an evil plot and in the end I personally just don't see the appeal of that style of campaign. I think you are better off exploring a campaign world where the lines between good and evil are blurred. Star Wars is actually very much like that in the sense that the lines of good/evil are blurred. The rebels are just as capable of doing morally questionable things as the Empire, but it's not explicit in the sense of laying waste to a group of villagers just because you can.
I forgot today was Friday. I was going to start badgering Metaldog for some updates on how his group went today.
My bard and one of the rogues are moving this weekend, so, it won't be until next weekend for sure. And the next meeting is going to be tightening up backgrounds so they fit the campaign world and running a few examples of combat and role playing to get us started. The real deal should start the following session.
Hmm...sounds like someone should be doing some map drawing and conducting mock battles to test out the difficulty levels. Slacker! :)
Quote from: Bison on February 27, 2016, 01:31:06 PM
Hmm...sounds like someone should be doing some map drawing and conducting mock battles to test out the difficulty levels. Slacker! :)
Both are on the agenda for the weekend. You wanna come over and playtest with me?
I totally would if I lived down there or we both had fantasy grounds.
Fantasy Grounds is on my wishlist at Steam. I'd totally get it if we could get a mega game together. You, me, LB, Brant, Nef, SoM, DoubleDeuce, and more that I am sure I am missing right now. That'd be some epic stuff!
This all sounds like fun. I know that we were looking at Fantasy Grounds last year, and panzerde did buy it. I seem to recall that not everyone in the group needs to buy the full version, only the DM?
I seem to remember something like that, too.
I think if you have the ultimate client it allows for demo users to play but I'm not sure the limits. The regular allows hosting and playing with others who own the client.
Quote from: Bison on February 27, 2016, 04:43:05 PM
I think if you have the ultimate client it allows for demo users to play but I'm not sure the limits. The regular allows hosting and playing with others who own the client.
I think the full client owner can purchase extra player slots or whatnot, as needed. But isn't the basic player client rather inexpensive too? Or am I thinking of something else?
Could be a good time! :)
What systems does Fantasy Grounds support? I recall Savage Worlds being one..?
The ultimate client is $140 and the basic client is $40. The major difference is that the ultimate can host an unlimited number of players using the demo/free client. The basic client can host a single demo/free and can play with anyone with the basic client. There are other differences too, but Double Deuce is the expert on the whole virtual table top clients and he'd be able to answer that better.
The one downside is the free stuff is limited to like 2 ed D&D, Pathfinder, and 3.5 D&D. And honestly I'm not sure what you get with the free programs if it's just basic rules are more than that other wise if you want to do like D&D 4/5 ed or other system you need to buy the materials which can get expensive too depending on what is needed/wanted for the game.
I forgot you have to buy the specific rules set & such. Does only one person need it or...?
Sounds like it could turn out to be a large investment.
I think that if the host has a system module that the other players can play by basically "sharing" resources. So I think it's the DM hosting the game would have an investment to run the game. I'm not sure though, but I'm going to do some research. Even a grog's game of Pathfinder or 3.5 D&D would still prove to be a lot of fun.
I'd certainly be in to that. I'd be willing to kick in for 5e if it supports that, too. Depending on participation, we could all kick in for the ultimate client. Who's gonna DM?
Quote from: Nefaro on February 27, 2016, 08:59:50 PM
I forgot you have to buy the specific rules set & such. Does only one person need it or...?
Sounds like it could turn out to be a large investment.
Only the "host" needs the ruleset.
It can get rather expensive. Luckily I have been using it for a while, since '08 so I have built up stuff over time.
With the ultimate version, anyone can connect, even with the free demo version. Otherwise, all players need the full version. They do, iirc, have bundles that can be purchased but I have the ultimate so never really checked those out.
I have the 5e D&D ruleset (w/the licensed PHB and MM), Rolemaster and Savage Worlds in case anyone wants to check them out. There are some free community rulesets too but they are usually bare-bones.
I tried to check it out last night but iOS requires a wine wrapper to run the program and I didn't tell like dealing with that. I need to resolve my desktop issues.
I'd love to do some online RPG'n if I can make the time/spare the cash.
I can start up a separate thread and post screenshots, answer questions, etc if you guys want. Probably the hardest thing I found is coordinating times to play where everyone is available for a few hours at the same time on the same day.
I'd be interested DD. I just need to get up and running on a desktop again before I give it a go.
I wouldn't mind giving it a go. I have DM'd a fair amount of 5.0 and have two canned modules (pen and paper versions): Princes of the Apocalypse and Hoard of the Dragon Queen/Rise of Tiamat.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on February 29, 2016, 07:36:50 AM
I'd love to do some online RPG'n if I can make the time/spare the cash.
+1
Sounds like we have a group! So, what's the next step? Who wants to organize this?
I could probably run something, at least a familiarization session or 2 with the different rulesets but I work nights through the weekend. I already have regular Wednesday game (my only real night off) so it would likely need to be on a weekday or weekend morning. Maybe I can get my regular groups to go with a bi-weekly game, freeing up every other Wednesday for a Grogheads game?
Very generous of you Double D. What does everyone else say?
I cannot do anything until I either fix my current desktop or bite the bullet and replace it.
DD I wouldn't drop a good regular group TBH, but as soon as I'm back online with a real gaming computer I'll take you up on the tutorial.
Well, my regular groups, about 7, show up at random times. Some are there every week, other off and on and almost never the same players at the same time. I'm big on RP and the story so the erratic showing up just destroys that. I figure if I go to a bi-weekly schedule they will either drop out or get more consistent. The regulars show up whenever I post the session time so they would probably be ok with it.
Oh I see. I'd be up for just joining into your regular group, but Wednesday is a bad night for me. Which I guess is really the challenge of any group finding the day/time that works for everyone.
Need a status update Dog.
Game group meets tomorrow night. I hope to accomplish having all PC's made and playable, then a demo of how combat works. Then, if there's time, we'll start the adventure. Going to start at the inn and give them rumors/NPC interaction to introduce possible adventures. See where they take it.
I fail to see an update here Mr. DM.
Sorry. Not much to update. I had two arrivals around 7:30 and didn't get the other two until almost 11. My daughter, Joe, and Matt all have their character sheets up to date and the campaign background that they are supposed to know. Once Tom and Chay got here, we had just started a combat demonstration. So, I put the two of them on the map and we ran it until the scenario was over. Some scratches on the players, but, six Kobolds and four Goblins went kaput. Everyone found that it brought a lot of things together for them. I'll take my successes where I can get them :)
It's all about the first baby steps learning the game's system and how to role play. Sounds like a great start to me, which hopefully bears the fruit of a long term gaming group.
Thank you, sir, for the encouragement. :)
I *think* I finally figured out the combat rounds sequencing. We really skipped a few steps on Friday night when we played on FG.
Really? If you have a chance, I am free until 8 CST. Ping me on Steam or something and we'll get in and give it a whirl.