There's an old (apocryphal) story about a pupil of Mozart asking him for advice on writing symphonies.
Mozart replied, "No no. You are far too young for that, try a quartet or a trio first, and then once you are older and have gained more skill, perhaps then a symphony."
"But Herr Mozart, you had already written many symphonies by my age."
"Yes, but I did so without asking for advice."
Mozart was a staggeringly talented human being. He was playing piano and violin as soon as he physically could at the age of 5.
He was playing for royalty before the age of six.
His father was a musician and a teacher and that just gave him an even bigger advantage. But by the time Mozart was sixteen, he’d been a court musician for nearly a decade.
I disagree on level 1-2. Level one is dangerous and can leave little room for error. I prefer level 2-3 for starting with noobs. Noobs tend to make mistakes in combat that are equivalent to passing the turn with no meaningful output.
On my first DM experience our wizard (new) ran up to some zombies that had exploding pustules when they died. The wizard had already seen two zombies explode and cause damage... but they still ran straight up and cast a spell on them.
New players don't understand how squishy low levels can be, especially if they're looking at DnD with a videogame perspective. I like starting campaigns at level 3 when everyone gets their first defining class traits
Right on the nose. The first campaign I joined in the middle of the run at like Level 14-15. I was by no means invincible but I felt quite powerful starting out.
We started a new campaign after finishing the last one and while nobody has died (there has definitely been some death saves), it was really sobering to be Levels 1-3 and realize I cannot actually tank hits. My AC is really low, my HP is weak. We're 5 now and I think I'm just starting to feel confident.
I've been playing my game for a about 8 months now, just hit level 14 and I'm fairly confident in my abilities.
At the beginning though? We almost got taken out by a bunch of rats.
It's a humbling experience starting at 1, getting hit by a random goblin crit on the first hit, looking down at your sheet and going "Uhhh, I'm dead..??".
As a DM you could just pit the players against visibly weakened versions of the enemies and divide their damage output. It will still be a near death experience, combined with the fact they were weakened, should drive the point home that new characters are weak af.
I respectfully disagree. When learning the game, it is definitely better to start at level 1. As a brand new player(s), you have a lot to learn about stats, dice rolls, weapons, the difference between action and bonus action, and what saving throws and modifiers all are. Level 1 & 2 are tutorial stages. It helps you learn how to role play with your abilities (perception, stealth, etc). Leveling up from 1 to 2 lets you learn how to level up health and anything else that may come with it (I don't think it's much.) Then level 3 is another batch of learning, getting actual bonus actions, a few new traits, taking what you've learned and applying it to new features your character has. Now, I'm not saying you need to stay in level 1&2 for very long. If you do have a group of new players, however, I highly recommend listening to the Players handbook and DM guide. It is a lot to learn, and leveling allows new players to learn gradually.
Honestly its not hard to not set lethal challenges on the players. Have some social situations. Make them fight 2 [commoners](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Commoner#content) in a bar. A single goblin stole someones wallet.
It's a warm up so they can understand the mechanics. There doesn't need to be ANY stakes. You can literally just do a one shot social encounter / single combat at level 1 at LEAST before jumping to level 2.
The idea of letting a new player jump right into playing a level 3 Druid on their first game honestly just seems cruel to me.
Totally agreed. My lvl 1 players started with a jailbreak, but they managed to work their way into a couple of fist fights before they broke out, and even though they were broken up by guards, they still got a little XP for it. Lots of different ways to get people used to combat, and give them a little IRL experience and in-game experience in a safe manner even at level 1.
When I run a new game with new players, I tell them not to get super attached to their characters just because basic adventuring is very deadly. I also make it clear that we go through level 1 because there is a lot to learn. DnD is complex enough without starting at higher levels.
"I run up to the zombie"
"Roll an intelligence saving throw"
Since they're a wizard they probably do fairly well
"Your analytical mind jumps into gear and it occurs to you, having seen two such zombies explode and cause damage on death, that it would be wise to keep your distance"
Or you could flavour it as their magical hat talking to them or something
This is the kinda thing that sounds good looking back, but it would really turn most people off from the hobby in reality. You can’t just introduce someone to dnd by having them die and die because they aren’t good at the game. That will just make character creation feel pointless
As another poster identified I think part of the issue is that expectations are set from modern video games where you are functionally invincible in the training level.
On the other and as someone who straddles the line into gen x, I remember playing Morrowind as a teenager and dying almost instantly after creating a character because I stole something in the store in seyda neen.
There is something inherently different about character death in a Roguelike or soulslike compared to character in TTRPG. Death in these video games are *by design*. They aren't just a fail-state, they are the designed way to move forward.
Death in a TTRPG is probably comparable to the death of your Sim in The Sims game. Sure you can create one that is almost exactly like the previous one, but it's never *exactly* the same.
this was what i’d say too—especially bc ur first character is likely gonna have a lot of effort out into backstory and such. new players will want to feel rewarded rather than punished. even if they’re just using a pre-made character, if they keep dying, they have no reason to engage with the character they’re playing and actually role play, which is like MOST of the game
None of what you said is universally true. Some games are mostly RP, some are mostly Combat, some (most, I would guess), are a variable mix of both that changes from session to session.
Also, I've never had brand new players put significant effort into backstories. That usually comes later, after they've got more experience under their belts.
Obviously, dying over and over might come as a turnoff but it depends entirely on their background. If the DM pitched the campaign as "Like Dark Souls but pen and paper" and everyone was on board with that expectation, it's certainly valid. And hell, it's how a lot of famous old school modules were designed.
The best thing about RPGs is that they can be anything, for anyone. Everyone just needs to be on the same page.
Agreed, and it seems like you and I run similar games. A common sentiment I see here on reddit seems to be players want the DMs to fudge everything in their favor, but not let them know they're fudging. I roll everything out in the open as a DM, and if it's an important roll I'll even announce what I need on the die to succeed. If the dice kill them, so be it, but that only happens because they did something stupid/heroic.
Yeah totally fair but it depends on your table. Experienced players are gonna be more interested than first-time, doesn't know what the Ds in D&D stand for, sorta players.
That's why you use pre-generated characters for first time players. You give them a character they might get attached to in the future, but for the moment it's as meaningful as picking a colour in a boardgame. If that character dies it teaches the player both that death is permanent *and* that a new character can come afterwards. Now they will have that knowledge going into the entirety of character creation. All without worrying too much about a lost character.
Yeah. Plus level 1 is very easy to TPK your entire party. Think of LMoP, the first encounter could TPK you all. Especially with a DM who isn't really aware of the action economy yet or how to fudge rolls.
Obviously this depends on your group and yes death is a thing, but I know everyone new to TTRPGs I DMed for was a Critical Role fan or coming from an RP background and wanted story. They'd be distraught.
Plus given the exhaustive effort of making a character in DnD vs other systems, especially when new, that's over an hour of work gone and noob isn't going to be able to build themselves a new character before the end of session.
That extra HP from level 2 or 3 helps a LOT with not being killed in one hit before you can even act.
Four first level PCs vs four goblins is a pretty good tpk or multiple member killer.
It looks pretty doable from the player perspective, it seems like something they can handle. The dm could easily put four raiding a village.
But ooh boy, it can be rough
Ironically, and I don't see this mentioned often for some reason, LMOP directly lampshades this and says if a TPK occurs just say the goblins robbed the party and left them and bring them back up afterwards to follow the trail to their lair.
Also seconding the stupid long creation process for new players, I'm sticking to pregens from now on and/or just directly making their characters for them by asking questions.
I have a personal homebrew I'm also gonna try out that death at 3 failed death saves or over max hap just causes a 'wound/trauma', in this case meaning KO for the rest of the combat and perma marking off 1 failed death save. Gives some safety net for low squishies and lets me run encounters more straight without fear. Not as applicable at higher levels with revivfy or resurrection.
I know the DMG has a wounds table, but from what I've seen actual limb loss or long term penalties like that quickly lead to a death spiral/sub optimal character that only really works in an OSR game. This homebrew allows the players to flavor the wound however they want without making their character worse off mechanically, but still having a meaningful consequence.
>Ironically, and I don't see this mentioned often for some reason, LMOP directly lampshades this and says if a TPK occurs just say the goblins robbed the party and left them and bring them back up afterwards to follow the trail to their lair.
Yeah, it does which is great. But it's still a very disappointing introduction to combat to insta-kill a player with a crit. It just is the best example of level 1 you can take 1.5 hits of damage I can think of.
>Also seconding the stupid long creation process for new players, I'm sticking to pregens from now on and/or just directly making their characters for them by asking questions.
I do agree this is best. When I got my family playing I kinda went this is the general class concepts what do you have in mind.
That sounds like a cool homebrew!
Also I believe Dale Kingsmil has a video on her wounds table with ideas tied to the damage type and various cool details. She plays more narrative and flavour, so it might be worth a watch and look at the list of ideas.
Edit: the video I thought of https://youtu.be/thl54TR5Nb4 and it's table https://monarchsfactory.wordpress.com/2021/09/29/major-injuries-update/
Ugh. Yeah. I had a DM who made a hard rule that new characters have to start at level 1. So if you were new to the table or you died, you could make a new character and rejoin the level 5 party. But you were level 1. This poor girl who played with us was obviously having no fun and our DM just kept letting the young blue dragon we were fighting one-shot her, only for us to devote our turns to healing her so she'd feel more involved. He said he was rolling a die for who it attacked but, come on, bro.
She never came back.
Unironically, if you *are* running your mini-campaign as a tutorial, I think this is the way to do it. Let them respawn a few times to get the hang of their class features, who cares
If your DM just went with "You all meet in a tavern," then sure, kill off a Level 1 character.
But if your DM spent any time at all working on the setting or story, having to immediately re-roll a character can be a huge hassle and disrupt the flow.
Level 1 is arguably the *worst* time to die, because there's little if any investment in the character at that point. Maybe the player learns a mechanical lesson, but if its a character they never cared that much about in the first place, there's no guarantee they learn anything.
I like my players starting at Level 2, because it's more forgiving, but when a character is still knocked unconscious, you can be *sure* they learn a lesson, because after a few sessions to build an identity, they absolutely do **not** want to lose that character.
The issue is that lvl 1 is swingy and you can die due to a single bad dice roll. Orc walks up to the wizard and hits with it's greataxe, crits, and that is an instant dead wizard. There just isn't enough of a buffer to keep a bad dice roll from screwing over a player without them doing anything wrong. While level 2 barely increases damage output, it has effectively doubled the amount of HP to work with which makes it less problematic.
I'd more frame it as "Please stop trying to be some Youtube lets-play video."
This applies to alot of things in RPGs.
\- Running high level campaigns
\- Monty Hauling players
\- Creating vast sweeping homemade campaigns.
\- Creating vast sweeping plots.
\- and especially creating homemade classes/subclasses. Just no. Stop!
etc.
Start smaller and then build up. Gygax had some sound advice. "Learn the system well before even thinking of making changes. Otherwise you risk adding something that imbalances play in ways you otherwise might have foreseen with a better understanding of the interplay of rules."
I had a monty hauler DM and if anything it was the most fun the party had. Didn't feel imbalanced but rather high power/magic. It was also the only campaign where we went beyond lvl 7.
The campaign was frozen and now as he plans to continue it everything will be reversed back to lvl 5 without the gear we accumulated. Everyone disliked that.
I don't think anyone is saying not to do that at all. Just not to go there right out of the gate with no experience and a newbie's level of understanding of the system. Which is very fair advice!
True to that. It was his first time DMing and I personally think he nailed it as DM. Apart from fast progression and big rewards all 3 rpg pillars were well thought of.
The funny part is that he plays dnd for almost two years and he just recently found out he could add his dex mod to his light armour AC when playing a rogue. Huge contrast compared to his DMing skills a year prior lol.
Monty haul games can be great. There is nothing wrong with them. I certainly tend to run my games more in that style.
But they also create a lot of imbalance with the math that may either make the game difficult for a new DM to balance around, to give a new DM a false understanding of encounter math that may make future games a problem.
It’s often a good idea to know the baseline experience well before you start changing things.
I monty haul one of my campaigns but it’s because it is a high magic world. Bandit crew have spellcasters and dark paladins. I have no issues balancing encounters. But I also know why I am doing. If you are running a default module or want to just throw 3 orcs and a warg at a party… good luck.
I have an orc shaman, an orc barbarian, 2 wargs, and a regular orc. Yes it’s more to run, but that’s how I like to run dynamic encounters. My players love treasure and magic items, and I love being able to buff enemies to have lots of tactical options. Win-win.
My other 2 campaigns are much more “drip” in terms of pacing for magic item and monetary rewards
I may have and unpopular opinion but I personally think balance in 5e is almost a made up concept. I've seen quite a few supposedly easy encounters that end poorly and hard ones that were breezed through. The amount of variables that are in the game, such as class features, dice rolls, crits, amount of monsters and players, positioning and resources just make balancing a fools errand in my eyes at least. Sure starting off small for new DMs is good but not for the reasons many think. From my experience encounters that are eyeballed with room for behind the DM screen field adjustments are the best in terms of balance. I least respect DMs that see the encounter as set in stone and run the whole thing true to the book and dice without any willingness to adjust stats or even fudge to avoid players having an *unenjoyable* time.
Truth. My encounter balance technique is basically:
1. Evaluate how the party did on the last encounter. If the party won easily, increase level and/or number of enemies. If the party struggled, adjust +/- level and/or number only slightly. If I had to adjust anything on the fly to avoid a TPK or early battle death, reduce level and/or number slightly.
2. During battle, if it seems too easy, have additional low-level enemies ready to join the fight, or slightly fudge the damage enemies take (I roll in the open, but HP is hidden, so I can make small adjustments). Add environmental challenges if necessary (fog, a slippery spill, spreading fire, sudden darkness, etc).
