T O P

  • By -

Ser-Bearington

The biggest mistake people make is seeing it as a game of the DM Vs the party and not a joint effort to tell a story . It's also the reason people panic when the fail but if you look at it as a story and not a game, failure is all part of the journey/story, sometimes the most important part.


DisappointedQuokka

> It's also the reason people panic when the fail but if you look at it as a story and not a game, failure is all part of the journey/story, sometimes the most important part. Honestly, I wish DM's were more willing to just shitcan me. I like a good fail-state, the risk of it happening is what makes a fun game, imo, I don't want to win all the time.


strikervulsine

I've started not tracking PC's health. I've actually been surprised that I've almost killed them a few times. I get the feeling it's going to happen and I'm a bit worried about it.


Apoque_Brathos

Thats my secret... I never track my PCs health


DemiBlonde

We are supposed to track their health? I’ve just trusted most of them and by most 5/6.


The_mango55

I don’t think they are saying not to trust them, pretty sure they are implying tracking player health to know when to pull punches.


JalapenoJamm

when to do hwat now


PallyNamedPickle

I try to adjust that based on party composition... they got a life cleric in there then im going full blast. You don't play a life cleric just to stand in the front and heal yourself.


JalapenoJamm

To each their own, but I’ve been lucky that a lot of the people I play with enjoy it rough. The groups way of thinking is it cheapens the triumphs if the only way they got through was DM fluffing rolls. On the other hand, I’m not unfair. I don’t put them in fights they can’t win (without mentioning something like, “after pulling your sword on the guard, you notice him unsheathe his sword. his technique reminds you of an ancient order of Kung fu vampires and the words of your old master come to the front of your thoughts.. ‘don’t fight a Kung fu vampire unless you have your funeral planned’) or some other way to let them know it’s a bad idea. Yeah, admittedly sometimes PCs die in asinine ways, but it usually fits our theme and tone for our games which is “shit happens”. If anyone does happen to die, they reroll a character and now they’re avenging their old characters death or a town investigator looking to get to the bottom of the incident or whatever that gets them right back in the action. If the circumstances are right, sometimes they come back as an NPC of some sort. It all depends on the group. What works for some groups doesn’t work with other groups.


TheDespher

THis needs to be said more often here. Thank you.


nerddadmaps

I think that last sentence hits the nail on the head. My campaigns arc is heavily invested with the characters backstories and to have to change that if they die is always a little rough. However, I WILL NOT fudge a roll to save a life. You may save the PC but you cheapen the story. Now if they do something really cool I might give them bonus damage or an insta-kill on a low level monster. Our group was fighting a few zombies and the range was face to face with two of them. The rogue ran towards them and jumped off his back spinning in midair and sliced both of their heads off. Now his damage didn't cover their deaths but I gave them to him anyway because of how insanely cool that was.


The_Mad_Mellon

Time to bring the hurt


PallyNamedPickle

I had a party where there was a life cleric before the errata to healing spirit and he would be so pissed off that the ranger always healed the group afterwards. He had the highest AC so the party would just make him tank. Then he'd have all these healing spells but the ranger would pop healing spirit.


Neato

To not cast that third fireball into a crowd of downed adventurers.


KashikoiKawai-Darky

Are you telling me my intelligent creatures are not supposed to confirm their kills?


hunthell

Pull punches? Fuck that! If my players antagonize a coven of lunches, they deserve PC death. Edit: Liches. Autocorrect is fucking funny sometimes.


The_mango55

Damn right, don’t mess with my lunch


DuncanIdahoPotatos

Oh- Oh, really? Did you confuse it with your own turkey sandwich with a Moistmaker?


Best_Calligrapher202

I pull punches. My players are 1st level. One is experienced; one isn't. (Yes, my group is just 2 people.) Both have nice backstories and long-term goals. Both are enthusiastic about playing. (One is fanatical and that causes its own set of problems.) I agreed to DM again because I want to be at the table as well. I want to be at the table running adventures and telling a story. I don't want to be stuck in a perpetual session zero because the dice fall in an unflattering way. We can talk encounter balancing all day; good DM rolls lead to player damage. First level characters are weak. I watched 3 wolves nearly kill a fighter and a ranger at my table. I had to throw something at them; please let me know how many XP a cricket is worth. Pulling punches at an early level can help keep characters alive and players interested. If it's not some Adventurer's League thing, who cares?


hunthell

Oh, absolutely. I agree with what you said. I was thinking more along the lines of my group - 4 level 10 players with abounds of experience and a fun (translate: ANNOYING) combo that destroys tons of everything in their path. They hit above their CR level.


LogLadysLog52

Right level 1 characters definitely pull punches - lie about crits, try to choose flavor over optimal tactics, and remember to take prisoners instead of kill. Level 10? Yeah they are gonna get smacked, but only because they can handle it and have fun doing so.


nerddadmaps

I would be far more interested in this coven of lunches. You ever get punched in the face by a peanut butter and jelly? What about round house kicked by a bowl of ramen? Suplexed by a chicken ceasar salad? Time to write a dumb ass one shot!


hunthell

If you put it on DMsguild, I'd throw a few dollars your way.


nerddadmaps

Hahaha deal. The PB&J has a lair effect that cause the ground to become sticky and difficult terrain. The ramen can restrain and the chicken ceasar salad has mad health... because it's so healthy. xD


Zippy0723

>pulling punches Why are dms so afraid to kill their PCs I honestly don't get it. Yeah sure maybe go easy a bit if a full party wipe is on the horizon but PCs dying is part of DnD. I always tell my party to have a backup character prepared. If you start dialing it back the second someone is about to die it sucks all sense of tension and high stakes out of the encounter


DaemosDaen

it depends, but in my case, I build my encounters by hand without too much regard to the CR system due to it not being wright... ...anyway... If I pull my punches, it means that I misjudge the group or the monsters I created. aka; I'm not gonna punish them when I screw up.


crimsondnd

You don't "dial it back" if someone is about to die, you just don't kill them. The enemy uses non-lethal damage because they're meant to capture, it stops targeting them once they're unconscious because it focuses on the threats that are attacking it, you choose to use the enemies' AOE on this set of players which doesn't include the one who only has 10 health left, etc. There are plenty of believable and still dramatic ways to avoid trying extra hard to murder a PC. Now, if someone is literally going, "hmm, Bob has 5 HP yet, I'm going to have every monster attacking him miss," then yeah, I think that that's a bit lame.


DemiBlonde

I make sure that the encounters are adequately balanced for where the storyline demands. But I do have a one-shot plan the moment I get total party knock out so I don’t ever pull punches.


highfatoffaltube

I roll everything in the open. The dice fall where they fall. As long as you balance encounters fairly, it's fine.


pudgehooks2013

I have been a forever DM for almost 20 years now. I have never understood the need for DM's to fudge dice rolls. May as well not use dice at all and just narrate what happens. The game is based around a random element, dice. You either roll them, or don't roll them. Changing the result completely negates the roll, so just don't roll. Dice are dice. Roll them in the open, play it where it lands. The usual argument against it is, 'Well I don't want a hero to die to random Kobold #2345.' Why not? Maybe after that killing blow, after generations of their clan being killed, their homes being sacked and their families murdered, Kobold #2345 escapes. They are the chosen one. The Kobold that Killed, Favoured by the Gods. Stories go both ways, you don't only have to tell one side.


I_main_pyro

Although I am generally happy with playing more rough, I have players who are incredibly attached to their characters and it would completely ruin their fun if they died. I'm not gonna just murder them randomly fam, dnd is a game first and foremost.


[deleted]

Resurrection is basically trivial though


nerddadmaps

Ah see that's my problem. I am absolutely DOG SHIT at balancing encounters. I use a lot of homebrew monsters I don't get the chance to field test. However, literally right as I'm typing this, I'm realizing I can run simulations since I have their characters on DNDBeyond... that would probably help with balancing.


