# DM tips - what makes a good DM?



## Myth and Legend (May 27, 2009)

Hey everyone. I haven't posted outside "Talking the Talk" and "Playing the Game" but my topic has no place there, so.. hello  I'm new to PnP/PbP games, the only RPGs played before being PC games (not the full RP experience by a long shot, as i learned)

So then, off i went and joined half a dozen games, and seem to be doing ok so far. And now, thoughts of me DMing my own game become more and more frequent. See, with stories and characters i have no problem - I am sure i can make this interesing. But, what do you veterans say, must one learn prior to taking on the responsibility of DM-ing? What adivce would you give? What should i avoid, what should i expect of the PCs? I am more interested in character development and role playing than hack-and-slash dungeon crawling. Thanks!


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 28, 2009)

Myth and Legend said:


> But, what do you veterans say, must one learn prior to taking on the responsibility of DM-ing?



Nothing.


Myth and Legend said:


> What adivce would you give?



Communication is the most important single factor imo, particularly at the start. Explain what sort of game you plan to run, ie lots of roleplaying, not much combat. Find out what sort of game the players are looking for.


----------



## Myth and Legend (May 28, 2009)

Well surely there will be combat and trinkets! And if the group chooses to they can fight anyone - i am not planning on restricting them. What i meant by not being a dungeon crawl is that i don't plan to take them trough weeks or months worth of combat sequences without any talking or party/npc interaction.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (May 28, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Nothing.
> Communication is the most important single factor imo, particularly at the start. Explain what sort of game you plan to run, ie lots of roleplaying, not much combat. Find out what sort of game the players are looking for.



This bears repeating.  Some gamers prefer a Beer and Pretzels game over in-depth storytelling.  Nothing destroys a game faster than players and DM being on different pages on the subject.

Aside from that, I think the only advice I'd give is to not become too attached to any grand storylines you may come up with.  Sometimes the players' imaginations take them in entirely different directions, and a good DM has to be ready to roll with it and adjust his own plots as a result.

Ask Piratecat to ask you about the March of the Modrons sometime.


----------



## aboyd (May 28, 2009)

Myth and Legend said:


> But, what do you veterans say, must one learn prior to taking on the responsibility of DM-ing?



Some bullet points:


Expect the unexpected.  You will put a lot of time into an NPC -- maybe a villain, maybe a quest-giver, whatever -- only to see the players ignore/sidestep that NPC.  _Don't railroad_ if you can help it.  Instead, simply reuse your work.  Are they getting actively involved with some _other_ NPC?  Apply your work -- you spent hours statting an NPC, giving it a background and a motivation, then use it when the players want it.  I was joking around with another DM last week, about a group that was quested to clear a small dungeon.  The group approached the dungeon entrance, the wizard cast stone to mud and then reversed it, killing _everything_ in the dungeon in a single round.  I said how disappointed the DM of that game must have been to invest all that time, but the DM I was chatting with laughed & said, "Why?  He just uses that unexplored dungeon for the _next_ dungeon they enter."  And I thought, "Duh, shoulda seen that one coming."
Get comfortable ad-libbing and rule-arbitrating.  This sorta builds on the previous point -- the players will do stuff you didn't plan for, and it's OK to say, "Crap, you stumped me, I need 3 minutes to work up what happens."  It's also OK to say, "I don't need any time to react, but what I'm about to say isn't a permanent house-rule.  I'm going to make a judgment and then look it up later, and make changes for the future if I have to."  I had players (at the end of a particularly uneventful game last month) ask if the local mage's guild would conjure up an illusory monster for them to fight, just for fun.  One player offered to pay for the spell to be cast.  Technically he didn't have enough money, but I said "to hell with it, yes, and if you manage to beat it, I'll even give XP."  Several games later they want to repeat the process, but I'm very comfortable saying that was a one-off, and if they try again it will follow the rules (since I know what the books say about such things now).  You have to be able to do this so that you can balance the players having fun with you own feelings about what's reasonable in your game world.
Get comfortable taking 1 minute to check something or read a paragraph.  Get uncomforable taking 15 (or 30, or 45) minutes to look up rules, discuss something with one player, role-play a single element, etc.  All the players need to be involved, and if you get comfortable having lulls in the fun, the players will get increasingly dissatisfied.
Remember that you're running a complicated game that has dozens of rule books, maybe hundreds or thousands if you allow in third-party splatbooks.  So don't let yourself be run over by books.  There is a way to know it all or most of it all -- spend years running games, never switch systems or versions, and spend lots of time here reviewing what you did.  However, since most people are not that insane, you have to fall back upon your own judgment.  Try to make decisions that are level-headed.  If you make a house-rule on the fly and it hurts a player, think about how to help the player without undermining yourself.  Last Saturday, I was running the players through the Cage of Delirium module (a haunted house) and I didn't understand how the Unhallow effect would work with an evil cleric -- it actually boosts their rebuking ability (my intention was to inhibit the turn undead ability, but that backfired, and I'm OK with that).  So I accidentally gave the cleric command control of some powerful undead.  I told him I needed to revisit that after I had some time with the rules.  This freaked out the player, who insisted he would have played differently.  I wanted to stick to my guns -- I'm not giving 4th level players uber-undead as free henchmen -- but I didn't want the player to feel that I yanked away all his combat efforts.  So in the end I decided that he _does_ have control of these undead, but I set their CR down to something appropriate for his level.  I retain game-world balance, and he gets to have the flow of combat remain unaltered.  Being able to see the rules as malleable helps immensely.  Don't get caught painting yourself into a corner when you have control of the corners themselves.