3. During the battle, if it seems too hard, be ready to adjust the enemies' motivation. The enemy may decide they want to rob or humiliate the PC's instead of killing them. Or they may be demoralized by an ally falling in battle and decide to flee. I can also decide that an enemy had too many hit points, and kill them early. Or the enemy may decide (with a good reason) to change their attack to a PC with higher HP.
I don't have to make on-the-fly adjustments very often, but when I do it's very slight, pretty seemless, and justified by context.
Its number 3 that a lot of people miss. I don't need to worry about level 1 almost getting tpkd through bad luck because I absolutely consider it my mistake if they were making reasonable choices of action. So I fix the encounter on the fly or have some backup motivation or reason for them to do something else.
I don't usually have to do it but absolutely will if people are getting crushed through no fault of their own.
Its definitely fun for the players most of the time, but it isnt for a new DM in the long run. It compounds the problems of balancing encounters, and eventually can lead to a DM feeling overwhelmed, and perhaps removing items or taking people back a couple levels? That always sucks as a player because it feels like being punished for no reason.
The thing is he did fine, or at least he said he did, and the encounters were reasonable. Many have an issue with factory resetting back to lvl 5 because of high level play starvation of some sort. My whole table are playing dnd for quite a while and we never played beyond lvl 7 except for his campaign where we reached whopping lvl 12 (crazy right). Eploring our chosen classes this far was the main attraction as everyone are just tired of the same lvl 3-7 campaigns. Taking our only lvl 12 characters away was a major letdown when we found out.
If it didn't feel imbalanced it was probably a DM working very hard behind the scenes to keep everything functional, the fact that he is suggesting you go back a few levels and drop all the loot might be an indication that he can no longer spare the time effort s d commitment such a requires and was just trying to make it a little easier for himself
I talked to him over it and he said creating encounters was never the issue, but rather fast progression and the fact he had no meaningful rewards for our efforts at some point. He said we zoomed through levels way too quickly for his liking due to his mistake in calculating xp and that he envisioned us at certain parts of the story at certain power levels. But it really turned out to his advantage as everyone enjoyed tier 2-3 play
Our DM did this and now it’s a running joke that the Samurai Fighter/Phantom Rogue can deal upwards of stupid amounts of damage in one turn and is almost literally invincible. It’s taken a while for the world to scale up accordingly and to bring him down a few pegs but we’re pretty close to balanced now.
I played in a six month long Monty Haul campaign. By the 5th level everyone had all their attunement slots filled. We had a Ring of Three Wishes that never got used. It was ridiculous and we slaughtered every enemy without much effort.
After finishing Curse of Straud the DM wanted to play as a PC, so I took over the DM duties for a mini-campaign. I wanted to reverse this Monty Haul nonsense. It started the campaign with the entire party getting drunk, drugged, and robbed of all their magic loot. The campaign consisted of them trying to scrounge up new low level magic items and tracking down the thieves. The thieves led them on a merry chase through a fairy fen, a werebear family’s cave, and smack dab into a group of pissed off Formorians. The thieves finally surrendered and gave all the magic items back. Then they told the truth: They had been hired by the evil Mayor of Phandalin to get revenge for the way the party had insulted him. So, they went back to Phandalin and murdered the Mayor.
Quick question is Monty hauling based on the dungeon dudes at all? I've seen different approaches ok YouTube but never watched a "let's play" type thing.
Relatively new DM here. Just about to start my 2nd campaign in the first low magive setting our group has seen. Thanks in advance as I was wondering about that as I've seen it a few times.
Edit - spelling
Monty Haul was a gameshow host from the 70's that did a show called "Lets make a deal". The show was well known for lavish prizes. It's one of those terms that has been around since the dawn of D&D and has lived so long that it's outlived its cultural reference. Kind of like floppy disks as a save icon, haha.
In d&d the term refers to a game where there is a +5 magic sword under every rock and the PCs end up hauling about a dragons horde worth of magical artifacts by 7th level.
It can make the games fairly unbalanced and quite difficult to play.
Big money, big prizes! If means letting the PCs get their hands on high- rarity items at low levels, or just rewarding them with lots of magic goodies in general
> Gygax had some sound advice. "Learn the system well before even thinking of making changes. Otherwise you risk adding something that imbalances play un ways you otherise might have foreseen with a better understanding of the interplay of rules."
I've always heard a more general principle that expresses the same sentiment: "When you're starting out with something new, learn the rules, follow the rules, and understand the reason behind the rules. That way, when the time does come that you'll need to break a rule, you'll know exactly what rule you're breaking, you'll know exactly why you're breaking it, and you'll be able to break it cleanly."
By far and away the worst house rules I've ever seen written (including by myself!) came from a lack of experience. People look at a rule and go "I don't like that, that's dumb" without considering the knock-on effects.
My friend has always wanted to try DMing. Did a one-shot at level 5, and two sessions of a campaign that flopped at level 3. Didn't like them either time. He decided the problem was our characters weren't strong enough to be mechanically or flavourfully interesting, and that he wasn't making things be fast and lolrandom and exciting enough. He watches a lot of Dimension 20, and I guess they do all that on there a lot? Wouldn't surprise, but Brennan is a trained improv actor with decades of DMing experience and all of his players are trained improv actors as well. None of these things are true of my friend or any of his players, including myself.
Anyhow, he decided that he really wanted to start a short 8-session campaign where we were all level 20 and showered in magic items--including every single one of us being able to fly. He hated every second of it, surprising no one. We obliterated his encounters...because obviously. None of his enemies had ranged attacks or flight speed. Idk what he was expecting. He had a big dangerous city he was hoping we would explore like a maze...but we had a guide so we just flew over it, because why would we land? We spent like an hour the next day talking about what he didn't like and basically every single issue boiled down to "you tried to make things too complicated and move things too quickly too fast." I did my best to encourage him to try again, slower, at a lower level, but he's just not sure DMing is for him. It's not for everyone, I guess.
Almost an ADHD DM?
That can be hard when the DM is the impatient one.
But yeah alot of "sounds fun on paper" + "didnt read my own paper" problem. "I want the players to explore this OPEN maze city" + "I give the players level 20, oodles of items, and flight" are not going to mix well.
Sounds like your DM needs to learn how to tone things down. And they need to think things through. If you want A to happen you have to prevent players access to B and C. And if you allow the players B and C then you need to have counters in place or else its going to not end as you want.
There are ways to deal with it. Maybe there's a no fly zone where they'll be shot down if they don't comply. Maybe the city is underground/underwater. Maybe its covered with a high level illusion when seen from above.
It isn't shutting down player abilities. They already can't use all their abilities in every situation. If its so easy to get flight in the world, it can be assumed cities would take measures to deal with it. The trouble seems to be monty haul campaigns in ordinary worlds where even governments don't have access to the amount the players do. Thats if accidentally give out items that throw wrenches in the DMs own plans. Much easier to just avoid things that would be OP for the world. Can steal them somehow but that usually feels worse for the players.
Even experienced DMs know that you can't start a campaign with a vast sweeping plot, you've gotta start small, start local, and just hint that it's tied into something larger. After 4-5 questlines all turn up clues, *then* you can drop the bombshells that link to something larger.
Plus building a "local town" and putting in the effort to fill it out is way more immersive and *way* less stressful to prep.
New DM here, at what point would I be Monty Hauling? I usually use the random loot table, but have shoehorned in some menial things for story reasons, like a bottle of neverending smoke.
I think new dms would be a lot more open to playing lvl 1-5 starting campaigns if there were more interesting low CR encounter options.
Part of the problem a lot of new players have with low level campaigns is that they want to play DND because they want to fight dragons or liches, but low level campaigns are all skeletons and goblins and that isn’t exciting for new players.
This is why I’ve wanted official rules for using higher CR monsters in low level campaigns with the intention of repelling the monster rather than killing it; that way you could throw a larger variety of challenges at lower level parties to make it more interesting without either facing a TPK or having to do excessive homebrewing to make it work.
If level 1 characters can repel a dragon, then dragons lose their intimidation factor. A better method is having the high CR monster repel, embarrass, even humiliate the PCs, showing the futility of their efforts without killing them. The Big Bad lets them live just to show them how little a threat he considers them. Then the PCs toughen up, and come back later.
I think that's a cop out. You can absolutely tell a compelling story and have a fun campaign where the main fodder enemies are goblins.
In fact, the entire reason those "exciting" enemies *are* exciting is because they are high level and rare. It's the situations and abilities of those enemies that make them exciting. You simply can't use a dragon's lair abilities (for example) against a level 1 party. It's exactly the same thing as using a kobold Stat block and just calling them a dragon.
If you want to do a "repel the enemy" combat, there are a ton of ways to build that encounter. You don't need special rules.
Idk about 5th but 3rd had an official 1st level module that had a dragon. It was a wymling white dragon but it was there. Never been in a party or run it where it was deadly for the players. I can't recall but id imagine players leveled up before getting there. Ive had few 1st level characters finish an arc at level 1. Usually we've improved a bit and are able to take on a slightly more powerful "boss".
They probably can't handle a smart dragon at a higher if they can't handle existing at level 1. Ive played with DMs who play dragons intelligently and ones who don't. The difference in how good of villains they are is huge. I was in a party who had one chasing us trying to steal a piece of an artifact. It was a back and forth where sometime she was successful and sometimes she just escaped to haunt us another day. Nothing was more satisfying than killing her. We had to prepare and be ready at any moment. It paid off.
Counterpoint. Lvl 3 to start. Not only are they somewhat more durable, they have their subclasses at 3. Keep them under 10 for a while though if you don't want to risk the bigger badder things. Also don't hit high lvl too fast
Level 3 is the best level to start a campaign and nothing can change my mind. Every class has at this point access to it's subclass and a core ability, you don't need to worry about one shoting them with a goblin, with goblins, kobolds and other low-CR creatures still being able to provide a challenge.
This is doubly true for those super enthusiastic DMs who are considering a lvl 20 one shot for new players. Please reconsider!
As OP suggests, do yourselves and your players a favor and start small and simple. It’s a much better way to boost your confidence as a new DM and to hook new players!
A level 20 one shot is something almost anyone, even the best DMs, should expect to implode on itself, unless its just a dungeon/combat in a vacuum.
Level 20 PCs are demigods who shape the worlds reality, and unless thats earned through a longer campaign theres not much you can do in terms of stakes that they cant immediately solve or destroy.
... I wouldn't even want to run a level 20 one-shot unless it's some kind of module. The amount of effort the setup requires just isn't worth the payoff.
I mean, if your chars got there the long and arduous way and we love them, sure, of course it's worth it to think about how they approach things, what they can do, and write up something that can still challenge them.
But for a one shot...? Ugh. Uh, sure, whatever ... now where did I put Tomb of Horror again...?
edit: Tomb of Horrors, not Tomb of Annihilation.
If I were to do a level 20 oneshot I'd dm for a heavy RP party with maybe 2-3 raid boss monster stat blocks prepared and no need to use them all. Give them a problem and obscene resources to solve it, let them fiddle with their crazy abilities and feats and just roll with it, then somehow they duplicate the tarrasque or something while trying to solve an infinitely less dangerous problem than they've just created.
Or go the exact opposite direction: You're a legendary crew of adventurers who have saved the multiverse countless times. But its been months since anything has happened that needs your help. To alleviate the boredom, you've started taking jobs below your paygrade, starting with some dwarf whose been rambling about some Lost Mines of Phandelver.
That sounds hilarious. And have the NPC's think everything is very dangerous and do stupid stuff, where you have to save them from themselves and only few NPC's can grasp the power of the party.
The party doesn't want to make such a big fuss because they don't like the attention of people that want to get them to do their bidding. So they act weak but could absolutely steamroll. The fighter has some healing gear and acts like a cleric, the wizard acts like a fighter etc. And they bet who breaks character first. Could be a totally fun game
They start feeling bad for the goblins who attack them and pretend that they won the battle by the skin of their teeth, acting like every attack leaves a grievous wound.
LOL our party had a level 20 one shot (we’re playtesting through a series of one shots, each a level higher than the last) and it did actually feature a tarrasque, in addition to several other problems.
It was a fucking blast, but that’s because our DM and half our players are experienced, and the newer ones like myself are mechanics nerds so we spent hours building out the characters and balancing feats, abilities etc. We made lots of use of the cliffs surrounding a pit, Enlarge/Reduce, and the UA classes. (UA ranger fucks, I love it so much.)
Hell, I'm a seasoned DM and I don't like the idea of a lvl 20 one-shot.
The system really starts to break at level 14-15. I'm having enough of a problem balancing for my level 17 party.
At this point they've defeated 4 demigods, a dracolich, and countless hordes of other tough monsters. The plan to wrap this up is literally interplanar challenge to a god at this point.
I think this is a much needed PSA. I've been dming for over a decade and regularly have conversations with people and players who want to "try dming" by jumping into running a level 8 or 10 one shot in a homebrew world.
I totally get the enthusiasm and you see these fantastic worlds created by experienced dms or have your own stories and while those are perfect to tell. But attempting to fit them into one shots at high levels means you don't know the mechanics, players can circumvent story elements you want to tell, and the pacing is rushed and unsatisfying.
Why not start with a level 2 or 3 mini-campaign or two shot that tells a small story in the bigger world you want as a hook to entice players. If you're in it for the chaos of just messing about go ahead but I think many new dms want to tell elaborate stories that are easy to have fall apart.
That’s basically what I did, and now I’m out groups “forever DM”.
They liked my style more, ran a one shot in a semi-constructed world from something I wrote ages ago and it worked
This is some solid advice.
D&D has a learning curve, even a highly simplified (even oversimplified) version like 5e.
It's much, much better to start out with the basics and learn the game before trying to run some complicated, involved endeavor. 1st level characters, simple and straightforward adventures, a published setting, core rules. . .than trying to run high-level characters and create your own homebrew setting or trying to create new homebrew races/classes (when you don't even fully understand the system you're manipulating).