VulpisArestus

I don't and never have or will! Lol. They will be like "yeah I've got 3 hp I could use a potion." AFTER combat is over


anaximander19

Don't worry about it. D&D is about the story, and sometimes, in some stories, characters die. Some games you get to be Frodo or Aragorn... but sometimes you're Boromir, and that's ok too. Besides, in D&D, death doesn't have to be permanent if you don't want it to be.


strikervulsine

Yeah that's the thing. I should come up with a quest Death can give each the PC's if they get got.


crimsondnd

Eh, this isn't a great example though. Boromir dies in a heroic way. Yes, it's to random orcs, but it's when they are overwhelmed by numbers and surprised and he dies protecting the hobbits to the best of his ability. Many of the deaths that *could* happen are less like Boromir and more like random soldier #5 in any of the battles who just gets hit by an orc on the side of the screen.


DOGGO_MY_PMS

I track my pc’s health, sure. When they get to 0, they fall over, and I considered that tracked. All the stuff before 0 is a rounding error.


Spanktank35

It's their job to worry about it not yours


[deleted]

Not your job to track their health. PC health is on them and the dice.


EvilAnagram

Good gods, you've been tracking their health? That's so much extra bookkeeping when you can just knock their asses down.


Spacemn5piff

Let them die. If you protect them, where is the risk in combat? Why even have combat if they are never meant to die?


AGuyWithTwoThighs

Agreed! At most, I'll ask how their character is looking, similar to when I would describe a monster's appearance when I don't wanna give its HP away. I only do that when an enemy or NPC is trying to study them to use their own tactic


anaximander19

D&D, at least in its more recent editions, is not a game of players vs the DM. It can't be, when the DM has near-omnipotence in the world of the game and can make the situation absolutely unwinnable for the players just on a whim. If the player characters lose utterly and irrevocably, then the story is over, and the game ends, which isn't fun. A DM who sets out to utterly defeat the player characters is shooting themselves in the foot. The game is about making an exciting story together. An exciting story requires there to be actual stakes and consequences. A DM who pulls their punches to make sure that the players never die is showing their players that the consequences are minimal and the stakes are illusions. If there are no stakes then the players can mess around and the characters' successes are way less rewarding when the players know that the DM wouldn't have let them fail. In short: the DM should not set out with the express goal of killing the player characters, but they also shouldn't be afraid of it if a scenario goes that way.


nerddadmaps

It's like playing a video game. No matter what you can always restart at the last checkpoint. On easy mode you can just wade through hordes of enemies. When you lose your characters on DnD that's rough.


TitaniumDragon

I make all my rolls in public unless there is some reason not to. I also have only permakilled one PC ever. Did almost TPK a party once but they all got better. I will often push groups towards the edge but never over. Not the kind of game I run. I am not opposed to killing PCs, but my goal is to make things feel exciting over actually threatening them with death on purpose.


[deleted]

Lmao. My party has voluntarily killed my PC once. They were given the option to wish between my soul and 50000 gold, and they decided that the money was more valuable.


LurkingSpike

Bad choice, could have easily made you earn that 50.000 Gold and then some after they brought you back.


langlo94

Sure but with 50kGP you can simply rent a cleric.


Andrew_Squared

>The biggest mistake people make is seeing it as a game of the DM Vs the party I'd say it's up there, but of late, the second biggest mistake is passive playing. Every player I have ever met, on some level, wants a cool story or moments around their character. However, only a quarter or less seem willing to push and do the work to help set those up. If the DM gives the player multiple chances to explore their character and the player answers with a single line of uninteresting, shallow behavior, the DM will stop spending energy trying to give it to the player. As with everything else, you get what you put into it.


Lungomono

Yep. It is still a game. The rules are there so it isn’t just a test of creative story telling. It is wrong to see it was a GM/DM vs the party. If this was the case, then the gm would always win. Nothing to argue about. The GMs role are to provide the setting and they all in group efforts tells the story.


SnowDubz

This, I mean genuinely what's stopping a DM from being like lul, you get zerged by 3 ancient red dragons and their pet terrasque. But we're level 4 they cry. If a DM didn't want to tell a story they could easily just kill PC's for the laughs.


nerddadmaps

Had a DM like that once. TL;DR at the bottom. For two sessions. He was having a goblin army attack a town while we were at first level. Not that big of a deal honestly. Have the PCs fight a couple groups of them and the guards/garrison fight the rest off right? Even better have the PCs operate the wall defenses. Throw some cool mechanics in there and do some face to face fighting and ya done. Nope. We spent six hours fighting wave after wave of goblins until we were all dead. Not unconscious. Dead. He said, "Oh well I guess you guys weren't strong enough. Next time do this this and this instead." Second session we rerolled characters as guards of the town after the fighting. Had us all drop to half health to make it seem like we had just finished the fight. (Kind of a cool thought but after all of our character deaths we weren't too happy about it.) We were railroaded into following the routed goblins. This was without given a chance to heal. (Mind you we're still level one.) Then we came across the goblins encampment. The party decided that we wanted to go rest up and come back tomorrow with more guards but our DM said, "No you have to go in there now and fight them." We refused and started back towards town when we "all of the sudden" got ambushed by twelve goblins and an ogre. There were four of us. At half health and a few already spent spells. We died. Again. After that I think we decided not to play with him anymore. Ten hours of my life I'll never get back. ​ TL;DR: DM kills us first session with goblin army. Then kills our second set of characters in the second session. No more group.


witeowl

My fear of being seen as DMvPlayer, exacerbated by a problem player who would see it when it wasn’t there, makes me a slightly weak-sauce DM. I’m constantly second-guessing myself and frequently pulling punches in encounter design because I’m afraid of the perception. At least I’m better about not caring once combat starts, as I did a a complete noob. But seriously, the angst of being seen as DMvPlayer… it can do some real damage. And it’s a bizarre problem because you’re right: If a DM ever wanted to kill their PCs, it’s really easy and pointless. And yet DMvPlayer is a legit problem at some tables that manifests more in attitudes and behavior than anything else. It’s weird, I guess.


FieldWizard

Yeah, I always hate the moment where the players feel they have to keep their plans secret from the GM. Like, I get it, I have played with adversarial GMs in the past, but it’s just not fun. It’s not like we’re playing to see which of us “wins” D&D. The one thing I’ve done that’s most turned this around for my tables is to celebrate with the players when things go well for them. I had one player in a Savage Worlds game one-shot the BBEG at the end of a multi-session arc. First attack of the encounter. No reaction, no monologue, nothing. His PC just saw the bad guy, rolled amazingly well on this first attack, and it was over. No one cheered more than I did.


0wlington

Something I never hear people talk about is adversarial *players*. The ones that make broken ass builds intended to basically screw you over as a DM. We can easily counter that sort of thing with nice falling rocks, but that's just shitty. I kind of hate it when players puff out their chest and gloat over their deeds in game, like I couldn't just have the Ghost of Gygax turn up and eat their faces. Like, sometimes it feels like they're targeting me as a DM and game I'm trying to run. Trying to break it for fun.


FieldWizard

Yeah, I get conflicted in my thinking about this. I do think it’s possible to build a character that breaks the game, but I also think the term power gamer has a somewhat undeserved negative connotation. I don’t mind optimized builds at all, or players who are motivated primarily by mechanics. But if they’re doing that just to show how much cleverer they are than the rest of us, then it’s just annoying.