----------



## Myth and Legend (May 28, 2009)

Thank you all (especially aboyd for that large post). I intend to play PbP and exclusively here in enworld. In which case i can recheck and revisit rulebooks (i would play IRL if anyone even knew what DnD was where i live) but the advice stays true for PbP i reckon.

So, the party could decide to ignore obviously charismatic and important NPCs? Well then, how would you DM this situation:

A big event has happened nearby and the main NPC wants to send the group to investigate. He is way way above their level (think 4 7th level PCs, one 18th lvl NPC) and obviously a threat should they decide to attack him and loot his shiny gear. Similarly, they could refuse the job, but the town doesn't have that much else to offer apart from caravan guarding or vermin extermination (way below their level quest-wise). How could i steer them in the right direction should they prove stubborn, without throwing this NPC in their face and forcing them?


----------



## aboyd (May 28, 2009)

OK.  The powerful NPC bumps into the players in town.  He says, "Heh heh, this isn't really a coincidence.  I've been trying to find you.  I know you're hardy adventurers, and you may be willing to handle something that I do not have the time to do myself.  Here is an explanation of the problem."

Then the players are given the explanation of the problem.

That's one way I might inject the NPC into the storyline.  Now your other question is essentially, "What do I do with their response?"  So let's look at it.


If they actually attack the NPC, have the NPC actually defend himself.  He might just teleport away and eventually guards run the players out of town.  Or he might concentrate his attack on one player, killing that player very quickly as a "message" or hint to the other players.  If they get the message, then you're off & running with a Raise Dead quest -- maybe the NPC offers to Raise Dead, but only if they now agree to do this thing for him.  Or maybe the NPC says, "OK, now there is one fewer of you.  I still want you to do this quest.  Good luck finding someone to replace the dead character."  And then the player rolls up a new character and the game keeps going.  Of course, it's possible for a TPK.  Personally, if players in my campaign attacked a powerful quest-giver and _kept_ attacking after seeing a PC die, I'd invoke Darwin and just allow the TPK.  At that point, they could all roll up new characters, or maybe if there is a cleric in the party, he/she has a meeting with his/her god, and that god offers to send them back for Some Important Reason.  That is actually quite good for the storyline, because now you've injected some Ultimate Goal into the timeline.
If they refuse the job, shrug and let them.  If they haven't heard the details of the job, then simply drop it in whenever they _do_ start talking to a NPC.  Or if they have heard the details of the job and still reject it, try one of two things.  First, you could let them.  They've made choices, the town has a finite number of quests/events, and they've exhausted their options.  At this point, they might need to leave town and find some other place to do stuff.  The campaign will become a series of random encounters for a short while as they make their way elsewhere, giving you time to plot out the next town.  The second option would be to see if they are gunning to try the quest from another angle.  By that I mean, if they didn't like your main quest-giver, are they feeling itchy to find the opposing NPC and side with him?  Are they interested in _undermining_ the original NPC?  If so, you still get to use your materials, but now you'll have players _helping_ the dungeon inhabitants or whatever.
Lastly, don't forget the rule of multiple hints.  It's actually not called the rule of multiple hints.  It's from an article that talks about how DMs should build in multiple people/items that can lead players to a quest or to the resolution of a quest.  It's redundancy to help stabilize the storyline.  Did the players kill an important NPC?  No problem, that NPCs wife has all the info the players need, and if she won't talk, maybe there is a diary with key info.  Do this stuff so that the players can overcome "missing it" once or twice.


----------



## Bumbles (May 28, 2009)

Myth and Legend said:


> A big event has happened nearby and the main NPC wants to send the group to investigate. He is way way above their level (think 4 7th level PCs, one 18th lvl NPC) and obviously a threat should they decide to attack him and loot his shiny gear. Similarly, they could refuse the job, but the town doesn't have that much else to offer apart from caravan guarding or vermin extermination (way below their level quest-wise). How could i steer them in the right direction should they prove stubborn, without throwing this NPC in their face and forcing them?





What event and what PCs do you have?  It's relatively easy if it's religious related and you have a member of some religion in your PC's.  If it's something that could disrupt trade, you can have something the PC's break, go to get it fixed, and then learn that it can't be fixed until something is done.   If the PC's have some family member, well, they can ask.  Or the PC's can get in a fight, and find themselves in jail till they fix the road! 

Or whatever.   But one important thing about your hook is that it doesn't have to come directly from the Main NPC.  They can meet an agent of the NPC.  Or they can meet what you planned to be an agent, but it turned out to be an agent of the enemy of the NPC, who is now trying to kill the PCs because obviously they're working with the NPC.

See how it can work?


----------



## Rechan (May 28, 2009)

Try to say "Yes" when players want something. If it makes your DM senses uncomfortable, go for "Yes, and..." so that you take their idea, but weaken it or apply something else to it. If it's too outragous, try "No, but..." 

When you get to a "no, but...", try to find out what the player _wants_ with what they're asking, and try to come up with a more reasonable solution. For instance, if they want to play some exotic race from some splatbook. Do they want to play that race because the stats are cool? Because the race is cool to them, story wise? If they want the stats, but the race is too strange to fit into your game, take the stats and apply it to something else. If they want the story, but the stats are broken, take the story (let's say, insect people) and give them more mundane stats (elves or halfling stats). 

Something I touched on above, but is much more universal: you can change the flavor of anything to become something totally different. The same numbers can represent anything you need to describe, as long as the numbers line up well enough. The stats for Orcs can become soldiers made of wood, the stats for a flail can be a simple length of chain, a spell can look completely different as long as it has the same mechanics, etc. 

GMing involves negotiation. 