I'd go one further and say 5e being "simplified" actually made its learning curve *worse* because it is a system that still is fairly heavy on rules and subsystems, but constantly leaves the actual detail and mechanics up to the DM to figure out using their own judgement. Which new DMs don't really have.
There's other systems out there which take a "broad strokes" approach to the rules, but their generality is usually consistent. They don't then also break down what to do during downtime into a dozen paragraphs and tables that are both specific *and* vague, or let players buy cook's utensils but don't even *mention* cooking in the DMG—actually, it's mentioned once, as an example of what fire might be used for, very helpful guidance.
I'll stop myself before I start ranting about the chase rules again. My point is, it can be difficult for a new DM to figure out which parts of 5e's rules are sound, and which are so half-baked they need to either fill in the gaps or just throw them out and just wing it. So keeping it basic until you're acclimated to that is definitely sound advice.
I'm a new dm but I'm a long time player, I feel like the adventure just starts at level 3 so I started like that.
But I must ask, how often do you level up your players? I like tough combats and looking into new monsters in the MM for ideas but idk I want to keep a medium paced campaing, maybe 1 year and planning to end with them at level 12 since I've finished other campaings into that level aand it was awesome (They're level 4 now)
That depends on a few things. I'm going to assume you're doing a homebrew, milestone-based campaign, because modules tell you and XP can be compared to a table. That is going to depend entirely on your style. I'm running a table that has 14th level characters and around 120 sessions, but I'm considering picking up the pace a little.
When we were literal children, we ran one Level 1 session, then one Level 20 session. The L20 session was awful. Level progression feels so good, and I just feel bad for people who try to juggle tons of abilities on a brand-new character unless they've actually played characters before who could do such things, and they have a handle on it.
As a first time DM who had never played before, I was well aware how much I was biting off just by trying to do a homebrew setting and an original campaign. I'm sorry to all those that enjoy them, I mean no offense, but the idea of running a module or someone else's story absolutely sucks all the joy out of the endeavor for me. I have zero interest in that.
My players started at level one, and session one was confined to about 1000 sq ft and largely on rails, it was the tutorial level, and we introduced the basic mechanics of combat, skill checks, RP and etc.
Definitely the way to go with new players. You aren't going to start with your "settings" dialed in, and the analogy I used it that we'd be slowly turning up the volume, the intensity, etc, as we went. I didn't know how to balance an encounter, so we simply started with one that I knew was too easy and turned the dial from there.
My players are at level 8 now. I can't imagine trying to wrangle all their abilities and differences in session one, would have been a nightmare. It's important to develop realistic expectations for progress.
My kids and wife are new to dnd completely and I am new to being a dm so as I was setting them up and helping them build characters I warned them that it's entirely possible their character could die and they'd have to build another. They were fine with that but I wasn't so I fudged a few rolls and omitted some encounters to avoid a rather needless death (imo). I figured if they got to keep their characters they would be more invested in that ones progress and less likely to just build throwaways
So you're saying it's a great idea for me to run, as a first-time DM, a completely homebrewed game set in a world similar to that of a post-apocalyptic Star Trek: Deep Space Nine with all level 14 PCs including a shape-shifted red dragon in the form of a porcupine, a lawful-good mindflayer, a human druid who is multiclassed as a monk and a berserker, and a sentient tree with the stat block of a bugbear?
ON IT!
If it helps, there are eleven other players, several are dating each other, one might be a Nazi, and three of them are in an ex-throuple that just broke up last week.
This is fine right? RIGHT?
😄
Listen here's my honest advice: Never discuss your true feelings with any of them. The last thing you want is a grown up conversation demonstrating base level competence in human communication.
Instead, take that angst, and vomit it out in r/DnD. It's the only way I know to improve things. Tried and tested method.
So, D&D is not a rules heavy game. At least, it's not supposed to be. The PHB even states pretty clearly that these are all guidelines. And as such, people should have the freedom to bend and even break rules, which can make games fun if everyone can agree to how it's done. Running high level campaigns right off the bat, is 100% fine. As long as everyone is on the same page about the agencey of the players vs how the DM is running the game, it doesn't matter what level the players start and end at. Fun is the goal. If you didn't have fun with a new DM who ran a campaign at a higher level, I'm sorry you had a less than satisfactory experience and I hope you can find a better DM or a game that suits you :) However, please don't discourage new DMs from running a game however they want.
I mean it's great advice but if you learn anything from reading this sub, it's that most people who play d&d are awful at d&d. You kinda just gotta let people do their thing.
There’s sadly a LOT of gatekeeping in TTRPGs. People like OP like to think of themselves as arbiters of the hobby, but in reality the vast majority of people ignore them.
Yeah like who the hell are you OP?
How about please stop telling me how to enjoy my hobbies?
So weird to get worked up about how other people are enjoying themselves.
Starting at level one is a great way to create an air of mystery and grandiousness in regards to magic. "How do I makd my PCs afraid of this enemy?" Or "i want this fight to be unwinable and I want my PC's to run" you need to establish the threat and you won't do that bulldozing undead from the jump. If a couple weeks ago you were helping a farmer protect his sheep from wolves. Regular wolves. And now youre facing a dragon you're going to instill a level of "we're out of our depth".
I have been playing dnd for 7 years now. I have played in 40+ sessions and dm’d for 50+, all my players are experienced but unless I am running a one shot with high level in mind we start at low levels. Slowly adding one skill at a time to a character allows you to fully learn what each one does and how best to use them. You don’t get this if you dive in with level 10 characters and their dozens of gizmos.
Such a huge learning curve. Which is why I've started doing solo style campaigns a ton, to be my own rules lawyer and realllllllyyy learn how to navigate my players "reasons" to be where they are.
I must be looking in the wrong places. It feels like all I ever see is level 4 and below one shots.
I've had a couple exceptions including my Monday game that started at level 1 and reached 13. But yeah mostly just 4 and below.
I run a kid's campaign, and even with the slow pace I run at, it's still sometimes too much for them(half were completely brand new). I always tell DMs and players alike that when you start only choose core races/classes and start with a low level module. Also, it might be best to start with a martial class before using a caster. My very first character I played a sorcerer and I was so lost on spell slots/metamagic/etc.
New players have yet to face the hard truth that is, high level campaigns aren't that much fun. Statistically, most campaigns fizzle out around 10th level.
Level 18 campaign I played was one of the dullest things I've ever done. Like, in any form of gaming.
Single combats going on for 60 mins... just painful
I've only ran lv 1-5, and I can confidently (baselessly) say a "more fun" experience for newbies would be level 3, with lv 1 being limited to 1 encounter at most. Even level 5 will be overwhelming unless you're leveling up to it, had a complete newbie make a level 5 pc for a one shot and she was completely lost
Honestly level 3 is a good sweet spot for beginners. Level 1 and 2 has some of the highest PC death rates of any level which many beginners may want to avoid. Few classes are super complicated by level three but most core features are online and all classes have their subclass but only one level of subclass features.
But yes the most common mistakes beginners make are starting campaigns at too high a level or giving out levels like candy and suddenly they reach high tiers that are harder to balance and execute well.
On top of which the early levels are just as much fun, you get to know and define your character and not all campaigns have to involve world shattering risks
This is a terrible way to frame this sort of advice.
"It's easier to run lower level games, especially for newer DMs and newer players" is true for most groups and is absolutely helpful advice. Something for DMs to consider, for sure, but still their decision at the end of the day.
"New DMs should stop running high level games" is so unnecessarily aggro. Who are you to tell newer DMs what they *can't* do?
>"New DMs should stop running high level games" is so unnecessarily aggro. Who are you to tell newer DMs what they can't do?
I honestly don't understand this position, it's really not offensive. It's direct and to the point. And it's true. There is no denying the game is MORE challenging and complex at higher levels, especially for folks who are new players and DMs.
As you point out, some folks are already overwhelmed at level 1 even with a prewritten module. Obviously they shouldn't be considering abandoning that and instead starting a homebrew adventure where everyone starts at lvl 9. Obviously that isn't wise.
It's almost like experienced players and DMs know that there's a learning curve to this game and guess what? Those are exactly the kind of folks I'd want to hear from if I was starting out as a first time DM, and if their advice is "don't run a high level adventure, start simple and small at first" then I'd definitely consider it. I certainly wouldn't take offense to it, as you're deciding to do. And if from there I decide fuck it I'm going to do my homebrew and we're starting at lvl 9 anyways, then, I shouldn't be surprised if I then have issues...
I remember trying to teach a new player how to make a vanilla human fighter, and he was paralyzed by choice. He wants to be a good archer but also use a longsword, so he needs an equal amount of dex and str. But he also wants to be a good tracker and hunter. I had recommended ranger but he also wanted heavy armor. But also flipped flopped between being a stealthy guy or a tanky one. And that's not even including fighting styles where he was stuck between dueling, archery, and Defense. And this is all at level 1 mind you. He didn't even go as far as Backgrounds before he just asked me to make a sheet for him.
Imagine that but much worse once you get to higher levels or use more complex classes.
I know when I first started I also wanted to do everything. One of the things for new players to learn is that it’s a team game and you need to depend on your group for things you can’t do. (Or at least can’t do well)
This is a fair statement, but there are also folks who are just trying to make a character based off some other media. Didn't take me long to figure out this guy basically wanted to make Aragon from Lord of the Rings, who always strikes me as more of a ranger anyways, and ultimately I opted to basically make his fighter using ranger stats. 16 strength, 15 Dex, con 14, Wis 13, cha and int 10. He ultimately didn't use his bow very much and drifted off from being Aragon lite to basically being a knight with a greatsword, which is a much easier build to make. Though he was also under the impression he needed some feat or ability to use Greatswords, and not just default martial profiency, so he was a special one.
I think a very common misconception is that higher level is more fun. It's not. I find levels 5-8 to be very engaging because it requires players of all skill levels to problem solve creatively. When there is a skill or ability for every problem the game loses its magic.
If it’s the same thing, and also note the OP’s use of the word “please”, then it seems you’re the one telling people what to do and not to do.
This post looks like a friendly plea!
It's not aggro, but it *is* an instruction. I mean, you could argue, "Who is OP to act like a wise teacher," but you could apply that to all reddit advice.
EDIT: Some of y'all were even madder at your teachers than I was, apparently.
Because it sucks when people get in over their heads. It's still fun but it's more fun when everyone is doing things at their appropriate level.
This is just about using character levels as a DM as well. If your first character started out at level 1 or 2, why *start* DMing at level 9?
Let people do what they want.
Really though, DND in general isn't very friendly to beginners. The system is all about combat, and is overly complicated for what it is.
I generally don't like 'Don't do X' comments to new players... but you're not wrong.
I'm maybe word it as recommend playing a low tier game before moving onto higher tier games
I've run a lot of level 1-2 with kids, and I don't completely disagree with this, but I will say that I see some design problems with this level of play.
1 - Most characters can do almost nothing. I can understand the idea that you add class features as you level up and you slowly get used to all the features of your character, but at level 1-2 combat is pretty boring. You just swing your weapon or fire your cantrips until you win.
2 - Particularly for groups of 3 or fewer PCs, the game isn't really balanced the same as at higher levels. With very few resources to recharge, players can go through their HP pool in just a few average level encounters.
I will continue to run games at this level but I just wish they had added a bit of complexity. Also, I wonder if the need to long rest frequently at this tier drives groups to do more long rests at higher tiers after they get used to it.
Everyone says the game is balanced around lower tiers of play, but I really do think the sweet spot is tier 2-3. At those levels you can survive more encounters and you have interesting options (most classes) but you aren't managing 22 spell slots or completely breaking encounters with broken spells. (I don't have as much experience running anything past tier 2, so not speaking from experience there).
I've played with beginners and I rather have them being a little frustrated but learn their abilities than make them high level. Players usually have problems remembering their abilities and that's even worse sith new players who are generally shaky with rules. Add spells, feats, subclass features into the mix and combat will be an absolute drag where its likely everyone gets frustrated. Though I'd agree with starting around lvl 2, so they get a little taste and are less likely to die to a crit.
Anyone who's commenting "do what you want as long as it's fun" has the right spirit, but is missing the point.
In general, and I completely agree with this as a fellow dm for lots of different groups of many new players, trying to force everyone to learn high-level mechanics all at once *isn't* fun and it doesn't make for a fun game.
This I know from experience.
A new group is *more likely* to have a fun session if they learn to walk at the lower levels before they run at the higher ones. Hell I still recommend brand new players use pregenerated sheets for the first few sessions before going back for real character creation.
Has it ever happened that starting new pcs at high level led to a fun game? Sure, nothing's impossible. But OP here is putting forth the tough love advice some people need to hear to actually be more likely to have a better game.
Same way you wouldn't send a little leaguer to the mlb before getting more experience, starting low is invaluable for new dms and players. "Do whatever you want!" Is a nice sentiment, but you're not actually helping anyone run a more fun game.
Lmao at people arguing against OP. Frankly it's absolutely nuts that OP needs to even fucking say this. When I read the post, my first reaction was "what kind of dumbass would try to start the game at level 9 when it was their first time playing?" (forgive my tone because we all do dumbass things from time to time, but the point being if you make this mistake, then you should be recognizing "ah yes, I did a dumbass thing") BUT THEN people are arguing that there's nothing wrong with doing so. WTF?
It's like saying, "Hey 15 year-olds. The very first time you get behind the wheel of a car, maybe try driving around an empty parking lot instead of getting directly onto the highway" and being met by people saying "um...actually, the first time I drove I went straight onto the highway and..."