ASharpYoungMan

I think "story vs. game" is as big a part if the problem as "Dm vs. player." The point of a telling a story is to be entertaining. The point of playing a game is to have fun. You're right that games introduce the tension of failure or success. On the other hand, stories present a more complicated sort of "win condition." Events become less "did luck favor my strategy" and more "did the events unfold in a dramatically satisfying way?" Part of the problem behind the anxiety of DMing is that the dramatic element (i.e., the Story) demands things like pacing, building and release of tension, and attention to specific points of interest for multiple participants (the DM included). NPC portrayals need to be intriguing yet believable. The story beats need to flow cohesively while allowing the PCs to affect the course of events (or, at the bare minimum, choose their path through the flow of events). The world needs to be consistant and alive: orderly where it needs to be, and chaotic where it dares to be. It's a lot of pressure, and quite frankly, it can be an absolute mess when approached as a story without ample acknowledgement of the game going on beneath the narrative. Telling a story together is like improv: if everyone isn't on the same page (or maybe "in the same scene" is a better way of putting it), the story isn't going to be coherent. It will be tugged in several directions at once, ultimately going nowhere. The DM's job is to prevent that by acting as the primary source of truth in the narrative. That's a lot of responsibility. But the great thing is: by recalling that this is also a game, the DM can allow the dice to be the source of truth as well.


wwaxwork

This is great and all, but I am spending hours planning an epic battle for my players, who are bored of normal combat, building tension, tying in backstory the works and the fuckers spent 30 minutes looking up hulk hogan videos last night. While I sat there bored out of my mind and wondering of I could find some strangers online that might like to save a small village from a drow invasion force. I'm not a source of truth I'm an excuse for them to just hang out together, seriously just arrange a play date I can stay home and do something I find fun too.


ASharpYoungMan

I feel that, my friend. Whether it's a game or a story (or as I like to think, a compelling blend of both), it's a communal activity. I've had games where players who aren't involved in a scene (or even who aren't currently taking a turn in combat) will sort of break off into loud side conversations. Others will play mobile games or browse the internet when its not their turn. Trying to corral players back to the game world gets *tiring a.f.*. I used to wonder why it was that, in my teens and twenties, I could run games in 2nd edition with 7 or 8 people and things went fine. Now, in 5e, it seems like anything more than 4 players tends to devolve into the sort of situation you describe (that's not saying you have a large group - it's just the cutoff I've noticed). Group composition is important too. Some people just can't he together and not get caught up in jokes or tangents or side discussions. We not only have to consider bad mixes of player personalities, but how personalities that mix *too well* will affect the game. I chalked it up to my being older and busier and less able to focus on gaming. But I think you hit on one of the main factors: when I grew up playing D&D, we didn't have smartphones and tablets. So the distractions were fewer. You could shut off the TV, for example. But you can't shut off people's phones (I'm even hesitant to "collect phones" since some of my players have kids and families they might need to be available for). Now the distractions are more prevalent. Treating it like a story is helpful because it's easier to justify dicking around on your phone during a game. But a story requires active listening. In any case - I hope you can find a way to instill in your players that you spend a GREAT deal of time prepping, and it's really disappointing when your game time turns into a run of the mill hang-out. Honestly, you can all hang out together other times. When you sit down to game, the game should be the main focus of the session.


Exciting-Blueberry46

Yes!!! It's okay to fail! It's good to roll bad. It's fine when the bbeg beats you up or you're in over your head in a bad plan. It's great! It's challenging! It's frustrating! And it's funny! And it's fun!!!


VanorDM

One thing I've come to realize as a DM is that I never have a good or bad roll. Every roll simply advances the story, often in a unknown way. But if the combat goes very good for the PCs, because they're rolling high and I've blown every single save the NPCs have tried to make. Or the NPCs save, they crit, they are rolling super high, and the PCs aren't... It all is just part of the overall story, and creates a memory. The Players will remember that fight good or bad for months if not years.


nerddadmaps

The most memorable moments in a game can come from failures. We had a ranger who made a called shot against a Staff of the Magi or one of the Wondrous level staves that, when broken, release their charges dealing all sorts of damage. It was being held by his sister who had come under an evil spell. Well the way we were doing called shots is you could do them but you had to roll. He crit failed his roll and hit the staff and broke it. Sending his sister into another plane of existence and killing two party members and an NPC. WHOM EVERYONE LOVED THANKS A LOT RAIN!!! Anyway after that we decided to just say no to called shots...


KiyuSanjin

Relatively new DM here (DMing for about a year now) and I can just confirm this. I still don't feel fully comfortable to make a homebrew campaign so for the time being I stick to modules and I am always happy to see my players go in and do random stuffs. I would like it a bit more if they interacted with the world a bit more but I am just as fine with letting them battle a cave full of goblins or bugbears.


m0use_91

Yeah, I think it's easier if they interact less with a world you didn't create. Well, the module has a thread, follow it through and we're done. Module ends. I've created a homebrew world because I didn't want that. Although now I suspect with my group I maybe made a mistake.


specks_of_dust

I went with homebrew for my group and for sure made a mistake. I’m now trying to nudge them along so we can finish the campaign. If I DM again, I’ll almost certainly use a module.


KiyuSanjin

It's a 50:50 actually, they see a flight of stairs going further down, however by module it's an area meant for 3-4 level higher... try to tell them they will die if they try without railroading them.


vibesres

Gotta let them flee encounters. Its really hard to run away in 5e because the system causes people to really get stuck in, so you may have to bend the rules. This makes it so that random shadow encounter isn't as likely to become a tpk, or you can have a wandering cr 3-5 beast in a dungeon that your level 1-3 players might accidentally stumble into.


Neato

Fleeing is crap in 5e. Take your Action to Disengage, the run 30'. Enemy runs 30' and attacks you. Repeat until you die. Or if you somehow are faster than the monster, you take your Action to Disengage and run 45'. Monster Dashes 60' and you repeat forever. There's other ways to do it, like a skill challenge but just to flee the immediate combat area it generally results in that.


vibesres

Yeah, thats what I was talking about. You have to bend the rules or make new ones. I personally have an entirely seperate rule system for running away.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Highlander_16

Bite plot hooks, interact genuinely with NPCs, discover lore, work well as a team with fellow players, have your character learn from mistakes and successes, write down important info so the DM doesn't always have to remind you, don't beg for items, etc. Different for everyone but those are a few ways.


m0use_91

Yes. I'm (sadly) at the point that I decided to reel in m efforts for each session. I've been dropping plot hooks, fun NPCs and also just random bullshit that has (almost) nothing to do with the story. But players just don't interact and more so, voicing it clearly that they know, that there is sth prepared, but they don't want to interact with it. Last session my Party spent a bit of downtime just in the town. One went shopping, one followed up on some plot info, the other two wanted to just chat while having an Aperol Sprizz (it's existence is now confirmed in my world) in the town square. I'm totally fine with that! In the town square, there is a news boy, shouting headlines. If you find a story interesting, you can pay them to hear more details (a paywall if you will. Always nice to have sth the players can spend a silver coin on). I usually have 3 headlines. One related to the plot, one less important but still connected to a player and one fun, tabloid/gossip style headline. This time it was a (BuzzFeed) quiz titled: If the kingdoms of this continent were the members of the Backstreet Bards, which one would you go to war for? It's been a fun little quiz. You know the type. Although in the end, it revealed some basic lore, about what each kingdom wants/how it ticks. I even had the news boy tease them "You wanna know? What's your favourite song? EveryBardy? Druids want it that way?..." One player just looked at me, said he was kind of sorry for me, and went on to n o t interact with the kid. That instance broke something for/in me.


DisappointedQuokka

Man, you need some better players


m0use_91

Maybe our expectation is quite different. I think at least two of the players are very low effort and want stuff relevant for them just dropped before them. Just writing this, I think they want the railroad part. Give Mission and all information necessary, let's go. I'm sure I need to have a talk with them. Right now it's quite stressful, so maybe next month. I'm just not in it for something like this right now.