The rules are a guideline. Sometimes you need to bend them or break them. Soemtimes they do not apply to your situattion.


----------



## darjr (May 28, 2009)

Before the NPC even asks, have the PC's get some skin in the game.

Why would they want to do the investigation? Maybe the folks that needs investigating slighted the PC's or stole something from them or are threatening them. That way the high level NPC asking them to go do it is just icing on the cake.

The Chatty DM blogger just put up a post about this...

» Do You Throw Rocks in Your PC’s Puddle?


----------



## Piratecat (May 28, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Try to say "Yes" when players want something. If it makes your DM senses uncomfortable, go for "Yes, and..." so that you take their idea, but weaken it or apply something else to it. If it's too outragous, try "No, but..."



Right. This is the best advice you'll ever get on DMing.  

It's not easy at first, but the results are wonderful. And if there's ever any sort of rules conflict, my default is "what's going to be the most fun for the players?" Mind you, that doesn't mean it necessarily gets decided in a way that is _easy_ for the PCs, but I always default to whatever is coolest. 

Regarding your NPC? Try using less powerful NPCs that the heroes could beat up if they wanted to. Make them important politically, or just nice guys, instead of physically powerful. Then always think about the consequences for what the heroes do. It's possible that an exciting story starts as soon as they ignore your planned adventure and kill the guy giving it to them. 

An example:  Okay, your PCs have just ganked the person giving them their mission. You're panicked and angry. What to do?

Well, you could throw guardsmen at them to try and arrest them. That doesn't usually end well. A niftier solution might to have them immediately designated heroes. He turned out to be very famous, very evil, and very wanted by the law in a nearby country. The PCs get a parade and public celebration. Then all this guy's former colleagues show up seeking retribution... and what if it wasn't really him? Why is he wanted? Are the heroes being set up, and if so, why?

Figure out what your players expect, then turn it sideways. Keep them on their toes. They'll love you for it.[/spoiler]


----------



## Myth and Legend (May 28, 2009)

This is very helpful, thank you all. About making NPCs not as powerful, so that the group could kill them - I am not a fan of that. Just like in real life, there should always exist someone who you should not attack if you have a brain.

If the PCs can go around killing *everyone* or threatening them that's unrealistic. Every tough guy has a tougher guy he's afraid of. Sure, they can kill an important quest giver - and then, they would face some more important (and a stronger NPC). They kill him too, they gain notoriety. And then an epic level NPC comes and splatters them.

Honestly, that's the only ting i would be adamant about. I would allow any book, class, flavor, race, spell and feat, even if they are borderline broken (well no infinite actions or pun-pun), if they are fun for the players. But i would not allow them to feel like wolves among sheep - there always exists someone stronger than you that will not like it if you mess up his plans.


----------



## Piratecat (May 28, 2009)

Sure, but they're _heroes._ Well, assuming they aren't evil. Heroes are, by definition, cooler than the people who surround them. Always having powerful NPCs who can push them around if necessary isn't necessary or desirable, in my opinion. For one thing, the players will start asking why the NPCs don't fix the darn problems themselves... This was the Forgotten Realms problem in 2nd edition D&D, a great campaign with what many people thought were too many powerful NPCs.

My point was also that there are lots of reasons not to attack someone, that have nothing to do with whether they're physically tougher than you are. Maybe they're popular in town. Maybe they know the local crime boss, or the mayor. Maybe they're the best cook in town, and everyone will be pretty darn mad if you hurt them. And maybe they know something you can't afford to lose.

You'll certainly want some NPCs who are more physically powerful than the PCs, of course. There's always a bigger fish. I just wouldn't necessarily closely involve them with the PCs' lives until there's a story reason to get 'em involved.


----------



## aboyd (May 28, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Always having powerful NPCs who can push them around if necessary isn't necessary or desirable, in my opinion. For one thing, the players will start asking why the NPCs don't fix the darn problems themselves...



That's odd.  I so easily hand-waved this.  I think I just said, "They're busy.  They delegate."  And it never came up again.

Clearly, people like your campaign, Piratecat.  So it's working.  I just can't quite get my head around it, as I've never had difficulty shooting off in the other direction.  In fact, having many NPCs who are brutally stronger than the PCs has helped me to _avoid_ difficulties.

Different strokes, and all that.


----------



## Bumbles (May 28, 2009)

Myth and Legend said:


> This is very helpful, thank you all. About making NPCs not as powerful, so that the group could kill them - I am not a fan of that. Just like in real life, there should always exist someone who you should not attack if you have a brain.




While this is true, one thing you may not be understanding is why that's a bad solution to get into the habit of choosing.

It risks making the game unfun.  Seriously, do you want your players to be bludgeoned into doing whatever your Uber-NPCs say because of their power?It'd be like making a save or die roll.   Some of the worst games I've been in have had that sort of thing, and I realize now why that was unfun for me.   Oh wow, something bad happened, I rolled a one.  I died.  How inspiring.

I never played with that guy as the GM again.  Ever.  I just wasn't inspired to try some more.  And just a few weeks ago, I was observing a game where somebody else was GMing, and he had this NPC he was trying to overpower around one of his players.   This led to an argument that the GM was breaking the rules by having somebody far too powerful, and lead to a bit of a blow-up.

Not inspiring either.  He asked me what I thought about it, and I told him, I thought his mistake was getting his NPC into a fight with the PC.  A much better way to handle it would have been something else, like an earthquake, being accosted by another NPC, or almost anything BUT a fight.  

Yes, your concern about the PC's potentially going on a murderous rampage is a problem, it does happen, but if it does, then you may have a more fundamental problem, like a basic incompatibility between what you want and what they want.  In which case, throwing bigger and meaner NPCs than they can handle at them won't work.  They'll just complain that any time they want to do something "fun" you drop somebody on them like a 100-ton plot device to smash them like a bug.