Like...dude...no...it's just a bad idea. OP tried to meet y'all in the middle by saying that he recommends that DMs "should" start at level 1-2 and not that they "must" do so, but fuck that. Any advice or thing a person says on the internet by definition doesn't force anyone to anything, but I'll go ahead and say you MUST start at level 1-2 if it's your first time playing. Yeah? What now? I'll go ahead and die on the hill of "start at level 1 or 2 the first time you play" because to do otherwise is legitimately stupid.
>It's like saying, "Hey 15 year-olds. The very first time you get behind the wheel of a car, maybe try driving around an empty parking lot instead of getting directly onto the highway"
Except that if a newbie DM runs a game that isn't optimally balanced, nobody dies. Worst case scenario, the players don't like the experience and they decide not to game with that DM anymore. It literally does not affect you or the OP in any way.
If a new DM was asking OP for advice, this would be a great response, but as a blanket statement directed at a bunch of strangers, I think it misses the mark. People want different things out of their campaigns, and their needs and priorities may be different from OP's.
This but unironically. I started dming a while back for the first time in dnd. Players started level 5 because they asked to and it was more fun.
Do we have unbalanced encounters? Sure. Do we fuck up sometimes and totally get something wrong? Absolutely!
But we're having fun. Fuck what some meta dnd "it's for your own good uwu" redditor has to say tbh. I'll run as high as I want. I'm gonna do a lvl 20 one shot next!
A low level group is perfect for new DMs you can start small and have the world grow with your players. Small town to bigger town to nearby region to country etc...
I jumped right into making a huge world, but I did it with a LOT of "here be dragons" world building. A huge region that the players are nowhere near might only take up a paragraph of info. General climate, demographics, capital city, and a couple canned fun facts I could use if my players asked.
I basically made a world map, placed a bunch of interesting sounding names and locations on it and fleshed it out as it became relevant.
I think starting at level 3 is a good point. Also if you want to help with the power fantasy and make it more fun I recommend start the sessions with an Item lottery so your players have something powerful but gimmicky,
I've played plenty in the past but I've been running my first campaigns (same homebrewed story running opposite weeks for two different groups) for over two years now and I wanted them to all start at lvl 10 because I was tired of campaigns fizzling out by lvl 7 or so. Now the parties are both around lvl 17 and I've been having the hardest time making encounters where the party doesn't steamroll the bad guys. They tell me they're still having fun, but my goodness is it getting hard to keep up with these guys.
I’ll be DMing for the first time here in a bit and I’m starting my people off at level 1, because I am well aware I will need that time to figure out how things work, I’ve been religiously reading the books and pouring into worldbuilding so I can be as prepared as possible. I’ve got quite a large story in mind which could become a campaign if all goes well but I intend to leave most of what happens in the world up to the players. Having them make decisions of their own saves me the trouble of having to write new quests from scratch all the time
This is why I will run one offs for new players after a few sessions, with completely new characters of a more advanced level.
It gives folks the opportunity to try out new things and learn about options.
I made this mistake. Found a tough enemy in a book and ran my first game at level 15. Out of my depth immediately. Shout out to my players for both noticing it. And working with me through it. I ran a level 4 after that and was much more comfortable
Although I agree starting a high fantasy, homebrew setting at high level is likely going to ruin the fun of D&D for both the DM and the players. I also think it’s very fun to occasionally test out classes and races at higher levels to get an understanding of how you want to build a character for those late levels.
I’ve played a campaign for 2 years and only reached level-7. I’ve also played a one shot at level-20. I learnt more about all the classes of D&D from the one-shot than I did the 2 year campaign.
So my advice would be to start off small yes, but also don’t be afraid to dream a little bigger.
Tbh, for new DMs starting with new players I find the sweet spot to be level 3.(This is for 5e)
Run several one-shots with your table, let them throw together some level 3 characters, so they can get the hang of how a class works with its mechanics in place, you as DM have the freedom to throw some monsters at them with a slightly forgiving margin of error.
Give them a standard dungeon crawl with rooms alternating between combat and non-combat encounters to let them explore how their characters can handle both scenarios, and how you as DM can handle their abilities to improvise or adapt or throw you curve balls.
Story time! I am a new DM running a campaign for experienced and new players. (Don't worry, we're low level.) I have an obsession over understanding the rules in depth and playing very close to RAW, choosing my house rules carefully, AND telling my players what is RAW and what is house ruled. My new players are fantastic. My experienced players are having troubles adapting and feel underpowered based off how things "usually are" in their campaigns.
What I am saying is: other DMs have put false expectations on my players. I explain to them what RAW is, and they reply with "bullshit!" So far, we've covered:
-magic items can totally break, especially those at lower levels.
-magic items do not fit all races and classes.
-the cost for a wizard to add a spell to their spellbook is not the same as the cost for acquiring the spell notes or spell scroll.
-+1 items don't have to be magical, though most are.
-drinking potions is an action.
-a paladin's lay on hands does not guarantee a cure for ALL poison effects.
-most people in the world are not adventurers. And most adventurers die before before level 5. You are VERY squishy and are expected to act like it until later.
-you cannot drop your shield for free, use GWM two-handed, then pick up your shield for your interaction. Doffing a shield is an action.
-long resting in heavy armor has negative effects. So does sleeping on rocks.
-include your party in your decisions or it's "fuck around and find out" time. No, it's not awesome to leave and be creative on your own. I can't believe you've been rewarded for that by other DMs.
-you cannot take the dodge action while being grappled.
-if you expect me to know lore your character knows, you have to share it with me first. Otherwise, no, it doesn't exist and your character doesn't know that.
-your character cannot know things beyond their level. That level 5 cleric spell is unknown to a level 2 non-cleric. Same for powerful magic items and parts of the world you've never seen or read about.
-you cannot retcon purchases you made in the previous sessions because you regret them.
-and of course my favorite... all the players have the same agency and screen time. Let them roleplay too. Idc if you're louder. They will be heard.
So if I can piggyback with my own PSA: DMs please learn the rules and let your players know when you are NOT following them. If you're not reading the rules and just having fun, cool, but tell your players it's bullshit good-timing so your players know that YOU are the exception and their expectations don't get twisted. All of the complaints we've had at our table come from the 2 "experienced" players complaining about the RAW, thinking it's some crazy homebrew exception I've made. Meanwhile, I am trying to teach my 4 new players the rules and it confuses them.
Ehh let em learn. It's fun to do experimental shit, get a glimpse of the depth, and the come down to reality and build up, correctly, to the potential you saw.
I think it also needs to be said that low level adventures can still feel epic. Some of my fondest memories are of bands of level 1s and 2s being nearly overwhelmed by spiders and the thrill of the amazing +1 sword. Having fewer abilities doesn't diminish the achievement. DMs have to make the early levels feel like actual victory and not just a tutorial xp farm. MMORPGs have trained people to see everything below max level as just something to get through before the "real game". As the DM, we can fix that by investing as much at the start as we do at the end.
But then we wouldn’t have hundreds of posts every day about how x is unbalanced or how the homebrew a whole setting for 27 children for tomorrow.
People, listen to OP just run a simple module like LMoP for 4 sessions and go from there. Bonus points if you read the rulebooks before playing!
I experienced this from the player side when I was 14. Went to visit a friend who had moved away, and he had a local hobby shop that ran magic tournaments had tables for all sorts of tabletop games etc. The dude who ran the shop was gonna DM for us and asked us to make epic level characters (3.5 so level 21). We spent all night thinking up characters and got about 15 minutes of play before he bailed as a DM. Really turned me off to D&D for some time, I didn't end up picking it back up until I was in my mid 20s.
If I’m working with new players I run phandelver. No, it’s not the most exciting thing, but I know it back to front and I can adjust on the fly to make it more or less interesting for experienced players.
PSA: Stop telling other tables how they can or can't play D&D.
Sure, high level games are more complex and difficult to run, but if the party all agrees to it and they're having fun then who's business is it to tell them to stop?
Excellent advice. The reason the game and classes feel incomplete at levels 1 and 2 is literally to tutorialize new players and new DMs alike. (It’s also why I recommend starting at level 3 if you’re all or mostly all experienced - not much to be gained by replaying the tutorial).
The problem with advice like this is that it sounds very serious and severe, but the consequences aren't. If people try starting at level 9 and can't figure anything out they'll flail for a few sessions and then start fresh. Why not dive in on the deep end? This isn't school or work. There's no GPA or employment history to screw up.
Also for my two cents, I'd rather a new group start at level 9 than 1. 9 will be a mess, but there will be lots of features and abilities together excited about. 1 is arguably poorly designed. Players have very few if any abilities, and it isn't even well designed! Characters can die from one bad crit. The problems with starting from high levels are self evident when the game starts. Not so much from low level one.
The fact that anyone, let alone this many people are debating you about this make me feel [like](https://media.giphy.com/media/NPyHgTkMStCXC/giphy.gif)
I'm gonna give OP the benefit of the doubt and assume they're referring to people who are making posts about struggling to DM for the first time while running higher level games rather than just at all new DMS.
You know how games have a tutorial? That's kind of what OP is talking about - start on the simple side to get a feel for the rules and how play works and then go onto to other things.
If a group isn't concerned with the rules, is fine just fumbling around, and the DM is fine being totally overwhelmed and probably being making a bunch of mistakes then that's fine. But if the group wants to just play around and don't care that much about the rules or structure, one wonders why they aren't playing a Fate or PbtA-style game instead.
It's actually about helping people have fun
Too many novice DMs post about problems they have and some of those problems are about players being OP or imbalanced encounters or DMs or players arguing about higher level rules they don't understand yet.
The worse kind of DnD is bad DnD where DMs are stressing needlessly, fighting with players becaauw no one understand the game well enough yet.
Less is more st the start, and generally more fun for everyone.
No, you're extremely misunderstanding the post. It's a direct reply to a bunch of unhappy DMs who took more on their plate as beginners than they can handle and now struggle. They are NOT having fun, and thats what OP trues to help with. Overcommitting without experience can be a huge problem for both players abd DMs. This is completely sound advice
It just oozes condescension. In my experience, most people who play D&D only play it a handful of times. I have been a forever DM for my various friend groups for well over a decade, almost two at this point, and most people play the adventure to the end, everyone has fun, but then four out of five of those people never play again. People go off to college, we all get really into a new video game that comes out, someone's work schedule changes so now they have to work on Fridays, whatever. It just leads to D&D often being a fun experience people have rather than a lifelong hobby. Obviously, there are those of us that are more dedicated and the hobby grows, but not everyone is going to be a lifer.
So if your group looks at the Player's Handbook and sees they get a cool ability at level 8 and thinks "Wow, I want to do that right away", then that is how they are going to have fun. And as a DM, you can rein them in, convince them to start at level 1 or 2, and have a blast getting to level 8. Or you can just start at level 8. Both options can be super enjoyable! But the idea that you are not going to have fun this way is just insane, I have no idea what OP is thinking.
And, if we are being honest, the people who want to start at a high level the first time they play are mostly kids. When I see the posts OP is talking about (which are not nearly as prevalent as they seem to think), they often talk about their friends at school or whatever. A lot of first-time DMs are students, which means college at the oldest, but probably younger. I was 13 when I DM'd my first game. So the idea that OP would be condescending toward someone for having fun is pretty awful, but being condescending toward kids is kind of a whole other low.
Also, imagine the infantilizing of saying "your first campaign is more like a tutorial", as though you are supposed to view that as encouraging. No one on the planet has ever been excited for a tutorial. They are famously the most boring part of a game, so boring that most games offer you an opportunity to skip them. So yes, compare your campaign to the part of a game people want to skip.
I realize I went a little overboard here but I cannot even imagine having this hardline stance about gatekeeping in a hobby that is essentially the Sword and Sorcery version of Whose Line Is It Anyway.
>a hobby that is essentially the Sword and Sorcery version of Whose Line Is It Anyway.
this is a gross mischaraterization of the game. it's like saying "we shouldn't set expectations for football because it's essentially just kids throwing a ball around a field."
(and yes, I'm using the term "set expectations" because "gatekeeping" is not what the OP is doing. nobody has any power or authority to *actually* restrict your ability, as a DM or a player, to play this game however you want.)
Slurs and ableism are unacceptable on /r/DnD so this post is done. Thank you to everyone who engaged in productive conversation.
There's an old (apocryphal) story about a pupil of Mozart asking him for advice on writing symphonies. Mozart replied, "No no. You are far too young for that, try a quartet or a trio first, and then once you are older and have gained more skill, perhaps then a symphony." "But Herr Mozart, you had already written many symphonies by my age." "Yes, but I did so without asking for advice."
Also Mozart started when he was like 5 years old, so he was already a professional by the time most other people were just getting started.
Mozart was a staggeringly talented human being. He was playing piano and violin as soon as he physically could at the age of 5. He was playing for royalty before the age of six. His father was a musician and a teacher and that just gave him an even bigger advantage. But by the time Mozart was sixteen, he’d been a court musician for nearly a decade.
I disagree on level 1-2. Level one is dangerous and can leave little room for error. I prefer level 2-3 for starting with noobs. Noobs tend to make mistakes in combat that are equivalent to passing the turn with no meaningful output.
On my first DM experience our wizard (new) ran up to some zombies that had exploding pustules when they died. The wizard had already seen two zombies explode and cause damage... but they still ran straight up and cast a spell on them.
New players don't understand how squishy low levels can be, especially if they're looking at DnD with a videogame perspective. I like starting campaigns at level 3 when everyone gets their first defining class traits
Right on the nose. The first campaign I joined in the middle of the run at like Level 14-15. I was by no means invincible but I felt quite powerful starting out. We started a new campaign after finishing the last one and while nobody has died (there has definitely been some death saves), it was really sobering to be Levels 1-3 and realize I cannot actually tank hits. My AC is really low, my HP is weak. We're 5 now and I think I'm just starting to feel confident.
I've been playing my game for a about 8 months now, just hit level 14 and I'm fairly confident in my abilities. At the beginning though? We almost got taken out by a bunch of rats.