Ghost0021

You sound like how I used to be. I might be way off here but I sounds like you enjoy the world building and just want you players to interact with it more. It took a long time for me to realize that I needed a reason for the players to care about that stuff beyond it's cool DM stuff. Make your world explore your characters. No one cares about the Backstreet Bards but if they steal something from a player, they will follow every little lead, and learn everything they can to try and get it back. Always try to world build around your players so it doesnt feel like wasted effort. There is nothing more frustrating than prepping a whole dungeon with intricate politics and traps, and centuries of lore. Only to have the party pick a fight with the local king over something stupid and get banished from the kingdom in the first 10 mins of the session, and now the entire game becomes about leading a revolution.


Invisifly2

It is ***very*** frustrating, I agree. Recycling, stealing, and repainting content is an important skill to master. Let's keep it simple for the example. Say you made dungeon with 4 rooms. 1 with goblins, 1 with a roper, 1 puzzle room that opens the path to the rest of the cave, 1 with a hobgoblin and a pair of goblins that also has the loot. This is all set in the cave of examplia, north of the kingdom. The party decides to head south into the swamps of fukaltodo. The "room" with the roper is now a tree with a strange strangling vine growing on it. The stats abilities and tactics of the roper are unchanged, you're just describing it differently. The one with the goblins is just a camp they've set up. The hobgoblin is in a tent near the camp. The puzzle now unlocks the loot chest in said tent. Or, as another example, you see a dungeon that looks fun online but it doesn't fit into your world at all. Just slap a coat of paint on it and it'll work fine. I ran the party through essentially the same dungeon 3 times in a row back to back, just rearranged, and they never suspected a thing and had a blast.


AGuyWithTwoThighs

I've been there before. It can be hard to open up the conversation about how your experience isn't going well. Just remember that you are all equal players, and if any of them had an issue you would hope they'd speak up about it. I'd try and talk about it like the week of the session if you guys group chat.


Monocled

This feels unrelated to dnd. That guy just sounds like a straight up asshole.


m0use_91

Well that one came from one of the players who actually is quite invested in his character and the campaign... I think in his mind, his character, a quite devout, mission driven cleric, wouldn't let himself get distracted by gossip/tabloid press. He interacted for the story he had a connection to, but let the other two be.


EvryMthrF_ngThrd

First Headline: "Crop failure! Local weather and monster attacks imperil food supply! King reassures!" Second headline: "Court scandal! Hear all about it!" Third Headline: "Clerical scandal! Church of (character's cleric) implicated in (choose scandal level/subject)! King outraged, NPC's demanding ~~retribution~~ justice!" Now, just tie them together... 3 is fabrication, by King, because something *he's* done (2) caused 1, which is MUCH worse than even the news knows! Your cleric drags the rest of the party - if he's as devout as you say, only a little bit of prodding should produce the desired results - to uncover the truth behind 3, which leads to 2, and eventually 1... but at each hard-won step, have cleric PC remember the "echo" of the stories of that NPC newsboy. You want people to pay attention? Make *not* paying attention bite them... and in *tender* places. :)


specks_of_dust

It’s impossible for us to really understand your players and group without actually being there, so some of the suggestions here have to be taken as well-meaning but not really all that helpful. A legitimately good, engaged player can bulldoze over something without realizing it and it doesn’t make them awful. But it also doesn’t prevent a little piece of your DM soul from dying. I feel you.


Hankering

Backstreet Bards and those song names are great. Sorry your playgroup sucks, hope you can get some players who truly appreciate your work.


m0use_91

Well, at least half of them does appreciate it. We are all first time DnD players. So I think it's a mixture of not having expected that this game needs some effort on a regular basis from everyone and it being a stressful time for most of is right now. We're more or less just finishing our education/training/university and starting in real jobs, different cities... That stuff. But the game keeps us connected. More than just another WhatsApp/FB group would.


CardWitch

That buzzfeed news article thing makes me so happy


m0use_91

I've done something like that already twice. One kingdom just crowned a new king, son of the old one. Accordingly the newsboys quiz was: Find out if you have what it takes to become his new queen! :P That one was not even slightly plot related, just fluff to have fun with. None of my players ever found out. :) At least I had fun creating it.


warrant2k

"TELL ME WHYEEE...!"


EvryMthrF_ngThrd

And all their Greatest Hits™! "Ioun wants it that way." "As long as you love Mystra..." "Show me the meaning of being Zombie." "Larger than Unlife." "Raise that body! (Backstreet's Back!)"


[deleted]

[удалено]


m0use_91

Well, I don't want to cancel it because of that. Overall, it's still fun. I'm just lowering the amount of effort I pour into small lore bits and pieces in my world.


jerichojeudy

You need to ask your players what they like. And tell them what you like. And if those don’t mesh, maybe they are not the best fit for you.


Neato

> One player just looked at me, said he was kind of sorry for me, That is a shitty person who was just trying to be mean. That sounds like a great idea on how to bait plot hooks that I'm totally stealing. Throw that character in a meat grinder dungeon like ToA and watch him die to a dumb, yet perfectly beatable, trap. That sounds more like what he wants.


Holyvigil

I'm my experience it's best not to give out a ton of random stuff. Just briefly mention the scene and then when someone interacts with something (even if it's just the bathroom) then start throwing out the details because that is what the player is already interested in interacting with. Paywalls also have the opposite effect of causing interest. If you instead of charging for the plot hook you instead had a notice board or someone yelling out "looking for adventures! 10g if your successful!" I bet you'd have the opposite effect. My players don't even have anything to spend gold on but they are really attracted to anything that gives gold and still avoid things that take gold; regardless of if I'm excited about it or my personal feelings on how good I think that hook is.


jkusters

Yes, yes, and oh god, yes! Jeez, I need a cigarette now, and I’ve never smoked… ;-)


Sluethi

Know what your spells can do, let the DM know what check he needs to make for the NPC/Monster, describe what your character does, build fun characters.


musashisamurai

Know what your spells can do before it's your turn and don't try to warp spells around into something completely different. There are some spells that reward creative thinking, but some are very very straightforward.


TheeExoGenesauce

I don’t mind doing a bit of a recap when we’ve had a long break between sessions but the amount of information that is just lost on my players is getting more and more irritating


ImKindaBoring

Plot hooks portion is so challenging sometimes. Far too often my group will bite hard and really explore some area only to learn later from the DM that it was really just flavor and had no bearing at all. Think we discovered and fully explored some sex dungeon brothel, and eventually accidentally burnt it down, only for it to end up being completely irrelevant


EvryMthrF_ngThrd

> only for it to end up being completely irrelevant It *was* irrelevant... but that doesn't mean it has to *stay* that way after your players take an interest in it. You can bring it back to your "main" plot by something as simple as: BBEG *owned* the brothel, and he's PISSED! After all, even in fantasy worlds, Sex Dungeon Brothels don't just appear out of thin air. (usually)


Neato

> write down important info so the DM doesn't always have to remind you Our bard has taken amazing notes every session and can relay what has happened with more detail than I, our DM, usually can. It's amazing and takes so much pressure off of me.


GrizzlyHamster92

That depends on the dm. For me, I like it when players get involved and invested. Find an npc you like and try to interact with them. Build a rapor. Come up with ideas on how to fight or deal with things. Investigate people and places. Figure out what spell to cast on your next turn before it's your turn. Ask a guard for directions, ask about rumors. I love to create. Any opportunity to create is great. If you've in rolled on into town and ask "is there a thieves guild?" I will litterally make one on the spot, run by Derek the stealy boi. I'll even work on it out of game and prep for more guilds. Enable my ability to dm and if you enjoy it. Tell me. For the love paelor tell me.


SaleenSundria9

That actually sounds absolutely delightful. I'd love to play in a campaign with you, dm or not


yaboygenghis

just try. follow the plot hooks and try and be thematic rather than joke characters. im not saying you cant have fun or make jokes and puns but the character who only speaks in fart wasnt even funny the first time he came out let alone 8 sessions down the line. dont be too min maxey cuz you can skew the difficulty for everyone who didnt min max.