There was a Knights of the Dinner Table Comic once, where BA (the DM) tried to prevent the players from going off the road by having the trees so thick and dense it was impassable.  What happened?  Well, the players insisted on cutting down the trees...you can imagine what a problem it was.  If I'd been there to advise BA, I'd have suggested he have them run into something interesting or useful instead of trying to put up a wall.  Like a bandit camp...with a map to somewhere marked with an X.


----------



## Woas (May 28, 2009)

Say yes, or roll dice.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 28, 2009)

With the uber-powerful NPCs, I think it depends on what they're doing. If they are all in their secret hideouts doing secret stuff, not a problem. But if they are constantly getting in the PCs' faces saying, "Do this or I'll kill you" or, worse, acting as GMPCs, travelling with the party, defeating all the foes and solving all the mysteries, then that's a problem.

It sounds like the 18th level NPC Myth and Legend mentions is fine, as he's only giving the PCs a quest.


----------



## Bumbles (May 28, 2009)

Yes, but he wanted ways to get them to take up the quest without throwing the NPC in their face and forcing them.


----------



## Myth and Legend (May 28, 2009)

Yes i want to find a balance (and this is a hypothetical situation, with the 18th level NPC and all.) I always hated two dimensional villains or heroes, the former always acting like schoolyard bullies ("do this or i'll kill you" "har har give me your items/gold" or "i'll raze this village to the ground, because i'm EEEEVILLL") and the latter being Mary Sue characters that would sacrifice themselves for anything and anyone.

I would certainly *not* be trying to pick a fight with the PCs or force them to do anything - i agree with that. All that i'm saying is, if they do decide to start killing important NPCs (not necessarily *good* NPCs but even ones of an Evil alignment can be of use if they show no malicious intent towards the group) they will have to face the consequences.

Another example, the group has accepted a quest and already is on their way, traveling at night trough the city. They encounter a woman who is very charismatic and eloquent, albeit somehow emanating a dark aura and making the good characters feel uncomfortable. (DM - a Vampire with character levels and slightly buffed CHA). She offers them aid if they side with her an not the original NPC (who may or may not be evil in alignment).

So if they decide to kill her on the spot, her mate will come looking for them and demand an explanation. Mind you, he will still not be attacking on sight, but he would want their assistance as retribution. They attack again and kill him as well. This is ok, as they are presumably loyal to the first NPC.

But if they decide to later swindle both parties and/or ambush and slaughter everyone the NPCs will take action. It is quite unrealistic to assume that everyone but the PCs is a moron and can be taken advantage of and/or killed with ease. Heroes yes, but all-powerful? Certainly not.

Thank you all for these replies you have helped me a lot.


----------



## Umbran (May 28, 2009)

Myth and Legend said:


> A big event has happened nearby and the main NPC wants to send the group to investigate. He is way way above their level (think 4 7th level PCs, one 18th lvl NPC) and obviously a threat should they decide to attack him and loot his shiny gear. Similarly, they could refuse the job, but the town doesn't have that much else to offer apart from caravan guarding or vermin extermination (way below their level quest-wise). How could i steer them in the right direction should they prove stubborn, without throwing this NPC in their face and forcing them?




How would I deal with it?  I wouldn't.  If the PCs don't want to investigate something, then they don't investigate it.  Later on, as that thing they ignored develops, it may well come back to bite them on the butt.  This goes especially in play-by-post, as the game goes so slowly.  You don't have the problem of having a bunch of folks sitting at your dining room table with nothing to do if they don't grab your plot hook.  You can have hours to come up with something else for them to do if they choose to pass on your offering.

Note that in the above scenario (as far as you've described it) the NPC seems to be there only to punt the PCs into the action.  Otherwise the NPC is superfluous.  So, do away with him.  Instead, have the PCs _witness events_ related to what you, the DM, have prepared.  Players usually don't like being given orders, but they love to jump into the fray.  

(If, for example, a Thieve's guild has stolen the Crown Jewels, you could have the local Duke call on the PCs to investigate.  Or, you could have them blunder into the middle of another robbery - the thief they catch is a coward, and is willing to give them a hint that something bigger is up if the PCs let him escape with his life.)

Or, if you really must have an NPC involved, have it be one _weaker_ than the PCs - someone seeking aid in something they cannot accomplish themselves.  Allow them to choose to engage for their own reasons, rather than feel forced to do it.


----------



## Umbran (May 28, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Nothing.




I'll disagree.  There's one thing a GM really should know before he beings - the rules of the game he's using.  You don't need to be a complete master of every little rules detail and nuance, but you ought to be thoroughly familiar with what is possible and what isn't under the rules, both for your monsters and NPCs and for the PCs.


----------



## Rokes (May 28, 2009)

To answer the thread title:

Simply put, a good GM is one that puts the enjoyment of the entire group, balanced between all the players and the GM, before ANYTHING else.


----------



## Hussar (May 28, 2009)

Something to do before your campaign starts.

Sit down with all the players and talk about the campaign.  As was mentioned, outline your expectations for the campaign.  If you want to give the players tons of freedom and expect them to be in the drivers seat, be up front and tell them that.  OTOH, if you are running a more plot heavy campaign, you need to tell the players that too.  

Create the party together.  Don't tell the players, "Go and make a 7th level character and give me the PC's background."  You wind up with an entire party of people that have absolutely no reason to get together other than they all have a big "P" stamped on their foreheads.