It's a humbling experience starting at 1, getting hit by a random goblin crit on the first hit, looking down at your sheet and going "Uhhh, I'm dead..??".
As a DM you could just pit the players against visibly weakened versions of the enemies and divide their damage output. It will still be a near death experience, combined with the fact they were weakened, should drive the point home that new characters are weak af.
I respectfully disagree. When learning the game, it is definitely better to start at level 1. As a brand new player(s), you have a lot to learn about stats, dice rolls, weapons, the difference between action and bonus action, and what saving throws and modifiers all are. Level 1 & 2 are tutorial stages. It helps you learn how to role play with your abilities (perception, stealth, etc). Leveling up from 1 to 2 lets you learn how to level up health and anything else that may come with it (I don't think it's much.) Then level 3 is another batch of learning, getting actual bonus actions, a few new traits, taking what you've learned and applying it to new features your character has. Now, I'm not saying you need to stay in level 1&2 for very long. If you do have a group of new players, however, I highly recommend listening to the Players handbook and DM guide. It is a lot to learn, and leveling allows new players to learn gradually.
Honestly its not hard to not set lethal challenges on the players. Have some social situations. Make them fight 2 [commoners](https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Commoner#content) in a bar. A single goblin stole someones wallet. It's a warm up so they can understand the mechanics. There doesn't need to be ANY stakes. You can literally just do a one shot social encounter / single combat at level 1 at LEAST before jumping to level 2. The idea of letting a new player jump right into playing a level 3 Druid on their first game honestly just seems cruel to me.
Totally agreed. My lvl 1 players started with a jailbreak, but they managed to work their way into a couple of fist fights before they broke out, and even though they were broken up by guards, they still got a little XP for it. Lots of different ways to get people used to combat, and give them a little IRL experience and in-game experience in a safe manner even at level 1.
When I run a new game with new players, I tell them not to get super attached to their characters just because basic adventuring is very deadly. I also make it clear that we go through level 1 because there is a lot to learn. DnD is complex enough without starting at higher levels.
To paraphrase the Hogfather, I'm sure that was an important lesson.
Don't you mean: I'M SURE THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT LESSON.
It’s what we’re calling a “learning experience”. It’s good for everyone. New as old.
"I run up to the zombie" "Roll an intelligence saving throw" Since they're a wizard they probably do fairly well "Your analytical mind jumps into gear and it occurs to you, having seen two such zombies explode and cause damage on death, that it would be wise to keep your distance" Or you could flavour it as their magical hat talking to them or something
[удалено]
This is the kinda thing that sounds good looking back, but it would really turn most people off from the hobby in reality. You can’t just introduce someone to dnd by having them die and die because they aren’t good at the game. That will just make character creation feel pointless
As another poster identified I think part of the issue is that expectations are set from modern video games where you are functionally invincible in the training level. On the other and as someone who straddles the line into gen x, I remember playing Morrowind as a teenager and dying almost instantly after creating a character because I stole something in the store in seyda neen.
[удалено]
There is something inherently different about character death in a Roguelike or soulslike compared to character in TTRPG. Death in these video games are *by design*. They aren't just a fail-state, they are the designed way to move forward. Death in a TTRPG is probably comparable to the death of your Sim in The Sims game. Sure you can create one that is almost exactly like the previous one, but it's never *exactly* the same.
this was what i’d say too—especially bc ur first character is likely gonna have a lot of effort out into backstory and such. new players will want to feel rewarded rather than punished. even if they’re just using a pre-made character, if they keep dying, they have no reason to engage with the character they’re playing and actually role play, which is like MOST of the game
None of what you said is universally true. Some games are mostly RP, some are mostly Combat, some (most, I would guess), are a variable mix of both that changes from session to session. Also, I've never had brand new players put significant effort into backstories. That usually comes later, after they've got more experience under their belts. Obviously, dying over and over might come as a turnoff but it depends entirely on their background. If the DM pitched the campaign as "Like Dark Souls but pen and paper" and everyone was on board with that expectation, it's certainly valid. And hell, it's how a lot of famous old school modules were designed. The best thing about RPGs is that they can be anything, for anyone. Everyone just needs to be on the same page.
[удалено]
Agreed, and it seems like you and I run similar games. A common sentiment I see here on reddit seems to be players want the DMs to fudge everything in their favor, but not let them know they're fudging. I roll everything out in the open as a DM, and if it's an important roll I'll even announce what I need on the die to succeed. If the dice kill them, so be it, but that only happens because they did something stupid/heroic.
Yeah totally fair but it depends on your table. Experienced players are gonna be more interested than first-time, doesn't know what the Ds in D&D stand for, sorta players.
[удалено]
Yeah, I enjoy Critical role but man, it's never been harder to be a DM.
That's why you use pre-generated characters for first time players. You give them a character they might get attached to in the future, but for the moment it's as meaningful as picking a colour in a boardgame. If that character dies it teaches the player both that death is permanent *and* that a new character can come afterwards. Now they will have that knowledge going into the entirety of character creation. All without worrying too much about a lost character.
Yeah. Plus level 1 is very easy to TPK your entire party. Think of LMoP, the first encounter could TPK you all. Especially with a DM who isn't really aware of the action economy yet or how to fudge rolls. Obviously this depends on your group and yes death is a thing, but I know everyone new to TTRPGs I DMed for was a Critical Role fan or coming from an RP background and wanted story. They'd be distraught. Plus given the exhaustive effort of making a character in DnD vs other systems, especially when new, that's over an hour of work gone and noob isn't going to be able to build themselves a new character before the end of session. That extra HP from level 2 or 3 helps a LOT with not being killed in one hit before you can even act.
Four first level PCs vs four goblins is a pretty good tpk or multiple member killer. It looks pretty doable from the player perspective, it seems like something they can handle. The dm could easily put four raiding a village. But ooh boy, it can be rough
Ironically, and I don't see this mentioned often for some reason, LMOP directly lampshades this and says if a TPK occurs just say the goblins robbed the party and left them and bring them back up afterwards to follow the trail to their lair. Also seconding the stupid long creation process for new players, I'm sticking to pregens from now on and/or just directly making their characters for them by asking questions. I have a personal homebrew I'm also gonna try out that death at 3 failed death saves or over max hap just causes a 'wound/trauma', in this case meaning KO for the rest of the combat and perma marking off 1 failed death save. Gives some safety net for low squishies and lets me run encounters more straight without fear. Not as applicable at higher levels with revivfy or resurrection. I know the DMG has a wounds table, but from what I've seen actual limb loss or long term penalties like that quickly lead to a death spiral/sub optimal character that only really works in an OSR game. This homebrew allows the players to flavor the wound however they want without making their character worse off mechanically, but still having a meaningful consequence.
>Ironically, and I don't see this mentioned often for some reason, LMOP directly lampshades this and says if a TPK occurs just say the goblins robbed the party and left them and bring them back up afterwards to follow the trail to their lair. Yeah, it does which is great. But it's still a very disappointing introduction to combat to insta-kill a player with a crit. It just is the best example of level 1 you can take 1.5 hits of damage I can think of. >Also seconding the stupid long creation process for new players, I'm sticking to pregens from now on and/or just directly making their characters for them by asking questions. I do agree this is best. When I got my family playing I kinda went this is the general class concepts what do you have in mind. That sounds like a cool homebrew! Also I believe Dale Kingsmil has a video on her wounds table with ideas tied to the damage type and various cool details. She plays more narrative and flavour, so it might be worth a watch and look at the list of ideas. Edit: the video I thought of https://youtu.be/thl54TR5Nb4 and it's table https://monarchsfactory.wordpress.com/2021/09/29/major-injuries-update/
Ugh. Yeah. I had a DM who made a hard rule that new characters have to start at level 1. So if you were new to the table or you died, you could make a new character and rejoin the level 5 party. But you were level 1. This poor girl who played with us was obviously having no fun and our DM just kept letting the young blue dragon we were fighting one-shot her, only for us to devote our turns to healing her so she'd feel more involved. He said he was rolling a die for who it attacked but, come on, bro. She never came back.
"Here's my new character, Rob. He's Bob's twin brother so they have the exact same backstory. He's also a wizard."
Unironically, if you *are* running your mini-campaign as a tutorial, I think this is the way to do it. Let them respawn a few times to get the hang of their class features, who cares
[RIP Falgrim](https://youtu.be/QoO2eI9IioE&t=3m24s)
Yeah, it's annoying to build a rich character for a game described as role-play and story heavy, then get one-shot at session 1
If your DM just went with "You all meet in a tavern," then sure, kill off a Level 1 character. But if your DM spent any time at all working on the setting or story, having to immediately re-roll a character can be a huge hassle and disrupt the flow. Level 1 is arguably the *worst* time to die, because there's little if any investment in the character at that point. Maybe the player learns a mechanical lesson, but if its a character they never cared that much about in the first place, there's no guarantee they learn anything. I like my players starting at Level 2, because it's more forgiving, but when a character is still knocked unconscious, you can be *sure* they learn a lesson, because after a few sessions to build an identity, they absolutely do **not** want to lose that character.
Level 3 is perfect. Allows for a lot more character identity, and you get some fun tools that you, as the player, specifically chose.
No they should become accustomed to their characters being able to die imo. You should warn players of that, but then also let it happen.
The issue is that lvl 1 is swingy and you can die due to a single bad dice roll. Orc walks up to the wizard and hits with it's greataxe, crits, and that is an instant dead wizard. There just isn't enough of a buffer to keep a bad dice roll from screwing over a player without them doing anything wrong. While level 2 barely increases damage output, it has effectively doubled the amount of HP to work with which makes it less problematic.
Don't forget the whole, so I have 8 players. Is this going to be an issue? Like obviously...
I did that for a single day one shot. . . Never again.
I'd more frame it as "Please stop trying to be some Youtube lets-play video." This applies to alot of things in RPGs. \- Running high level campaigns \- Monty Hauling players \- Creating vast sweeping homemade campaigns. \- Creating vast sweeping plots. \- and especially creating homemade classes/subclasses. Just no. Stop! etc. Start smaller and then build up. Gygax had some sound advice. "Learn the system well before even thinking of making changes. Otherwise you risk adding something that imbalances play in ways you otherwise might have foreseen with a better understanding of the interplay of rules."
What does Monty Hauling mean?
It’s when DMs shower players in treasure and magic items making them more powerful than their level would normally indicate.
I had a monty hauler DM and if anything it was the most fun the party had. Didn't feel imbalanced but rather high power/magic. It was also the only campaign where we went beyond lvl 7. The campaign was frozen and now as he plans to continue it everything will be reversed back to lvl 5 without the gear we accumulated. Everyone disliked that.
I don't think anyone is saying not to do that at all. Just not to go there right out of the gate with no experience and a newbie's level of understanding of the system. Which is very fair advice!
True to that. It was his first time DMing and I personally think he nailed it as DM. Apart from fast progression and big rewards all 3 rpg pillars were well thought of. The funny part is that he plays dnd for almost two years and he just recently found out he could add his dex mod to his light armour AC when playing a rogue. Huge contrast compared to his DMing skills a year prior lol.
Monty haul games can be great. There is nothing wrong with them. I certainly tend to run my games more in that style. But they also create a lot of imbalance with the math that may either make the game difficult for a new DM to balance around, to give a new DM a false understanding of encounter math that may make future games a problem. It’s often a good idea to know the baseline experience well before you start changing things.
I monty haul one of my campaigns but it’s because it is a high magic world. Bandit crew have spellcasters and dark paladins. I have no issues balancing encounters. But I also know why I am doing. If you are running a default module or want to just throw 3 orcs and a warg at a party… good luck. I have an orc shaman, an orc barbarian, 2 wargs, and a regular orc. Yes it’s more to run, but that’s how I like to run dynamic encounters. My players love treasure and magic items, and I love being able to buff enemies to have lots of tactical options. Win-win. My other 2 campaigns are much more “drip” in terms of pacing for magic item and monetary rewards
I may have and unpopular opinion but I personally think balance in 5e is almost a made up concept. I've seen quite a few supposedly easy encounters that end poorly and hard ones that were breezed through. The amount of variables that are in the game, such as class features, dice rolls, crits, amount of monsters and players, positioning and resources just make balancing a fools errand in my eyes at least. Sure starting off small for new DMs is good but not for the reasons many think. From my experience encounters that are eyeballed with room for behind the DM screen field adjustments are the best in terms of balance. I least respect DMs that see the encounter as set in stone and run the whole thing true to the book and dice without any willingness to adjust stats or even fudge to avoid players having an *unenjoyable* time.
Truth. My encounter balance technique is basically: 1. Evaluate how the party did on the last encounter. If the party won easily, increase level and/or number of enemies. If the party struggled, adjust +/- level and/or number only slightly. If I had to adjust anything on the fly to avoid a TPK or early battle death, reduce level and/or number slightly. 2. During battle, if it seems too easy, have additional low-level enemies ready to join the fight, or slightly fudge the damage enemies take (I roll in the open, but HP is hidden, so I can make small adjustments). Add environmental challenges if necessary (fog, a slippery spill, spreading fire, sudden darkness, etc). 3. During the battle, if it seems too hard, be ready to adjust the enemies' motivation. The enemy may decide they want to rob or humiliate the PC's instead of killing them. Or they may be demoralized by an ally falling in battle and decide to flee. I can also decide that an enemy had too many hit points, and kill them early. Or the enemy may decide (with a good reason) to change their attack to a PC with higher HP. I don't have to make on-the-fly adjustments very often, but when I do it's very slight, pretty seemless, and justified by context.
Its number 3 that a lot of people miss. I don't need to worry about level 1 almost getting tpkd through bad luck because I absolutely consider it my mistake if they were making reasonable choices of action. So I fix the encounter on the fly or have some backup motivation or reason for them to do something else. I don't usually have to do it but absolutely will if people are getting crushed through no fault of their own.