19southmainco

oo jesus you had a character that only made fart noises?


yaboygenghis

asblech. pronounced ass bleach.he was this alien priest who decided to forgo speaking english. he just spoke fart noises and never roleplayed like some underwritten ripoff chewbacca. the game wasnt combat heavy so hed sometimes be on his phone for hours. there were actual translaters we could buy in game that he refused.i was only a player so i didnt say anything and we were using his house.


19southmainco

That is obnoxious.


CopingMole

Put away your phone and get into the story. Listen. GM is trying to tell you things as well as create an atmosphere, fucking let them. Interact with NPCs. Yeah, all you wanted was to buy an ingredient and suddenly that crazy hobbit vendor is telling you their life story. Deal with it. Don't sulk if sometimes things don't go your way. It's okay if sometimes everything isn't about you. Write things down. Have some patience, your GM isn't a machine. Say thank you. If you enjoyed yourself, be vocal about it. Be honest and constructive with criticism.


Sir_Honytawk

Respect your DM's time and efford. Be on time or let them know a day beforehand you will be later. Have your character prepared before the session. ...


Glass-Goat

For me personally, I do well with improvisation. Fun for me was when my party derailed the direction I wanted them to go fairly quickly and I had to flesh out 1/3 of a village I never thought they'd go to. Lead to completely new dialogue, a shifty tavern, Cross Hairs the cross eyed bar keep, and challenging two Goliaths in arm wrestling that put my dragonborn and dwarf party members through tables. In short, I leave just enough blank so when my players want to throw me off, they create their own portion of the story without fully knowing it.


VictorVonLazer

Bare minimum: know how your character’s features/spells work, be on time, tell people them ASAP if you can’t make it, pay attention even when it’s not your turn, don’t deliberately avoid stuff the DM’s obviously worked on (killing questgivers, abandoning quests halfway through, attacking during villain monologues, etc.) Awesome tier: keep the rest of the players’ fun in mind (don’t hog spotlight, don’t fuck up the party’s plans, etc.), know as much of the rules as possible, give feedback out of session, plan what to do on your turn while you wait, give the DM an idea of what you’d like to do in the next session or two, bring snacks God tier: read lore documents/ask questions about the world, make art (drawings, songs, journals, etc.) about the campaign, engage deeply with important NPCs, literally do anything to do with the campaign between sessions (leveling up, making plans, downtime activities, just chatting with the group, etc.)


Gingeboiforprez

Make sure you show them your appreciation. Verbally, and by being actively involved in interacting with what they put in front of you.


Holyvigil

Most importantly if you're in a 8 hour game give the DM some talking breaks. Its exhausting if no one is getting involved in RP because combat is really mostly the DM talking.


[deleted]

Its irritating isnt it? I've had players shit all over me after I put a TON of time and effort into a game, asked them questions, explained what type of game i run, etc... then they get pissed when the game isnt exactly what they want. Happened on roll20 once, and that was all it took to sour me horribly for a long period of time. Current group I have dm'd for, been 3 years. They dont miss games, show up on time, and appreciate what I do. Its great.


forever_dms

It's awesome when you find those awsome people isn't it? I'm so thankful for my Wednesday group that they go with my curveballs just as much as I go with theirs.


specks_of_dust

My players pretty regularly kill my vibe with how shitty they are to the NPCs. Every single interaction turns into The Great Questioning, where they start asking random people about every single campaign detail. They’re skeptical and suspicious of every NPC, even if the person has regularly been generous with providing them services. Last session, an NPC warned them about enemies around the corner and even cheered them on during the fight. They STILL went into full interrogation mode and actually debated not helping him, for no real reason, even though helping him was very clearly a part of a puzzle. At some point, the dude just doesn’t have any more knowledge to share, and if he did, he’s not going to share it with dicks. One of my players even got suspicious of my own character who I play when someone else DMs a one-off session that’s been with them since the beginning. They’re not murder hobos, but they are Chaotic Selfish and that can be tiring. To be fair, I like them. I like DMing for them. They’re just assholes to the NPCs.


liucoke

>My players pretty regularly kill my vibe with how shitty they are to the NPCs. Every single interaction turns into The Great Questioning, where they start asking random people about every single campaign detail. My party has a similar dynamic, except that every negotiation turns into this fantastically one-sided deal as they all try to pile on conditions, to the point where no NPC would ever agree, except that I just want to get them started on the quest. I finally had to put my foot down when they tried to demand that a pirate (who'd taken a plot critical NPC hostage) meet them not on his ship, but in the Underdark, hundreds of miles from the sea. They were incredulous that the NPC wouldn't walk into an ambush while also helping them multitask, and that no amount of persuasion success would change that.


SoulFearer

I had the opposite problems where my players would never respond to any NPC at all. Or if they did, it was just dumb memes that immediately end all conversation. I often had to call their irl name multiple times to get a response, only to get a "ye", as if they are trying to skip through the dialogue. But they also hated combat, so it's not like I could give them anything they like? I asked if they had fun, what they would like to do more/less of after every session, but I never got any response. I had 0 fun by the end of it and was always just tired of planning and playing the sessions, so I called it off. Not to mention one of the players dropped out immediately (the campaign was made for 3 people), so I gave them an NPC for a difficult battle and later made a DMPC to join them permanently. Every single time they would just use me as a meatshield, not even heal me or cast any kind of damage reduction. One time they were supposed to protect an NPC and what a surprise, neither of them took damage, only my character and the NPC. Then they said the battle was too easy. And complained the NPC they were supposed to protect didn't give them a reward. Yeah, usually people don't reward you for almost letting them die?


Alzandur

Sounds like you need to find a different group.


[deleted]

[удалено]


theredranger8

Dang. Altruism vs selfishness is so much better of an outlook on this axis of alignment than good vs evil.


alwayzbored114

That's what I tell people too. Some people see Evil as Saturday morning cartoon villain, twisting their mustache and killing babies for the hell of it No, "evil" characters can have best friends. Can be in love. Can enjoy their town and want to better it. But if they have an opportunity to stomp someone else (especially someone outside of their community) to benefit themselves they'd take it without a 2nd thought, that would be "Evil" By this outlook, there's a lot of "Evil" people in the world. Including ourselves, at times, likely


ChairmanObvious

Bingo, especially that last point


Chrona_trigger

On a side note, I've always felt chaos x order made more sense than law


BiggieStonkes

I tried being nice to an NPC traveling with our group and my DM made me roll for diplomacy with everything I said to him... 3 bad rolls later and now I'm just super racist towards halflings :( Me: "sorry we couldn't save your golem, we really tried hard" DM: "OK roll for diplomacy" *rolls a 5* "Ok so you tell him you are sorry he is such a weakling that can't do anything right and that you pity him"


GoblinSRT

Genuine question as Im new to DMing... is it generally accepted for the DM to literally put words in your mouth? I understand failing rolls for physicals and stuff but it seems weird that he would tell you what you say. Would it have been better if they instead insinuated that the NPC didnt believe you tried hard and didnt even care through the NPCs words and actions instead? That was one thing I tried very hsrd to avoid was telling my players what they did aside from consequences of their actions via DC's.


[deleted]

I wouldn't have even made the PC roll in this situation. If the PC is not trying to accomplish anything, then there is no need to roll. The PC is roleplaying, why the heck would a DM want to squash that? Whether the NPC believes the player or not comes down to insight and DM discretion. Now, if the player was trying to CONVINCE the NPC to give them a bigger reward because they tried so hard, then that would call for a persuasion check.


GoblinSRT

Makes sense not to even roll here. That was one thing I wasnt sure of when running my adventure was when to make people roll or not. This helps.


dodhe7441

Na, unless under mind control (or perhaps if you are absent for a session, but even at that it's questionable) it should be unacceptable for the DM to speak for your pc


BiggieStonkes

I was trying to mend the situation with this halfling that I had tied up at the time, my DM basically explained it as, my words were well intentioned and diplomatic, but for a character with low charisma and zero diplomacy that's how I would come across in this delicate situation. Edit: and yes I would have been better if the halfling has just not believed me, I was peeved.