Have the group talk about things as a group.  One thing I insist on is that every PC must have at least one meaningful connection to two other PC's.  That way, you have the players come up with reasons why they are together.  Have them build their backgrounds together and it makes things much simpler in the future.

As to the specific question of quest giving - again, this goes back to your first conversation with the players.  Since they have come up with a group background, you know, or at least should know, what that group's motivations are.  Play to those motivations.  If the group is centered around some element, either threaten that element or reward it.   Maybe this town that they are in is directly related to the backstory of the group.  There, instant motivation.  Maybe the group is more mercenary.  Ok, pay them.  Carrots work much better than sticks.


----------



## Gunton The Terrible (May 28, 2009)

Here are a couple of tips:

Although saying "yes" will make you popular with players it may lead to a non-fun game.  Don't be afraid to say "no" to preserve fun for everyone.

Before character creation premise what you want or what you are running.  _You are heroes/good, no evil PCs_.  _This will primarily be an urban campaign._ _Heavy roleplaying and fleshed out backgrounds appreciated._

Not every battle needs to be climatic.  Don't be afraid to let the PCs overmatch a few opponents.

Don't be afraid to kill the characters.  If the players sense that you will not let their characters die, or that you will bail them out of every bad decision or won't allow for bad luck, then the game will suffer.  Roleplaying is at its best when there is conflict and drama.  There is little drama in the life of an invincible PC.


----------



## Bumbles (May 28, 2009)

Myth and Legend said:


> But if they decide to later swindle both parties and/or ambush and slaughter everyone the NPCs will take action. It is quite unrealistic to assume that everyone but the PCs is a moron and can be taken advantage of and/or killed with ease. Heroes yes, but all-powerful? Certainly not.




Indeed, however it's important to remember there's a difference between the PC's going on a massive bloodthirsty rampage and not doing what you want.  I was more giving advice on the latter than the former.

If you want advice on the former, well, I'd advise talking with the players directly rather than handling it in game.  That way you can ask if they want a bloodthirsty killfest like Doom...and decide whether or not you want to provide it.


----------



## Mallus (May 28, 2009)

Gunton The Terrible said:


> Although saying "yes" will make you popular with players it may lead to a non-fun game.



Another approach is "say yes, then add complication and consequences".



> There is little drama in the life of an invincible PC.



Which, of course, explains the success of characters like James Bond, Captain Kirk, the Batman, or the all-to-brief televisual life of Malcolm Reynolds.

There is little drama without consequence. Dying is only one of many consequences.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 28, 2009)

If you avoid the classic GM mistakes then you're well on your way.

1. Railroading. This is making player choice irrelevant.

GM: You're in the wilderness. What direction do you want to travel?
Players: North.
GM: You can't, there's an impassible mountain range.
Players: East
GM: Army of invincible demons.
Players: West
GM: Impassible mountain range inhabited by invincible demons.
Players: South
GM: Congratulations, you find the adventure.

2. Playing favourites. This is favouring one player over the others. Giving him or her better treasure, a better station in life, more favourable NPC responses, etc.

3. Mary Sue GMPC. An NPC who travels with the party but is much more powerful than the PCs. All monsters are slain by the Mary Sue, all mysteries solved and so forth.


----------



## Myth and Legend (May 28, 2009)

*nods* thank you everyone. Great advice!


----------



## aboyd (May 29, 2009)

Umbran said:


> If, for example, a Thieve's guild has stolen the Crown Jewels, you could have the local Duke call on the PCs to investigate.  Or, you could have them blunder into the middle of another robbery - the thief they catch is a coward, and is willing to give them a hint that something bigger is up if the PCs let him escape with his life.



I like this approach.  Quoted for goodness.


----------



## Rel (May 29, 2009)

If you find yourself in a tight spot with no ideas, just ask yourself, "What would Rel do?"


----------



## segrada (May 29, 2009)

Do you guys really GM for groups of people where a murderous-PC-rampage is a real possibility?

Maybe it's just my group of players, but they're in the game to advance the story too.  They're not above using violence and intimidation where it's appropriate of course, but a random burst of insanity where they slaughter a random NPC in cold blood is never really a danger for me.  They want to experience the story that's written, and see/influence what happens next in the plot - and that would be tough if they murder people left and right.


----------



## aboyd (May 29, 2009)

segrada said:


> Do you guys really GM for groups of people where a murderous-PC-rampage is a real possibility?



My players might destroy the entire civilization at level 1 if I allowed them to overrun NPCs.  They have killed each other, assassinated innocent bystanders, cheated, lied, stolen, and generally roleplayed chaotic neutral/evil fairly well.  The _only_ thing that keeps the game from imploding is that they are level 4 and cannot yet defeat the Fiend-Sage of Rel Astra.

I am fine with this.  However, it means I populate the game world with high level NPCs so that entire towns are not slaughtered during our first session.


----------



## Piratecat (May 29, 2009)

aboyd said:


> My players might destroy the entire civilization at level 1 if I allowed them to overrun NPCs.  They have killed each other, assassinated innocent bystanders, cheated, lied, stolen, and generally roleplayed chaotic neutral/evil fairly well.  The _only_ thing that keeps the game from imploding is that they are level 4 and cannot yet defeat the Fiend-Sage of Rel Astra.



Okay, I totally get where you are coming from. We have very different groups of players, and your's also sound fun. Just differently fun.


----------



## segrada (May 29, 2009)

I think I'm more in PC's boat (hah!) with my group of players.  Our folks play DnD in order to roleplay generally good guys, not psychopaths.  Not placing a value judgment on either viewpoint of course.   I just think as a DM I would get very easily frustrated with having to babysit my players lest they stab innocent civilians in the throat at random on the street.