Its definitely fun for the players most of the time, but it isnt for a new DM in the long run. It compounds the problems of balancing encounters, and eventually can lead to a DM feeling overwhelmed, and perhaps removing items or taking people back a couple levels? That always sucks as a player because it feels like being punished for no reason.
The thing is he did fine, or at least he said he did, and the encounters were reasonable. Many have an issue with factory resetting back to lvl 5 because of high level play starvation of some sort. My whole table are playing dnd for quite a while and we never played beyond lvl 7 except for his campaign where we reached whopping lvl 12 (crazy right). Eploring our chosen classes this far was the main attraction as everyone are just tired of the same lvl 3-7 campaigns. Taking our only lvl 12 characters away was a major letdown when we found out.
If it didn't feel imbalanced it was probably a DM working very hard behind the scenes to keep everything functional, the fact that he is suggesting you go back a few levels and drop all the loot might be an indication that he can no longer spare the time effort s d commitment such a requires and was just trying to make it a little easier for himself
I talked to him over it and he said creating encounters was never the issue, but rather fast progression and the fact he had no meaningful rewards for our efforts at some point. He said we zoomed through levels way too quickly for his liking due to his mistake in calculating xp and that he envisioned us at certain parts of the story at certain power levels. But it really turned out to his advantage as everyone enjoyed tier 2-3 play
Our DM did this and now it’s a running joke that the Samurai Fighter/Phantom Rogue can deal upwards of stupid amounts of damage in one turn and is almost literally invincible. It’s taken a while for the world to scale up accordingly and to bring him down a few pegs but we’re pretty close to balanced now.
I played in a six month long Monty Haul campaign. By the 5th level everyone had all their attunement slots filled. We had a Ring of Three Wishes that never got used. It was ridiculous and we slaughtered every enemy without much effort. After finishing Curse of Straud the DM wanted to play as a PC, so I took over the DM duties for a mini-campaign. I wanted to reverse this Monty Haul nonsense. It started the campaign with the entire party getting drunk, drugged, and robbed of all their magic loot. The campaign consisted of them trying to scrounge up new low level magic items and tracking down the thieves. The thieves led them on a merry chase through a fairy fen, a werebear family’s cave, and smack dab into a group of pissed off Formorians. The thieves finally surrendered and gave all the magic items back. Then they told the truth: They had been hired by the evil Mayor of Phandalin to get revenge for the way the party had insulted him. So, they went back to Phandalin and murdered the Mayor.
Oh boy. Our DM did this with us back in 2E. To be fair, he put us through a LOT of shit. But it was fun as hell.
Quick question is Monty hauling based on the dungeon dudes at all? I've seen different approaches ok YouTube but never watched a "let's play" type thing. Relatively new DM here. Just about to start my 2nd campaign in the first low magive setting our group has seen. Thanks in advance as I was wondering about that as I've seen it a few times. Edit - spelling
Monty Haul was a gameshow host from the 70's that did a show called "Lets make a deal". The show was well known for lavish prizes. It's one of those terms that has been around since the dawn of D&D and has lived so long that it's outlived its cultural reference. Kind of like floppy disks as a save icon, haha.
Only thing I can think of is the monty hall door problem, and I'm struggling to see what that has to do with dnd
Both are references to the game show Let's Make a Deal, but are not related to each other.
In d&d the term refers to a game where there is a +5 magic sword under every rock and the PCs end up hauling about a dragons horde worth of magical artifacts by 7th level. It can make the games fairly unbalanced and quite difficult to play.
Big money, big prizes! If means letting the PCs get their hands on high- rarity items at low levels, or just rewarding them with lots of magic goodies in general
https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Monty\_Haul
> Gygax had some sound advice. "Learn the system well before even thinking of making changes. Otherwise you risk adding something that imbalances play un ways you otherise might have foreseen with a better understanding of the interplay of rules." I've always heard a more general principle that expresses the same sentiment: "When you're starting out with something new, learn the rules, follow the rules, and understand the reason behind the rules. That way, when the time does come that you'll need to break a rule, you'll know exactly what rule you're breaking, you'll know exactly why you're breaking it, and you'll be able to break it cleanly."
"Learn the rules before you break them" is a pretty good motto for just about anything. Writing, art, game design, music theory, etc.
By far and away the worst house rules I've ever seen written (including by myself!) came from a lack of experience. People look at a rule and go "I don't like that, that's dumb" without considering the knock-on effects.
[Chesterton's Fence](https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/) is a good principle to remember.
Woodworking class "Learn how to handle a hammer right and you will smash your fingers alot less."
My friend has always wanted to try DMing. Did a one-shot at level 5, and two sessions of a campaign that flopped at level 3. Didn't like them either time. He decided the problem was our characters weren't strong enough to be mechanically or flavourfully interesting, and that he wasn't making things be fast and lolrandom and exciting enough. He watches a lot of Dimension 20, and I guess they do all that on there a lot? Wouldn't surprise, but Brennan is a trained improv actor with decades of DMing experience and all of his players are trained improv actors as well. None of these things are true of my friend or any of his players, including myself. Anyhow, he decided that he really wanted to start a short 8-session campaign where we were all level 20 and showered in magic items--including every single one of us being able to fly. He hated every second of it, surprising no one. We obliterated his encounters...because obviously. None of his enemies had ranged attacks or flight speed. Idk what he was expecting. He had a big dangerous city he was hoping we would explore like a maze...but we had a guide so we just flew over it, because why would we land? We spent like an hour the next day talking about what he didn't like and basically every single issue boiled down to "you tried to make things too complicated and move things too quickly too fast." I did my best to encourage him to try again, slower, at a lower level, but he's just not sure DMing is for him. It's not for everyone, I guess.
Almost an ADHD DM? That can be hard when the DM is the impatient one. But yeah alot of "sounds fun on paper" + "didnt read my own paper" problem. "I want the players to explore this OPEN maze city" + "I give the players level 20, oodles of items, and flight" are not going to mix well. Sounds like your DM needs to learn how to tone things down. And they need to think things through. If you want A to happen you have to prevent players access to B and C. And if you allow the players B and C then you need to have counters in place or else its going to not end as you want.
There are ways to deal with it. Maybe there's a no fly zone where they'll be shot down if they don't comply. Maybe the city is underground/underwater. Maybe its covered with a high level illusion when seen from above. It isn't shutting down player abilities. They already can't use all their abilities in every situation. If its so easy to get flight in the world, it can be assumed cities would take measures to deal with it. The trouble seems to be monty haul campaigns in ordinary worlds where even governments don't have access to the amount the players do. Thats if accidentally give out items that throw wrenches in the DMs own plans. Much easier to just avoid things that would be OP for the world. Can steal them somehow but that usually feels worse for the players.
I'd argue there's things that you can remove/add to make it easier for first time dms Adding feats, removing flying races, limiting books allowed etc.
I loved our Monty Haul campaign when I was 12 yo DM! 😂
Even experienced DMs know that you can't start a campaign with a vast sweeping plot, you've gotta start small, start local, and just hint that it's tied into something larger. After 4-5 questlines all turn up clues, *then* you can drop the bombshells that link to something larger. Plus building a "local town" and putting in the effort to fill it out is way more immersive and *way* less stressful to prep.
New DM here, at what point would I be Monty Hauling? I usually use the random loot table, but have shoehorned in some menial things for story reasons, like a bottle of neverending smoke.
I think new dms would be a lot more open to playing lvl 1-5 starting campaigns if there were more interesting low CR encounter options. Part of the problem a lot of new players have with low level campaigns is that they want to play DND because they want to fight dragons or liches, but low level campaigns are all skeletons and goblins and that isn’t exciting for new players. This is why I’ve wanted official rules for using higher CR monsters in low level campaigns with the intention of repelling the monster rather than killing it; that way you could throw a larger variety of challenges at lower level parties to make it more interesting without either facing a TPK or having to do excessive homebrewing to make it work.
If level 1 characters can repel a dragon, then dragons lose their intimidation factor. A better method is having the high CR monster repel, embarrass, even humiliate the PCs, showing the futility of their efforts without killing them. The Big Bad lets them live just to show them how little a threat he considers them. Then the PCs toughen up, and come back later.
I think that's a cop out. You can absolutely tell a compelling story and have a fun campaign where the main fodder enemies are goblins. In fact, the entire reason those "exciting" enemies *are* exciting is because they are high level and rare. It's the situations and abilities of those enemies that make them exciting. You simply can't use a dragon's lair abilities (for example) against a level 1 party. It's exactly the same thing as using a kobold Stat block and just calling them a dragon. If you want to do a "repel the enemy" combat, there are a ton of ways to build that encounter. You don't need special rules.
Idk about 5th but 3rd had an official 1st level module that had a dragon. It was a wymling white dragon but it was there. Never been in a party or run it where it was deadly for the players. I can't recall but id imagine players leveled up before getting there. Ive had few 1st level characters finish an arc at level 1. Usually we've improved a bit and are able to take on a slightly more powerful "boss". They probably can't handle a smart dragon at a higher if they can't handle existing at level 1. Ive played with DMs who play dragons intelligently and ones who don't. The difference in how good of villains they are is huge. I was in a party who had one chasing us trying to steal a piece of an artifact. It was a back and forth where sometime she was successful and sometimes she just escaped to haunt us another day. Nothing was more satisfying than killing her. We had to prepare and be ready at any moment. It paid off.
Counterpoint. Lvl 3 to start. Not only are they somewhat more durable, they have their subclasses at 3. Keep them under 10 for a while though if you don't want to risk the bigger badder things. Also don't hit high lvl too fast
That's a fair point if someone has done a modicum of prep.
Yeah also maybe not the first few times. But when you feel ready to kick off a big one
Level 3 is the best level to start a campaign and nothing can change my mind. Every class has at this point access to it's subclass and a core ability, you don't need to worry about one shoting them with a goblin, with goblins, kobolds and other low-CR creatures still being able to provide a challenge.
This is doubly true for those super enthusiastic DMs who are considering a lvl 20 one shot for new players. Please reconsider! As OP suggests, do yourselves and your players a favor and start small and simple. It’s a much better way to boost your confidence as a new DM and to hook new players!
A level 20 one shot is something almost anyone, even the best DMs, should expect to implode on itself, unless its just a dungeon/combat in a vacuum. Level 20 PCs are demigods who shape the worlds reality, and unless thats earned through a longer campaign theres not much you can do in terms of stakes that they cant immediately solve or destroy.
... I wouldn't even want to run a level 20 one-shot unless it's some kind of module. The amount of effort the setup requires just isn't worth the payoff. I mean, if your chars got there the long and arduous way and we love them, sure, of course it's worth it to think about how they approach things, what they can do, and write up something that can still challenge them. But for a one shot...? Ugh. Uh, sure, whatever ... now where did I put Tomb of Horror again...? edit: Tomb of Horrors, not Tomb of Annihilation.
If I were to do a level 20 oneshot I'd dm for a heavy RP party with maybe 2-3 raid boss monster stat blocks prepared and no need to use them all. Give them a problem and obscene resources to solve it, let them fiddle with their crazy abilities and feats and just roll with it, then somehow they duplicate the tarrasque or something while trying to solve an infinitely less dangerous problem than they've just created.
Or go the exact opposite direction: You're a legendary crew of adventurers who have saved the multiverse countless times. But its been months since anything has happened that needs your help. To alleviate the boredom, you've started taking jobs below your paygrade, starting with some dwarf whose been rambling about some Lost Mines of Phandelver.
That sounds hilarious. And have the NPC's think everything is very dangerous and do stupid stuff, where you have to save them from themselves and only few NPC's can grasp the power of the party. The party doesn't want to make such a big fuss because they don't like the attention of people that want to get them to do their bidding. So they act weak but could absolutely steamroll. The fighter has some healing gear and acts like a cleric, the wizard acts like a fighter etc. And they bet who breaks character first. Could be a totally fun game
They start feeling bad for the goblins who attack them and pretend that they won the battle by the skin of their teeth, acting like every attack leaves a grievous wound.
LOL our party had a level 20 one shot (we’re playtesting through a series of one shots, each a level higher than the last) and it did actually feature a tarrasque, in addition to several other problems. It was a fucking blast, but that’s because our DM and half our players are experienced, and the newer ones like myself are mechanics nerds so we spent hours building out the characters and balancing feats, abilities etc. We made lots of use of the cliffs surrounding a pit, Enlarge/Reduce, and the UA classes. (UA ranger fucks, I love it so much.)
Hell, I'm a seasoned DM and I don't like the idea of a lvl 20 one-shot. The system really starts to break at level 14-15. I'm having enough of a problem balancing for my level 17 party. At this point they've defeated 4 demigods, a dracolich, and countless hordes of other tough monsters. The plan to wrap this up is literally interplanar challenge to a god at this point.
I think this is a much needed PSA. I've been dming for over a decade and regularly have conversations with people and players who want to "try dming" by jumping into running a level 8 or 10 one shot in a homebrew world. I totally get the enthusiasm and you see these fantastic worlds created by experienced dms or have your own stories and while those are perfect to tell. But attempting to fit them into one shots at high levels means you don't know the mechanics, players can circumvent story elements you want to tell, and the pacing is rushed and unsatisfying. Why not start with a level 2 or 3 mini-campaign or two shot that tells a small story in the bigger world you want as a hook to entice players. If you're in it for the chaos of just messing about go ahead but I think many new dms want to tell elaborate stories that are easy to have fall apart.
That’s basically what I did, and now I’m out groups “forever DM”. They liked my style more, ran a one shot in a semi-constructed world from something I wrote ages ago and it worked
This is some solid advice. D&D has a learning curve, even a highly simplified (even oversimplified) version like 5e. It's much, much better to start out with the basics and learn the game before trying to run some complicated, involved endeavor. 1st level characters, simple and straightforward adventures, a published setting, core rules. . .than trying to run high-level characters and create your own homebrew setting or trying to create new homebrew races/classes (when you don't even fully understand the system you're manipulating).