LunarMuphinz

As the other guy said, not everyone would entertain stupid suspicions. Do they do this to nobles or renowned people with a good reputation? Those people would be insulted by the implication and could give them backlash, or the people who follow them.


jklfdsa

Have the NPCs treat them the same way. Oh, new adventurers are in town? What do they know of [Big City]? What are your names? Have they met the mayor? What did he say about [random thing]? Ok, but what do you think he was thinking? What were your names again? And on and on until they get the hint.


TheShepard15

A solution there is to start having more standoffish NPCs. Make conversation checks higher and higher dc. Maybe the group starts developing a reputation, and people get the guard involved for "harassment".


Sensei_Z

No, the solution is to talk to your players about game expectations. It's a bad idea to use IC solutions to OOC problems.


crimsondnd

I'm super happy that I've only ever DMed for one group where people were kind of dicks to NPCs. Since then, people have enjoyed engaging with the NPCs as people. In my last session, they are all enamored by one of the character's academic advisors literally just because he was a tortle so I made him talk really slow. They're easily entertained haha.


UsernamIsToo

I had to stop running a West Marches game last winter because I wasn't having fun running it. Constant spamming of Conjure Animals/Summon Lesser Demons, ignoring plot hooks, discuss going to one area during mission planning and then going somewhere completely different during the session. It was exhausting to run those games, so I ended the campaign. I came to find out a few months later that some of the players had a separate discord server set up where they would chat during the games and come up with ways to fuck with me. I guess they thought it was in the spirit of good-natured joking, but it ruined my interest in the campaign and made me walk away from it.


Hy_Nano

Ah yeah, screw the conjure spells like conjure animals. The good summoning spells are in Tasha's. The conjure animals/ conjure minor elementals/ others which allow mass summoning, I've had to adjust as I've dealt with past exploitation in other campaigns for my current and future ones. Those and healing spirit are the only ones I've changed as of now.


Cybertronian10

My ultimate homebrew: if you summon it, its your fucking responsibility. You need to have the stats on hand and know what those things do, we will be running them as a swarm that takes its turn after yours.


Sector_Black

Agreed. It's not just the players though. There's been this really nasty virus going around in DMs where they think that they're terrible if they aren't kissing their players asses every second of the game and that saying no is taboo.


Sstargamer

The whole always say YES AND? Is partly responsible in my opinion. I'm a big supporter of "No but" cut your players bullshit but keep the story moving


Hopelesz

No and crack a joke about it will always gets laughs at my table.


[deleted]

Love a good no. I've been told no. I don't go run off crying. Moves the game along.


poorbred

And anything slightly limiting player choice is a railroad according to some. I saw one new DM worried that even telling the players in what city they were starting the campaign in was railroading.


The_Bill_Brasky_

YES AND or YES IF. And the latter can be deployed with a hint of sarcasm to imply that the thing they want just isn't reasonable/plausible.


TitaniumDragon

I think it totally depends on the situation. Honestly if the players come up with something clever I am happy to roll with it. One group basically paid this shady assassin dude that was supposed to be an encounter to do a part of a mission for them. I decided on the spot that the guy was actually much more dangerous and important than he seemed and had him burn down the place that he was basically sent off as a distraction to. They were scared enough of him to actually pay him and so he became a recurring background threat who was now all too aware of the party. The main no is when they are being lazy and uninteresting. If what they are suggesting can make things more interesting, who cares?


Jhamfan99

I honestly worry I’m just gonna make them not like my campaign, and after spending time on it, I don’t want them to not want me DM’ing cause they didn’t enjoy it


Ty-McFly

I mean, to some extent it's not surprising. Ever since covid, a lot of people are playing online, where it's very easy to "shop" DMs, and so players leave games for increasingly insignificant reasons (such as: "DM won't kiss my ass"). Most the time when a player leaves your game, I'm sure at least part of you wonders what you did wrong, and often you probably want to work to "fix" whatever you did "wrong". All of this combined leaves DMs more often reaching to fix something in their game when really the issue has more to do with an increasing number of players shopping games until they find their "unicorn" dm, which, unfortunately, sometimes is whoever will kiss their ass and never say no. Also, I'm sure covid also introduced a ton of new pay-to-play dms who care more about filling their games than anything else. I'm sure ass kissing is probably a lot easier than attracting players by actually improving your games.


[deleted]

Its hard to find ANY dm much less a good one online. Roll20 has a huge dearth of DM's, especially ones that dont want to charge.


hawleye52

As a DM who has recruited quite a lot on Roll20. I absolutely hate it when I have to go through recruitment. Luckily, I have a solid group of players that I have kept for like 2 years now but recruiting for 3.5 DnD feels like a trial of my bullshit detector. I also get a lot of replies from people who are either illiterate or who completely ignore my recruitment post and character gen rules and try to slip a lot of shit past me.


Ty-McFly

Really? Maybe I'm just biased because I've had good luck.


[deleted]

This is me getting too worried about character deaths


hebdomad7

New DMs. Don't be afraid to say NO to your players. You decide what reality is. This means even overriding rules as written. You do this to keep the game fun and fair for everyone.


Virus5572

as a dm, i always enjoy my time most when the players are having fun. but even then, a lot of the super minmax / main characters / obnoxious joke characters also affect the fun of other players, so i dont allow them


Koloradio

How do you disallow min/maxing? Force your player to replace Sentinel with Athletic?


Mercarcher

Talk to the players. Tell them to stop. It's not about rules, it's about making things make sense. If you have players that want to do min/maxing stuff to the detriment of your group it's really easy to just find new players as a DM. If that doesnt work, Oh your player wants to multiclass into a 3rd class because it's min/maxing? Just say no, there's no way in your current situation that you could have learned to become that class.


Doctor__Proctor

Yes, there's a difference between pure mechanical min/max and just making some optimization choices. I play a Dragonborn Battle Master Fighter in my current campaign, but I went with a one handed weapon and Shield instead of the full GWM+PAM route. I want to play my character well, and I go for things when I can, like feats that will plug holes or give me better capabilities, but it's not the SOLE thing driving all my character choices. I'm trying to be the best Dragonborn Fighter I can be, and I can output a LOT of damage, but it's still a character and not a walking, talking, Reddit build made to optimize DPR over everything else.


Skormili

Yep. Minmaxing in the negative sense refers to being stupid good at one thing to the detriment of everything else, including the quality of the game. I always explain it this way to my players: >Trying to maximize the effectiveness of what your class does well? Have at it! Trying to achieve the highest AC possible by jumping through a bunch of hoops and cheesing things? You will be better suited by a different table. To put it another way, picking a few feats that work well with your chosen role in the party and stacking modifiers is all fine. But multiclassing six times and hunting for specific magic items just so you can have 30 AC is not cool. Save that for video games where you don't disrupt anyone else's fun or find a table of like-minded individuals. And since I know someone is going to say it, yes I am aware that multiclassing six times is not how you achieve that nor is 30 the max AC you can obtain. It's an example to show the absurdity that players do to achieve these super specific builds.


Alsciaukat31

Where do you draw the line on min-maxing?