----------



## Bumbles (May 29, 2009)

segrada said:


> Do you guys really GM for groups of people where a murderous-PC-rampage is a real possibility?




I would hope I wouldn't end up in that kind of group.  But it can happen occasionally.

Usually followed by me leaving for other places.

Of course, I've also played with GMs who went on PC murder sprees.

Save or die roll=bad, m'kay?


----------



## Myth and Legend (May 29, 2009)

> Of course, I've also played with GMs who went on PC murder sprees.
> 
> Save or die roll=bad, m'kay?



 Yes thank you for that example, this was another thing i wanted to bring up. At higher levels in 3.5 DnD Arcane magic is arguably the thing that makes and breaks combat. So then, how do i design mid-high level spellcasters to be a challenge but not (as you say) go on a PC murder spree.

I am under the impression that things like Finger of Death and Mordekainen's Disjunction are bad?


----------



## Gunton The Terrible (May 29, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Another approach is "say yes, then add complication and consequences".




I said "do not be _afraid_ to say no."   If you have to follow _every_ request with a "yes, but.." then you missed the point.



> Which, of course, explains the success of characters like James Bond, Captain Kirk, the Batman, or the all-to-brief televisual life of Malcolm Reynolds.
> 
> There is little drama with consequence. Dying is only one of many consequences.




A character in a movie/TV show/comic book is designed to entertain the viewer/reader.  They do not necessarily make good PCs.  Imagine 5 James Bonds all vying for the Bond girl.

Dying is only one consequence, but do not remove it.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 29, 2009)

Gunton The Terrible said:


> Imagine 5 James Bonds all vying for the Bond girl.



That's an awesomely good idea.


----------



## Noumenon (May 29, 2009)

If you would like to see all of the DMing advice ever given on Enworld, it's at http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-dming-advice-links-fixed-july-20-2008-a.html .  You can pick the thread titles that interest you, and read for days and days like I did, and you will still be coming back here going "How the heck do I deal with this?  Is this really how D&D works?"  So don't overdo the prep -- just DM, and then improve one thing every session.


----------



## haakon1 (May 29, 2009)

Two opinions on the discussion here:

1) For the quest-introducer, it doesn't need to be higher level than the PC's.  Anyone can introduce a quest -- a parent with a missing child, townsfolk threatened by monsters, etc. -- it doesn't have to be Elminster.  Quests can also be introduced by the "in media res" method -- starting the story in the middle, with the PC's already in a party together and in a fight -- or by an item (hey, look at this scroll I found!).

1a) Power isn't level.  An NPC can be powerful for political, economic, or social reasons, without having a high level.  For example, the guy who runs the only magic shop in my campaign is mid-level.  However, the people who trade with him are adventurers and retired mages and clerics.  Messing with him is self-evidently a bad idea, not because he's uber powerful, but because the guy who gave him the Staff of Buttkicking to sell is going to be very mad at YOU if he doesn't get the money.  Same goes for militia (police), minor manor holders or merchants, etc.

1b) The reason to not attack a random NPC shouldn't be because the PC's are weaklings.  It should be because the PC's are heroes -- or failing that, because they aren't pyschopaths and treat NPC's as if they were people, or failing that, because they know the campaign is dynamic and killing the manor lord will bring down outlawry (inability to get any help from NPC's) and the full force of the law and bounty hunters down on them.  That is -- have a campaign world and use it as a real world.  It's more fun and emersive for the players than "everybody is too tough to fight".  Keep the PC's special, but not too special -- they still have to live with the consequences of their actions.

2) I'd start the PC's at first level, not 7th.  Especially if the players are also inexperienced, it gives you all a chance to learn the game -- and the PC's place in the game world -- rather than jumping in with too much complexity and power all at once.  Start at 1st level, and you'll appreciate 3rd level, and amaze at the power of 7th . . . (in editions predating 4e, at least).


----------



## aboyd (May 30, 2009)

haakon1 said:


> The reason to not attack a random NPC shouldn't be because the PC's are weaklings.  It should be because the PC's are heroes -- or failing that, because they aren't pyschopaths and treat NPC's as if they were people, or failing that, because they know the campaign is dynamic and killing the manor lord will bring down outlawry (inability to get any help from NPC's) and the full force of the law and bounty hunters down on them.  That is -- have a campaign world and use it as a real world.  It's more fun and emersive for the players than "everybody is too tough to fight".  Keep the PC's special, but not too special -- they still have to live with the consequences of their actions.



Unlike the other points, this makes assumptions about the "right" way to play.  My players are playing D&D to play _villains_ not heroes, so they would chafe under the "act like a hero" and "don't be a psychopath" solutions.  In addition, some of your substitutions for high level NPCs appear to be... more high level NPCs.  For example, to avoid giving the NPC lots of levels, you suggest giving the NPC high level _bounty hunters_ as backup, instead.  That's "six of one, a half dozen of the other."


----------



## aboyd (May 30, 2009)

aboyd said:


> Lastly, don't forget the rule of multiple hints.  It's actually not called the rule of multiple hints.  It's from an article that talks about how DMs should build in multiple people/items that can lead players to a quest or to the resolution of a quest.



I found the article.  It's called the three clue rule.


----------



## segrada (May 30, 2009)

aboyd, if your players are as wantonly destructive as you say, how do you motivate them? If their only driving forces are murdering innocents and plundering loot, then I would claim that nothing can be done to protect "questgiver NPCs," other than to make them powerful enough to not be murdered and plundered.

It seems like the gist of many of these suggestions are "make it too costly to kill this important guy," but using social/moral consequences instead of the more obvious physical ones.  If your players throw social/moral concerns out the window, then the only consequences that remain are those of violence.