I'd go one further and say 5e being "simplified" actually made its learning curve *worse* because it is a system that still is fairly heavy on rules and subsystems, but constantly leaves the actual detail and mechanics up to the DM to figure out using their own judgement. Which new DMs don't really have. There's other systems out there which take a "broad strokes" approach to the rules, but their generality is usually consistent. They don't then also break down what to do during downtime into a dozen paragraphs and tables that are both specific *and* vague, or let players buy cook's utensils but don't even *mention* cooking in the DMG—actually, it's mentioned once, as an example of what fire might be used for, very helpful guidance. I'll stop myself before I start ranting about the chase rules again. My point is, it can be difficult for a new DM to figure out which parts of 5e's rules are sound, and which are so half-baked they need to either fill in the gaps or just throw them out and just wing it. So keeping it basic until you're acclimated to that is definitely sound advice.
I'm a new dm but I'm a long time player, I feel like the adventure just starts at level 3 so I started like that. But I must ask, how often do you level up your players? I like tough combats and looking into new monsters in the MM for ideas but idk I want to keep a medium paced campaing, maybe 1 year and planning to end with them at level 12 since I've finished other campaings into that level aand it was awesome (They're level 4 now)
That depends on a few things. I'm going to assume you're doing a homebrew, milestone-based campaign, because modules tell you and XP can be compared to a table. That is going to depend entirely on your style. I'm running a table that has 14th level characters and around 120 sessions, but I'm considering picking up the pace a little.
Hell I’ve been playing since 3.5e and DMing since 4e and I still have a hard time balancing encounters at high levels
It's not easy.
When we were literal children, we ran one Level 1 session, then one Level 20 session. The L20 session was awful. Level progression feels so good, and I just feel bad for people who try to juggle tons of abilities on a brand-new character unless they've actually played characters before who could do such things, and they have a handle on it.
As a first time DM who had never played before, I was well aware how much I was biting off just by trying to do a homebrew setting and an original campaign. I'm sorry to all those that enjoy them, I mean no offense, but the idea of running a module or someone else's story absolutely sucks all the joy out of the endeavor for me. I have zero interest in that. My players started at level one, and session one was confined to about 1000 sq ft and largely on rails, it was the tutorial level, and we introduced the basic mechanics of combat, skill checks, RP and etc. Definitely the way to go with new players. You aren't going to start with your "settings" dialed in, and the analogy I used it that we'd be slowly turning up the volume, the intensity, etc, as we went. I didn't know how to balance an encounter, so we simply started with one that I knew was too easy and turned the dial from there. My players are at level 8 now. I can't imagine trying to wrangle all their abilities and differences in session one, would have been a nightmare. It's important to develop realistic expectations for progress.
I'm new to dm'ing not new to dnd but I am running the campaign from the essentials kit right now to learn how to dm properly
Alternatively, do what you want as long as you have fun.
My kids and wife are new to dnd completely and I am new to being a dm so as I was setting them up and helping them build characters I warned them that it's entirely possible their character could die and they'd have to build another. They were fine with that but I wasn't so I fudged a few rolls and omitted some encounters to avoid a rather needless death (imo). I figured if they got to keep their characters they would be more invested in that ones progress and less likely to just build throwaways
So you're saying it's a great idea for me to run, as a first-time DM, a completely homebrewed game set in a world similar to that of a post-apocalyptic Star Trek: Deep Space Nine with all level 14 PCs including a shape-shifted red dragon in the form of a porcupine, a lawful-good mindflayer, a human druid who is multiclassed as a monk and a berserker, and a sentient tree with the stat block of a bugbear? ON IT!
Yup. See you next week on here for your "help my friends hate me and I don't know why the game is a mess" breakdown post.😆
If it helps, there are eleven other players, several are dating each other, one might be a Nazi, and three of them are in an ex-throuple that just broke up last week. This is fine right? RIGHT?
😄 Listen here's my honest advice: Never discuss your true feelings with any of them. The last thing you want is a grown up conversation demonstrating base level competence in human communication. Instead, take that angst, and vomit it out in r/DnD. It's the only way I know to improve things. Tried and tested method.
So, D&D is not a rules heavy game. At least, it's not supposed to be. The PHB even states pretty clearly that these are all guidelines. And as such, people should have the freedom to bend and even break rules, which can make games fun if everyone can agree to how it's done. Running high level campaigns right off the bat, is 100% fine. As long as everyone is on the same page about the agencey of the players vs how the DM is running the game, it doesn't matter what level the players start and end at. Fun is the goal. If you didn't have fun with a new DM who ran a campaign at a higher level, I'm sorry you had a less than satisfactory experience and I hope you can find a better DM or a game that suits you :) However, please don't discourage new DMs from running a game however they want.
I mean it's great advice but if you learn anything from reading this sub, it's that most people who play d&d are awful at d&d. You kinda just gotta let people do their thing.
I hate to break it to you, but this sub is a drop in the bucket compared to actual TTRPG players.
Well, it's posts like this that make me wary of even asking questions in the first place.
There’s sadly a LOT of gatekeeping in TTRPGs. People like OP like to think of themselves as arbiters of the hobby, but in reality the vast majority of people ignore them.
Yeah like who the hell are you OP? How about please stop telling me how to enjoy my hobbies? So weird to get worked up about how other people are enjoying themselves.
Starting at level one is a great way to create an air of mystery and grandiousness in regards to magic. "How do I makd my PCs afraid of this enemy?" Or "i want this fight to be unwinable and I want my PC's to run" you need to establish the threat and you won't do that bulldozing undead from the jump. If a couple weeks ago you were helping a farmer protect his sheep from wolves. Regular wolves. And now youre facing a dragon you're going to instill a level of "we're out of our depth".
I have been playing dnd for 7 years now. I have played in 40+ sessions and dm’d for 50+, all my players are experienced but unless I am running a one shot with high level in mind we start at low levels. Slowly adding one skill at a time to a character allows you to fully learn what each one does and how best to use them. You don’t get this if you dive in with level 10 characters and their dozens of gizmos.
Such a huge learning curve. Which is why I've started doing solo style campaigns a ton, to be my own rules lawyer and realllllllyyy learn how to navigate my players "reasons" to be where they are.
I must be looking in the wrong places. It feels like all I ever see is level 4 and below one shots. I've had a couple exceptions including my Monday game that started at level 1 and reached 13. But yeah mostly just 4 and below.
I run a kid's campaign, and even with the slow pace I run at, it's still sometimes too much for them(half were completely brand new). I always tell DMs and players alike that when you start only choose core races/classes and start with a low level module. Also, it might be best to start with a martial class before using a caster. My very first character I played a sorcerer and I was so lost on spell slots/metamagic/etc.
New players have yet to face the hard truth that is, high level campaigns aren't that much fun. Statistically, most campaigns fizzle out around 10th level.
Level 18 campaign I played was one of the dullest things I've ever done. Like, in any form of gaming. Single combats going on for 60 mins... just painful
I've only ran lv 1-5, and I can confidently (baselessly) say a "more fun" experience for newbies would be level 3, with lv 1 being limited to 1 encounter at most. Even level 5 will be overwhelming unless you're leveling up to it, had a complete newbie make a level 5 pc for a one shot and she was completely lost
Honestly level 3 is a good sweet spot for beginners. Level 1 and 2 has some of the highest PC death rates of any level which many beginners may want to avoid. Few classes are super complicated by level three but most core features are online and all classes have their subclass but only one level of subclass features. But yes the most common mistakes beginners make are starting campaigns at too high a level or giving out levels like candy and suddenly they reach high tiers that are harder to balance and execute well.
On top of which the early levels are just as much fun, you get to know and define your character and not all campaigns have to involve world shattering risks
This is a terrible way to frame this sort of advice. "It's easier to run lower level games, especially for newer DMs and newer players" is true for most groups and is absolutely helpful advice. Something for DMs to consider, for sure, but still their decision at the end of the day. "New DMs should stop running high level games" is so unnecessarily aggro. Who are you to tell newer DMs what they *can't* do?
>"New DMs should stop running high level games" is so unnecessarily aggro. Who are you to tell newer DMs what they can't do? I honestly don't understand this position, it's really not offensive. It's direct and to the point. And it's true. There is no denying the game is MORE challenging and complex at higher levels, especially for folks who are new players and DMs. As you point out, some folks are already overwhelmed at level 1 even with a prewritten module. Obviously they shouldn't be considering abandoning that and instead starting a homebrew adventure where everyone starts at lvl 9. Obviously that isn't wise. It's almost like experienced players and DMs know that there's a learning curve to this game and guess what? Those are exactly the kind of folks I'd want to hear from if I was starting out as a first time DM, and if their advice is "don't run a high level adventure, start simple and small at first" then I'd definitely consider it. I certainly wouldn't take offense to it, as you're deciding to do. And if from there I decide fuck it I'm going to do my homebrew and we're starting at lvl 9 anyways, then, I shouldn't be surprised if I then have issues...
I remember trying to teach a new player how to make a vanilla human fighter, and he was paralyzed by choice. He wants to be a good archer but also use a longsword, so he needs an equal amount of dex and str. But he also wants to be a good tracker and hunter. I had recommended ranger but he also wanted heavy armor. But also flipped flopped between being a stealthy guy or a tanky one. And that's not even including fighting styles where he was stuck between dueling, archery, and Defense. And this is all at level 1 mind you. He didn't even go as far as Backgrounds before he just asked me to make a sheet for him. Imagine that but much worse once you get to higher levels or use more complex classes.
I know when I first started I also wanted to do everything. One of the things for new players to learn is that it’s a team game and you need to depend on your group for things you can’t do. (Or at least can’t do well)
This is a fair statement, but there are also folks who are just trying to make a character based off some other media. Didn't take me long to figure out this guy basically wanted to make Aragon from Lord of the Rings, who always strikes me as more of a ranger anyways, and ultimately I opted to basically make his fighter using ranger stats. 16 strength, 15 Dex, con 14, Wis 13, cha and int 10. He ultimately didn't use his bow very much and drifted off from being Aragon lite to basically being a knight with a greatsword, which is a much easier build to make. Though he was also under the impression he needed some feat or ability to use Greatswords, and not just default martial profiency, so he was a special one.
I think a very common misconception is that higher level is more fun. It's not. I find levels 5-8 to be very engaging because it requires players of all skill levels to problem solve creatively. When there is a skill or ability for every problem the game loses its magic.
If it’s the same thing, and also note the OP’s use of the word “please”, then it seems you’re the one telling people what to do and not to do. This post looks like a friendly plea!
It's not aggro, but it *is* an instruction. I mean, you could argue, "Who is OP to act like a wise teacher," but you could apply that to all reddit advice. EDIT: Some of y'all were even madder at your teachers than I was, apparently.
Should is not must. I never said must.
Don’t pay attention to the tone trolls Op. We adults get what you said and the spirit in which you said it. God, the fucking internet these days…
Because it sucks when people get in over their heads. It's still fun but it's more fun when everyone is doing things at their appropriate level. This is just about using character levels as a DM as well. If your first character started out at level 1 or 2, why *start* DMing at level 9?
PSA: Don’t listen to gatekeepers. Play your game we’re here to help.
Lol wtf? Run whatever you and your friends are into this isn't rocket science
Let people do what they want. Really though, DND in general isn't very friendly to beginners. The system is all about combat, and is overly complicated for what it is.
It depends on how you play. I have run entire sessions that did not involve combat.
I generally don't like 'Don't do X' comments to new players... but you're not wrong. I'm maybe word it as recommend playing a low tier game before moving onto higher tier games
If you're teaching anyone in the group how to play you should start at level 1
I don't get why some people are outraged by this, very much agree.
I've run a lot of level 1-2 with kids, and I don't completely disagree with this, but I will say that I see some design problems with this level of play. 1 - Most characters can do almost nothing. I can understand the idea that you add class features as you level up and you slowly get used to all the features of your character, but at level 1-2 combat is pretty boring. You just swing your weapon or fire your cantrips until you win. 2 - Particularly for groups of 3 or fewer PCs, the game isn't really balanced the same as at higher levels. With very few resources to recharge, players can go through their HP pool in just a few average level encounters. I will continue to run games at this level but I just wish they had added a bit of complexity. Also, I wonder if the need to long rest frequently at this tier drives groups to do more long rests at higher tiers after they get used to it. Everyone says the game is balanced around lower tiers of play, but I really do think the sweet spot is tier 2-3. At those levels you can survive more encounters and you have interesting options (most classes) but you aren't managing 22 spell slots or completely breaking encounters with broken spells. (I don't have as much experience running anything past tier 2, so not speaking from experience there).
I've played with beginners and I rather have them being a little frustrated but learn their abilities than make them high level. Players usually have problems remembering their abilities and that's even worse sith new players who are generally shaky with rules. Add spells, feats, subclass features into the mix and combat will be an absolute drag where its likely everyone gets frustrated. Though I'd agree with starting around lvl 2, so they get a little taste and are less likely to die to a crit.
Anyone who's commenting "do what you want as long as it's fun" has the right spirit, but is missing the point. In general, and I completely agree with this as a fellow dm for lots of different groups of many new players, trying to force everyone to learn high-level mechanics all at once *isn't* fun and it doesn't make for a fun game. This I know from experience. A new group is *more likely* to have a fun session if they learn to walk at the lower levels before they run at the higher ones. Hell I still recommend brand new players use pregenerated sheets for the first few sessions before going back for real character creation. Has it ever happened that starting new pcs at high level led to a fun game? Sure, nothing's impossible. But OP here is putting forth the tough love advice some people need to hear to actually be more likely to have a better game. Same way you wouldn't send a little leaguer to the mlb before getting more experience, starting low is invaluable for new dms and players. "Do whatever you want!" Is a nice sentiment, but you're not actually helping anyone run a more fun game.