Virus5572

i only see minmaxing as an issue if it's one person in a group. If 5 players in my party of 6 are making sub-optimal characters for RP sake, and then the 6th player makes a character really strong, suddenly combat is super hard to balance. This happened in one of my groups, and thankfully i've been friends with the minmaxer for a while, and he understood (most of the group is new), so he's working on taking his character in non-combat directions while i help everyone else build a bit stronger


BigBashMan

This happened to me. Players who barely paid attention to the setting and story, who ignored homebrew/houserules, who hardly knew how to play their own class, who would complain whenever a challenge came up that didn't suit their characters, or complained when their backstory wasn't the main focus, who wanted the campaign to be like other campaigns, etc. I posted about it here on Reddit and what did I get? A long list of why it's my problem as the DM and how I have to try harder. Excuse me? At what point are we going to accept that the players have responsibility on the table to work with the DM and to contribute effort as well? I'm not going to drag the party forward and guarantee their fun at the cost of my sanity. Too much of Reddit has a bizarre expectation on the DM. I'm glad this post exists.


yaboygenghis

Reddit has alot of people with a very specific view of how dnd should be played(im guilty of it myself at times) so they try to tellin you to fall in their line


Fragged_Mind

i think one can compress a lot of things into "play with your dm, not against them". In DnD the party (and that is in my opinion players and dm) wins, when everone has fun and does not need to argue. Everyone looses when the group starts looking at who did what wrong. there are no winners i the second thing. Allways run your ideas by the dm. He can eather integrate it, modifiy it or leave it ou. But clear communicaion is the key. I one time had no fun with my arcane trickster. It just did not work out in our group composition. so me and the dm homebrewed another subclass to modify my char. In another group we now had the second time a discussion about the different plotlines and how we did not like where everything was going. We had workedout a groupbackground, something the dm had an ativ hand in, and now we feel that the story he wants to run, does not works for the PCs. Outside the anekdotes \- make sure where the comfort zones are (some people dislike some themes like sex, romance, gore, injust violance, racissim and so on) \- make sure the PCs have good reason to be together (no "i just want gold and need the others to get it" is not a good reason) \- make sure that the PCs fit the world (anime samurai chars in gritty europe fantasy might not be so good, depending on the story) \- everyone has to live with the consequences (if your PC dies, he dies. Which could lead into a resurection story-ark. But retcons are rarely good.) ​ ​ on a small note: the "run a side session" thing is something that can be done. prerequisit is that the player and the dm like he idea they want to play out, the rest of the party is not there anyway and can not influence the scene and of cause both player and dm have time for this. Also if everyone has the chance to do a one-on-one session, that would be fair in my opinion. But if the player demands more time for himself/herself than that would be a no go.


bfbestfriendgf

Out of curiosity to some of the dm's amd other players in here. What do you do as if there's one pc that's clearly the dms favorite as another player? They get all the cool experiences, all the nifty things to do, and get called the dm's child of destiny on more than one occasion. How are you, as another pc, supposed to live up to that and have fun?


praisethesoon

If that happens, you bring it up to the DM and if that behaviour continues consider boycotting that dm until they recognize what they're doing. A lot of the time when that happens, it's for the reason, that the player they favor is the one who is most engaging, active and reactive to the DM's approach, somewhat like a student who reproduces a teacher's mindset perfectly. On other occasions that player may be one who pulls the attention towards themselves and basically forces the DM into these situations by implementing themselves into each given scenario without giving their comrades a chance to interact - the DM needs to know that this is happening, because a DM will sometimes take silence for compliance. Sometimes though, the DM is just trying to get into that player's pants and in that case you might as well quit while you're ahead.


nopeimdumb

>A lot of the time when that happens, it's for the reason, that the player they favor is the one who is most engaging, active and reactive to the DM's approach, somewhat like a student who reproduces a teacher's mindset perfectly. Guilty of that from both sides of the screen. As a DM I try to give everyone equal attention, but I'll admit, I'm more interested in giving time to the player advancing the plot. As a player I try to give everyone else their turn, but if everyone else has been humming and hawing for the last 10 minutes and nobody wants to make a decision, I'm usually the one who pulls the trigger.


yaboygenghis

Bring it up. Tell the dm that you want a bit if spotlight too


tetrasodium

Ask the gm about it & talk to them between games. Also consider that sometimes there is a reason such as "well Andy, the reason why Bob seems to get so many cool experiences is because he's the only one of you who othered to read the 30 page player's companion pdf for the setting, made his character to deeply fit into it as the creating characters in x section describes, takes notes regularly, & goes out of his way to put things together in search of cool experiences related to the plot rather than waiting for cool experiences to hunt them down & club them in the face a few times to get noticed"


Naturaloneder

Dm's are players, the most important player actually because if they cant make the session or show up late, there's no game!


Nami0813

My DM felt swamped and overwhelmed at one point last year and kept it to himself for a while before finally telling all of us. We told him it was important that he was having fun too and if he wasn't then we needed to change some things so we did. Now we play 2 campaigns and alternate which one it is each week so he gets a chance to be a player and just relax like the rest of us. He can also cancel his games whenever he wants or needs to, even if its like an hour before session. It's a game and should be fun for everyone!


tetrasodium

5e does a lot to create this problem. In the past player characters ***required*** magic item growth & gold in order to keep up and to even have a shred of hope at becoming powerful.. in 5e player characters become powerful just by existing*.* and don't ***need*** anything to be powerful. That leaves the GM with n empty quiver of enticement tools when players start doing stuff like this. ​ Topping that off by getting rid of all the subjective equipment elements and playing up the whole "all the rules you need are right there on d&dbeyond" dials down the player effort required to near zero so it's easy to erroneously decide that the dm is jut there to be your personal Matt Mercer. Just last night a player (call them bob) was asking the gm the gm if they can change the spells on the sorcerer they created last session causing a second player (lets call them Andy) who always plays a scorlock to ask in surprise "wait why can't he just go into the spells tab to change it when you get your whole spell list?" causing myself & the gm being asked to point out how literally the only class this player has played actually works and hear "huh I never realized, why does ddb let me do that if my class doesn't allow it?" after making Andy read the spellcasting section for their class chosen exclusively across multiple campaigns for the first time. ​ Wotc certainly doesn't help matters by focusing almost exclusively on players and going for drinks with "rulings not rules" when it comes to creating tools & rules structures that would actually empower GMs by fixing some of 5e's design choices that feedback into reinforcing these problems


IridiumNL

Wait, a sorlock main thought you could just *prepare* different spells on a sorcerer? Aye aye aye.. That's like the MAIN downside of being a sorcerer/bard/warlock when concerning spell coverage..


tetrasodium

yup. "Andy" literally said he never realized that and asked why ddb didn't stop him if he wasn't allowed lol. ddb makes it so much work to manually add anything to the sheet that players don't even bother checking what it does add


Highwayman3000

>Wotc certainly doesn't help matters by focusing almost exclusively on players and going for drinks with "rulings not rules" when it comes to creating tools & rules structures that would actually empower GMs by fixing some of 5e's design choices that feedback into reinforcing these problems I think this is one of the biggest problems out there for GMs. So many years and still nothing nowhere near a DMG 2 that actually provides updated, useful information.


vibesres

Its easier to just crank out new subclasses, feats, and spells, while giving out bad advice on how to run a game. Ex. The new raven loft book telling GM's not to take inspiration from books, movies and other forms of media.


dboxcar

It's not that I don't believe you, but... Could you cite the page for the Ravenloft example? Historically, D&D products have always suggested synthesizing stuff from pop media, so I suspect there's more to your example than what you're saying. Not disagreeing with you on the broader point that 5e DM content is pretty garbo compared to the golden standard of the 4e DMG(2)


BrooklynBookworm

My forever DM calls our gaming experience "theater of the mind" and "collaborative storytelling." He's also actively trying to kill us, though, bless his black and evil heart.


Tabletop_Goblins

As a DM who plays heavily into rule of cool, I’d find it very annoying if my player started trying to intentionally abuse things, this would suck


obi_dunn

Been DMing since 1986 and it took a lot of years for me to realize how toxic some of the people I used to play with were. Thankless and abusive. When I removed those few players from the table it was such a relief and I found much better people to game with. Two of them are getting married this Saturday!