To the OP --
Spellcasters aren't the end-all devastation machines they once were, so a way to design interesting encounters around them is to give them support.  Use highly advantageous terrain or traps that the caster has prepared beforehand (since he's likely a pretty smart and diabolical dude).  Have the PCs burst in on him when he's just finished summoning some brute-type demons to help with the fight.  This is true of any controller-type monster that you want to keep alive for more than 3 rounds, really - you'll find that controller NPCs are incredibly squishy, and not very scary by themselves.


----------



## aboyd (May 30, 2009)

segrada said:


> aboyd, if your players are as wantonly destructive as you say, how do you motivate them? If their only driving forces are murdering innocents and plundering loot, then I would claim that nothing can be done to protect "questgiver NPCs," other than to make them powerful enough to not be murdered and plundered.



_Right.  Exactly._  That's why I'm defending making at least some NPCs ridiculously powerful.  And I'm not making them immortal.  I don't like playing @ epic levels, so most important NPCs are level 10-20.  They will eventually be killed off by the players.  Near the end of the campaign, I suspect the climax will be the utter extermination of _anyone_ that ever stood in their way, and then brutal acquisition of power -- enslaving entire towns, etc.  I'll let 'em do it, and even make it "canon" for my campaign.  I'll let those players go with thanks (in a couple of years) get new players, and have them be heroes in this horribly oppressed world.  Their campaign will take 2 or 3 years, and will culminate with the overthrow of the vile original PCs.  Or... maybe those new players will _like_ what the PCs did, side with them, and consolidate power.  It'd be pretty rare to side with your oppressors, but I'd allow it.

And I won't be "toning down" the original PCs when my new campaign starts in 2010 or 2011.  I'll let them remain at epic levels, and if the new players attempt to overthrow them too early, TPK, start over.

To me, this is fun.  To my players, it seems to be a hoot.  Is this not fun where everyone else is from?


----------



## Myth and Legend (May 30, 2009)

It takes you guys *years* to get from 1 to 20+ while playing in real life...  Wow i am new aren't I.


----------



## aboyd (May 30, 2009)

It's about 14 combat encounters to level up (in D&D 3.5), right?  And we do about 3 on average per game session, so after 5 games they level up.  That's 10 weeks IRL, since we only play every other Saturday.  So 3 years after starting, they'll be around level 15-18.

If you're playing weekly or daily or having 24 hour marathon weekends, you should certainly expect to level up waaaaaaay faster.  One marathon weekend would accomplish what normally takes us 10 weeks.


----------



## Rel (May 30, 2009)

One reason for my earlier flippant reply was because I wanted to offer advice as somebody who has been GMing for almost 28 years but I find that much of it is not applicable to a PbP game.  Things like pacing or ignoring rules for a quick resolution in the middle of a session are meaningless in that context.  So there are people much better qualified to offer advice for that medium.

However, from observation, running good combats is not the principal skill required for a good PbP game.  It seems to me that they are much more reliant and focused (in general) on a strong setting that hooks in good players and an intricate plot, laden with hooks, to keep the players coming back for more.

Honestly I don't much care for PbP games for myself.  I feel the need for some level of real-time interactivity with the participants in the game, even if we're not face to face with each other.  But I've played one before and read along with a couple more as they progressed.  The ones that seem to work best start with and maintain a fast pace of posting over an extended period of time.

That is difficult to do with a combat focused game because inevitably you have somebody who can't post as frequently as the others do at a given time.  And the creates a problem because, unless you plan to "skip" them when it is their turn in the battle, you can only move as fast as your slowest person.

Non-combat situations seem far more forgiving in that respect.  The PC's can roleplay off of each other and make a few skill checks without everybody needing to participate at the same level.  To facilitate this you need either a really good plot with lots of interesting aspects to it or really good players who will take any shred of plot and run with it.  You aren't guaranteed the latter so its better to make sure you have as much of the former as possible.


----------



## Janx (May 30, 2009)

As a new GM, (and relatively new player), start at level 1,  Learn the game from the ground up.

Leveling in real RPGs is real time slower than CPRGs.  I suspect that its could be a similar amount of hours spent, but you log 12 hours in WOW more easily than you can in D&D.  This supports my basic XP rule: hand out less XP for more frequent gaming sessions, more XP for less frequent sessions.  People like to see change, and if a session is 4 hours, playing every week, you might not mind leveling up every 4 sessions.  Playing once a month, that would mean only gaining 3 levels in a year.  That means you don't feel like you accomplished much.  So you pad the XP to make the players feel like they're gaining something.  It's a psychological thing.

D&D is not a CRPG.  There's not a literal entity that exists as a "quest giver".  There's no such thing as a quest.  These are all constructs we fabricate.  The sandbox guys would probably more strongly agree with that thought.  In my "I write up an adventure ahead of time" model, I make up a problem.  Usually a bad guy with a plan, a location, minions, and put them in action.  I then work out how many different ways I can make the bad guy's stuff intersect with the players in a fashion that will INTEREST them.

That means I don't use a blunt instrument of the "high level NPC who asks the party to stop the bad guy."  Instead, the party runs into a caravan of refugees who are fleeing their diseased village.  NPCs known to the PCs might talk about rumors of the place.  NPC patrons of the PCs might ask them to look into the matter, or reveal information that the bad guys actions impact the PCs.  For instance, if the players own stock in a tea trading company, it turns out, a profitable flavor of tea comes from that village.  He's losing money every day that village is empty.

The point is, there's not quest givers, there are plot hooks.  You want your plot hooks to be something the PLAYERS and PCs would be interested in pursuing, not being coerced into.