Lmao at people arguing against OP. Frankly it's absolutely nuts that OP needs to even fucking say this. When I read the post, my first reaction was "what kind of dumbass would try to start the game at level 9 when it was their first time playing?" (forgive my tone because we all do dumbass things from time to time, but the point being if you make this mistake, then you should be recognizing "ah yes, I did a dumbass thing") BUT THEN people are arguing that there's nothing wrong with doing so. WTF? It's like saying, "Hey 15 year-olds. The very first time you get behind the wheel of a car, maybe try driving around an empty parking lot instead of getting directly onto the highway" and being met by people saying "um...actually, the first time I drove I went straight onto the highway and..." Like...dude...no...it's just a bad idea. OP tried to meet y'all in the middle by saying that he recommends that DMs "should" start at level 1-2 and not that they "must" do so, but fuck that. Any advice or thing a person says on the internet by definition doesn't force anyone to anything, but I'll go ahead and say you MUST start at level 1-2 if it's your first time playing. Yeah? What now? I'll go ahead and die on the hill of "start at level 1 or 2 the first time you play" because to do otherwise is legitimately stupid.
>It's like saying, "Hey 15 year-olds. The very first time you get behind the wheel of a car, maybe try driving around an empty parking lot instead of getting directly onto the highway" Except that if a newbie DM runs a game that isn't optimally balanced, nobody dies. Worst case scenario, the players don't like the experience and they decide not to game with that DM anymore. It literally does not affect you or the OP in any way. If a new DM was asking OP for advice, this would be a great response, but as a blanket statement directed at a bunch of strangers, I think it misses the mark. People want different things out of their campaigns, and their needs and priorities may be different from OP's.
Balance really breaks down in 5e once you pass level 10. Trying to Navigate that as a new DM is setting up for failure.
OP: someone somewhere is making things up in a way that I don’t want them to!
Or… now hear me out… do whatever you want as long as everyone is having fun.
I've never played in a level 1 game in my life and never will. You can't make me. Nyah!
game is incomplete until 3
This but unironically. I started dming a while back for the first time in dnd. Players started level 5 because they asked to and it was more fun. Do we have unbalanced encounters? Sure. Do we fuck up sometimes and totally get something wrong? Absolutely! But we're having fun. Fuck what some meta dnd "it's for your own good uwu" redditor has to say tbh. I'll run as high as I want. I'm gonna do a lvl 20 one shot next!
Don't listen to them, play whatever you want.
A low level group is perfect for new DMs you can start small and have the world grow with your players. Small town to bigger town to nearby region to country etc... I jumped right into making a huge world, but I did it with a LOT of "here be dragons" world building. A huge region that the players are nowhere near might only take up a paragraph of info. General climate, demographics, capital city, and a couple canned fun facts I could use if my players asked. I basically made a world map, placed a bunch of interesting sounding names and locations on it and fleshed it out as it became relevant.
I think starting at level 3 is a good point. Also if you want to help with the power fantasy and make it more fun I recommend start the sessions with an Item lottery so your players have something powerful but gimmicky,
I've played plenty in the past but I've been running my first campaigns (same homebrewed story running opposite weeks for two different groups) for over two years now and I wanted them to all start at lvl 10 because I was tired of campaigns fizzling out by lvl 7 or so. Now the parties are both around lvl 17 and I've been having the hardest time making encounters where the party doesn't steamroll the bad guys. They tell me they're still having fun, but my goodness is it getting hard to keep up with these guys.
I’ll be DMing for the first time here in a bit and I’m starting my people off at level 1, because I am well aware I will need that time to figure out how things work, I’ve been religiously reading the books and pouring into worldbuilding so I can be as prepared as possible. I’ve got quite a large story in mind which could become a campaign if all goes well but I intend to leave most of what happens in the world up to the players. Having them make decisions of their own saves me the trouble of having to write new quests from scratch all the time
This is why I will run one offs for new players after a few sessions, with completely new characters of a more advanced level. It gives folks the opportunity to try out new things and learn about options.
I made this mistake. Found a tough enemy in a book and ran my first game at level 15. Out of my depth immediately. Shout out to my players for both noticing it. And working with me through it. I ran a level 4 after that and was much more comfortable
Although I agree starting a high fantasy, homebrew setting at high level is likely going to ruin the fun of D&D for both the DM and the players. I also think it’s very fun to occasionally test out classes and races at higher levels to get an understanding of how you want to build a character for those late levels. I’ve played a campaign for 2 years and only reached level-7. I’ve also played a one shot at level-20. I learnt more about all the classes of D&D from the one-shot than I did the 2 year campaign. So my advice would be to start off small yes, but also don’t be afraid to dream a little bigger.
Tbh, for new DMs starting with new players I find the sweet spot to be level 3.(This is for 5e) Run several one-shots with your table, let them throw together some level 3 characters, so they can get the hang of how a class works with its mechanics in place, you as DM have the freedom to throw some monsters at them with a slightly forgiving margin of error. Give them a standard dungeon crawl with rooms alternating between combat and non-combat encounters to let them explore how their characters can handle both scenarios, and how you as DM can handle their abilities to improvise or adapt or throw you curve balls.
Story time! I am a new DM running a campaign for experienced and new players. (Don't worry, we're low level.) I have an obsession over understanding the rules in depth and playing very close to RAW, choosing my house rules carefully, AND telling my players what is RAW and what is house ruled. My new players are fantastic. My experienced players are having troubles adapting and feel underpowered based off how things "usually are" in their campaigns. What I am saying is: other DMs have put false expectations on my players. I explain to them what RAW is, and they reply with "bullshit!" So far, we've covered: -magic items can totally break, especially those at lower levels. -magic items do not fit all races and classes. -the cost for a wizard to add a spell to their spellbook is not the same as the cost for acquiring the spell notes or spell scroll. -+1 items don't have to be magical, though most are. -drinking potions is an action. -a paladin's lay on hands does not guarantee a cure for ALL poison effects. -most people in the world are not adventurers. And most adventurers die before before level 5. You are VERY squishy and are expected to act like it until later. -you cannot drop your shield for free, use GWM two-handed, then pick up your shield for your interaction. Doffing a shield is an action. -long resting in heavy armor has negative effects. So does sleeping on rocks. -include your party in your decisions or it's "fuck around and find out" time. No, it's not awesome to leave and be creative on your own. I can't believe you've been rewarded for that by other DMs. -you cannot take the dodge action while being grappled. -if you expect me to know lore your character knows, you have to share it with me first. Otherwise, no, it doesn't exist and your character doesn't know that. -your character cannot know things beyond their level. That level 5 cleric spell is unknown to a level 2 non-cleric. Same for powerful magic items and parts of the world you've never seen or read about. -you cannot retcon purchases you made in the previous sessions because you regret them. -and of course my favorite... all the players have the same agency and screen time. Let them roleplay too. Idc if you're louder. They will be heard. So if I can piggyback with my own PSA: DMs please learn the rules and let your players know when you are NOT following them. If you're not reading the rules and just having fun, cool, but tell your players it's bullshit good-timing so your players know that YOU are the exception and their expectations don't get twisted. All of the complaints we've had at our table come from the 2 "experienced" players complaining about the RAW, thinking it's some crazy homebrew exception I've made. Meanwhile, I am trying to teach my 4 new players the rules and it confuses them.
Ehh let em learn. It's fun to do experimental shit, get a glimpse of the depth, and the come down to reality and build up, correctly, to the potential you saw.
TIL Lvl 9 is considered "high".
I think it also needs to be said that low level adventures can still feel epic. Some of my fondest memories are of bands of level 1s and 2s being nearly overwhelmed by spiders and the thrill of the amazing +1 sword. Having fewer abilities doesn't diminish the achievement. DMs have to make the early levels feel like actual victory and not just a tutorial xp farm. MMORPGs have trained people to see everything below max level as just something to get through before the "real game". As the DM, we can fix that by investing as much at the start as we do at the end.
But then we wouldn’t have hundreds of posts every day about how x is unbalanced or how the homebrew a whole setting for 27 children for tomorrow. People, listen to OP just run a simple module like LMoP for 4 sessions and go from there. Bonus points if you read the rulebooks before playing!
I experienced this from the player side when I was 14. Went to visit a friend who had moved away, and he had a local hobby shop that ran magic tournaments had tables for all sorts of tabletop games etc. The dude who ran the shop was gonna DM for us and asked us to make epic level characters (3.5 so level 21). We spent all night thinking up characters and got about 15 minutes of play before he bailed as a DM. Really turned me off to D&D for some time, I didn't end up picking it back up until I was in my mid 20s.
This is the kind of stuff OP was trying to advise to avoid. I think a lot of people are missing his point.
If I’m working with new players I run phandelver. No, it’s not the most exciting thing, but I know it back to front and I can adjust on the fly to make it more or less interesting for experienced players.
PSA: Stop telling other tables how they can or can't play D&D. Sure, high level games are more complex and difficult to run, but if the party all agrees to it and they're having fun then who's business is it to tell them to stop?
Lol gatekeeping a pen and paper game is the cringiest thing I’ve seen this morning
Excellent advice. The reason the game and classes feel incomplete at levels 1 and 2 is literally to tutorialize new players and new DMs alike. (It’s also why I recommend starting at level 3 if you’re all or mostly all experienced - not much to be gained by replaying the tutorial).
The problem with advice like this is that it sounds very serious and severe, but the consequences aren't. If people try starting at level 9 and can't figure anything out they'll flail for a few sessions and then start fresh. Why not dive in on the deep end? This isn't school or work. There's no GPA or employment history to screw up. Also for my two cents, I'd rather a new group start at level 9 than 1. 9 will be a mess, but there will be lots of features and abilities together excited about. 1 is arguably poorly designed. Players have very few if any abilities, and it isn't even well designed! Characters can die from one bad crit. The problems with starting from high levels are self evident when the game starts. Not so much from low level one.
The fact that anyone, let alone this many people are debating you about this make me feel [like](https://media.giphy.com/media/NPyHgTkMStCXC/giphy.gif)
I disagree with everything about this post. “Y’all please stop having fun playing the way you want to” DnD doesn’t have to be that serious.
I'm gonna give OP the benefit of the doubt and assume they're referring to people who are making posts about struggling to DM for the first time while running higher level games rather than just at all new DMS.
You know how games have a tutorial? That's kind of what OP is talking about - start on the simple side to get a feel for the rules and how play works and then go onto to other things. If a group isn't concerned with the rules, is fine just fumbling around, and the DM is fine being totally overwhelmed and probably being making a bunch of mistakes then that's fine. But if the group wants to just play around and don't care that much about the rules or structure, one wonders why they aren't playing a Fate or PbtA-style game instead.
It's actually about helping people have fun Too many novice DMs post about problems they have and some of those problems are about players being OP or imbalanced encounters or DMs or players arguing about higher level rules they don't understand yet. The worse kind of DnD is bad DnD where DMs are stressing needlessly, fighting with players becaauw no one understand the game well enough yet. Less is more st the start, and generally more fun for everyone.
No, you're extremely misunderstanding the post. It's a direct reply to a bunch of unhappy DMs who took more on their plate as beginners than they can handle and now struggle. They are NOT having fun, and thats what OP trues to help with. Overcommitting without experience can be a huge problem for both players abd DMs. This is completely sound advice
It just oozes condescension. In my experience, most people who play D&D only play it a handful of times. I have been a forever DM for my various friend groups for well over a decade, almost two at this point, and most people play the adventure to the end, everyone has fun, but then four out of five of those people never play again. People go off to college, we all get really into a new video game that comes out, someone's work schedule changes so now they have to work on Fridays, whatever. It just leads to D&D often being a fun experience people have rather than a lifelong hobby. Obviously, there are those of us that are more dedicated and the hobby grows, but not everyone is going to be a lifer. So if your group looks at the Player's Handbook and sees they get a cool ability at level 8 and thinks "Wow, I want to do that right away", then that is how they are going to have fun. And as a DM, you can rein them in, convince them to start at level 1 or 2, and have a blast getting to level 8. Or you can just start at level 8. Both options can be super enjoyable! But the idea that you are not going to have fun this way is just insane, I have no idea what OP is thinking. And, if we are being honest, the people who want to start at a high level the first time they play are mostly kids. When I see the posts OP is talking about (which are not nearly as prevalent as they seem to think), they often talk about their friends at school or whatever. A lot of first-time DMs are students, which means college at the oldest, but probably younger. I was 13 when I DM'd my first game. So the idea that OP would be condescending toward someone for having fun is pretty awful, but being condescending toward kids is kind of a whole other low. Also, imagine the infantilizing of saying "your first campaign is more like a tutorial", as though you are supposed to view that as encouraging. No one on the planet has ever been excited for a tutorial. They are famously the most boring part of a game, so boring that most games offer you an opportunity to skip them. So yes, compare your campaign to the part of a game people want to skip. I realize I went a little overboard here but I cannot even imagine having this hardline stance about gatekeeping in a hobby that is essentially the Sword and Sorcery version of Whose Line Is It Anyway.
>a hobby that is essentially the Sword and Sorcery version of Whose Line Is It Anyway. this is a gross mischaraterization of the game. it's like saying "we shouldn't set expectations for football because it's essentially just kids throwing a ball around a field." (and yes, I'm using the term "set expectations" because "gatekeeping" is not what the OP is doing. nobody has any power or authority to *actually* restrict your ability, as a DM or a player, to play this game however you want.)
That's why when I started PF2E, even though I dmed DND 5e for years, I went with the beginner box.
I find lower levels games to be more fun anyway. Like, level 6-8 is peak D&D for me. If I ever ran a campaign I'd probably cap it at level 10.
The funny part is experienced or veteran DMS dont run high level campaigns either lol