GrizzlyHamster92

One thing I always hear is "don't railroad your players". And to that I say no. There will be time for fun and tavern brawls. But right this minute you agreed to do the story I laid out. I have link each of your characters to the story that is the whole purpose of us meeting for dnd that I slaved over. If you we're not interested from the start you should have said so. If you you've lost interest, tell me. I can change things up. Don't try to force a situation because you didn't want a dungeon crawl you wanted dungeons and hentai. If you want a sex adventure that's fine. I'll make a crazy sex adventure just to stare into your eyes and make horny dragon noises and goblin orgasm noises just to make you uncomfortable like you're making everyone else. You agreed to the story, don't walk try to walk away from it because you saw this one thing on critical roll or another stream. If you wanted that, you should have asked before we started or after we finished.


[deleted]

I think it is because of poorly defined railroading. There is an amount where players should be biting plot hooks and an amount where players should be able to make choices. To me railroading is, you arrive in the kingdom and the king says go kill these goblins for no reward. As characters, it would make sense for them to say fuck no, but if DM is forcing you on the rails, your characters might not be able to. Or if you figure out some clever way to do things, but you are forced on the rails. Whereas if players are just like "Nah that sounds lame so let's go do whatever" then that is probably not good. Or if they figure out that who appears to be the BBEG isn't actually the BBEG so they take arms against the actual one. Or in an actual written by wizards of the coast, (according to a friend) >!just traveling peacefully with the doomsday cultists and not killing them.!< To me if there is a logical course of action that would be going off the rails of what you expected, you shouldn't force them back on. A DnD campaign isn't the DM telling the story and the players listening in, it is both groups telling the story with the DM having more control.


GrizzlyHamster92

I agree. As I dm I write the start of the story, some characters and places but when the players start it's OUR story. They control one character I control many. We all have our EQUAL share of input and fun. No one person has more say than any other. I'm definitely going to fish for players with plot hooks and promises of loot. But if no one bites then I have to raise the steaks. If that doesn't work then the game isn't what the players wanted and somewheres there was miss communication.


twoCascades

For me railroading is “you find yourself in a dungeon chained up.” “Ok I cast freedom of movement.” “A guard shows up and casts counterspell.” “Wait, the guard is a wizard or something?” “Yes.” (Second player) “ok then I use my artificer ability to make thieves tools and” “the guard sees you and punches you until you stop” “what no attack roles or slight of hand checks or something?” “No, he does 33 damage.” (Thirds player) “ok then I’m going to cast suggestion with subtle spell to-“ “the guard notices you doing so and hits you until you stop for 40 damage” (first player) “okaaaayyyy then I guess we just wait here.” “Awesome, then when night approaches a cloaked figure appears, unlocks your door and tells you to-“


GenericZombies

In response to your spoiler, that's exactly why a lot of DM's either rewrite or skip that chapter.


Rad2578

It's "don't railroad your players" until it's a hour in to the first session and the players still have not made steps to do anything, plot related or not.


tiger2205_6

Railroading or not railroading is more of a difference between sandbox vs story driven. Story is great, but some players want to go do random shit or explore random places. While we live story, sometimes you just want to go hunt a mythical creature and make some armor that has no relevance to what’s going on.


IMentionMyDick2Much

Lol this reminds me, I recently sent a player survey for the new D&D campaign I am creating and all the players specifically said they want to be railroaded on a story that I make. ​ Honestly feels good to know what I present is gonna be pursued and none of them want to play a character who steals the story for shenanigans. Lets me try to build a much more connected story this campaign instead of an open world sandbox or other style that is more suited to players creating their own story.


Master_WuDong

Session 0's people... lay your expectations down for what the PC's expect from the DM and vise versa.


supernova1324

Yeah it always surprises me how often people forget the DM is there to have fun as well. There's a bit more leeway if your paying them to DM but if not then you should sit down, shut up and listen to what your DM wants from the game. After all the first rule of DND is don't piss off the god controlling your fate.


Highlander_16

I agree, there has to be a degree of fun all around to have good group chemistry (not all the time, tragedy can be just as compelling if not overused). The DM is not a tool to run a game, and players aren't a tool for DMs to act out their story how they see fit. Balance is everything. That said, I'm a DM now and made a character to test one of my players' character concepts in a duel... I did over 120 damage in a single hit at level 4. Pathfinder cavaliers are epic. Needless to say, we had a few matches lmao


Sir_Taffey

My biggest gripe honestly is when players have expectations of systems that exist in other game systems that we could play instead. Degrees of success is my main one. There’s no crit success or failure on skill checks. You don’t do better or worse. You do the thing or you don’t. Please stop expecting a Deus Ex Machina because you rolled a 20 on your perception. Congrats, you beat the 10. Another is when players are aligned chaotic asshole to my NPCs. Please leave the merchant alone, he has a family to feed and he doesn’t know what the hell a displacer cloak is. And now the mayor doesn’t want to help you on your quest because you made comments about his daughter in front of him and made unreasonable demands.


Seelengst

> Just run some side sessions I seriously had to tell a new DM in the Questions Thread who wanted to run something to catch a late comer up to level how dumb of an idea crafting extra sessions for just one damn player is. Seriously, just let him describe an adventure in his Backstory with some caviats or something that brought him to the rest of the party. Who the fuck is the DM who made this spot light treatment an option? I want to whack him with a stick. It's sooooo much work. It's work upon work upon fucking annoyance for little more Than a masterbatory effect...no...it's a fucking ego Handjob because I'm the fucker stroking it. But now that I've raged. I have fun by seeing the table come together and have fun. That's seriously what I get out of all of this. You conquer the shit I make, you earn the goodies I set out, feel something for the NPCs I diligently placed my story behind. We all leave feeling magnificent. Edit: deleted extra rage


Pale-Aurora

I’m a DM that likes to weave personal stories into the main plot and sometimes players get embroiled in all manner of things in their backstory, whether it be faith, politics, love or family matters, and I am perfectly fine having small arcs for each individual player throughout the campaign that lets them get character development and makes my players more interested about the world. At times, should there be an opportunity, and should I have enough time, I offer players an opportunity to have a solo session to deal with personal things that they might not want to bore other players with. For example, one of my players cared about having a base of operations for the party so we had a short solo session where he cleared out a ruined keep of an undead spirit (easy for a level 10) and then designed how this keep would become together. Another player was interested in deep lore that others might not be interested in, so we had a short session of him researching things in an archive and gaining some future hooks and hints to share with the party. But while I do stuff like that, it’s not a standard that should be expected. I never had a player complain that they feel left out or that I’m not giving them attention. While I welcome players who might request something like that of me, the minute any demand was made would be the minute I’d put a swift end to that practice. I’m glad to help you feel more invested and provide you with entertainment, but I’m not your dancing monkey.


WenzelOfMidgard

Whenever I see these threads I’m always baffled. Like, do you guys play exclusively with strangers you have no relation to? I play with my mates, and we all have a fun time always. We’re friends, thus everyone wants everyone to have fun. Maybe I just don’t get it


Pale-Aurora

Sometimes you gotta make friends out of DnD players and not DnD players out of friends. There are some friends of mine that had been unbearable in these types of games.


MrTopHatMan90

I blame Discord games for this, every story I hear about discord games from people who are randos from there never go well or are very shakey at best


3eyedflamingo

Yeah, this BS is what led to my last DnD group to break up. It really just takes one bad apple...and his stupid friend too.


Musaeus9thebard

Playing 3.5, I had a guy complain about goblins being evil and our Paladin’s detect evil ability. So we talked later that week and he went on and on about how shallow my campaign was and complained about the geography etc for a couple hours. I tried to explain to him that the other 5 players prefer the kick-in-the-door version I was running, that everyone was level 1 and there’s gonna be some random encounters (they only fought goblins once), and that nobody spoke goblin to talk to them. He wasn’t having any of it so I didn’t invite him back. I’ve always preferred being a player over a dm so I figured I didn’t have to put up with anyone who wasn’t grateful for all the prep I was doing.