What I find works, is that the first session I bring the PCs together (in bar for example), and then bring on an event that affects the whole party and gets them into the action.  Sweep them up in a problem that directly affects them (the village that the bar is in is under attack by orcs).  No quest giver, it's an event that crosses their path.  This gets them MOVING, and they will then drive the action, by reacting to what I set in motion.  From there, the first adventure is stopping the attack (which might actually just be a raid), and then they will probably track down the raiders, which can lead to a small dungeon crawl.  They find the head orc, fight him, game over, hand out XP.

Then you ask the players what they think they will do next.  You write the next session based on their declarations of intent, mix in some complications and some bad guy shenanigans that have nothing to do with the PCs but crosses their path anyway, interfering with their original plan.  From that, you have a formula for making adventures based on what the players want to do and mixing in your ideas for stories as well.

PbP is slower than molasses.  Combat shouldn't be.  Watch how others do combat in PbP and pick the methods that work the smoothest and fastest.  Also, avoid doing as much combat.  You can't literally stop the PCs from attacking anything, but you can avoid time wasting combats.  Skip the mook fights and random encounters.  PbP shouldd have more role-playing, with sword play being the climax with the villain.

Stopping the random violence by PCs.  Step one, filter out the PCs during char-gen.  Tell them you are running a heroic campaign, no evil PCs.  Evil PCs are less predictable, whereas a good PC will almost always rescue the princess when presented with on that needs it.  Step 2, have consequences for random killing.  Namely, the law.  The difference between having every NPC be high level to protect themselves from PCs, and sending higher level guards after PCs when they kill low level PCs is carrot and stick.  With every NPC being tough, it is an arms race that you have to take ridiculous precautions for, even for a carrot farmer NPC.  Using the guards as stick method, you get to make your NPCs realistically.  Yep you can easily kill that farmer.  But if you do, the cops will hunt you down.  Just like real life.

That's just a few things...


----------



## S'mon (May 30, 2009)

aboyd said:


> That's odd.  I so easily hand-waved this.  I think I just said, "They're busy.  They delegate."  And it never came up again.




As a player I'm not too keen on running minor errands for the uber-NPC who could do it himself far more easily, but can't be bothered because he's 'too busy'.

My last campaign, I took the opposite approach.  King Thongar the quest-giver was old and feeble, the PCs were the kingdom's Big Damn Heroes.  If they refused the missions, the bad guys would triumph and the kingdom go down the toilet.  And the kingdom was a point of light in a world of ruins and howling wilderness.  So the players never had any trouble with their motivation.


----------



## haakon1 (May 31, 2009)

aboyd said:


> In addition, some of your substitutions for high level NPCs appear to be... more high level NPCs.  For example, to avoid giving the NPC lots of levels, you suggest giving the NPC high level _bounty hunters_ as backup, instead.  That's "six of one, a half dozen of the other."




You're missing the point.  The OP's assumption was that the only way to keep her PC's from killing the NPC who gives them a quest -- a goal she announced as wanting to do -- was to make the NPC uberpowerful compared to the PC's.  I was pointing out there are other ways to prevent the PC's from going on a psychopathic rampage -- again, a goal she seemed to already have -- than having every NPC be more powerful.

What I was trying to explain is how to use the campaign setting, the milleau, to make a world where the PC's aren't constantly overshadowed, but also are discouraged from psychopathic destruction of everything in sight.  Discouraged, but not prohibited, much like in the real world -- if you want to kill the first person you meet, you can, it's just there are a consequences, so most likely you won't chose to do that, even if you could "take him in a fight".  That makes more sense than pretending everyone else in the world is an unkillable superhero.


----------



## haakon1 (May 31, 2009)

aboyd said:


> And I won't be "toning down" the original PCs when my new campaign starts in 2010 or 2011.  I'll let them remain at epic levels, and if the new players attempt to overthrow them too early, TPK, start over.
> 
> To me, this is fun.  To my players, it seems to be a hoot.  Is this not fun where everyone else is from?




I do the same thing -- retired PC's that were in Greyhawk are NPC's in my Greyhawk and appear occassionally.  The differences are:
- I never ran an evil party in Greyhawk (did once in Mystara, but that doesn't matter since I'm not playing there).
- Only a few PC's made it to "epic" levels.
- The most significant changes by the PC's were defeating the giants and drow and killing Lolth, not changing the nature of countries.
- The retired PC's are scattered around fairly lightly and mostly in the background.  The current PC's (2 parties worth) have only met:
-- The retired cleric, who is a healer at the national capital's fortress and raised a dead current PC who was brought there.
-- The retired paladin, who is a guard there and occasionally does special missions
-- The retired ranger, who wanders the wilderness near the Keep on the Borderlands

PCs overthrowing retired PC's does sound fun . . .


----------



## haakon1 (May 31, 2009)

S'mon said:


> As a player I'm not too keen on running minor errands for the uber-NPC who could do it himself far more easily, but can't be bothered because he's 'too busy'.
> 
> My last campaign, I took the opposite approach.  King Thongar the quest-giver was old and feeble, the PCs were the kingdom's Big Damn Heroes.  If they refused the missions, the bad guys would triumph and the kingdom go down the toilet.  And the kingdom was a point of light in a world of ruins and howling wilderness.  So the players never had any trouble with their motivation.




Agreed.  Let me think through the origins of the "quests" for my two current parties:
1) Cleric is dispatched by his anonymous superiors to the Keep on the Borderlands to investigate murders along the North Road.  Two friends from a foreign country are traveling the same way, and fall in with him.  At the keep, they discover the problem is humanoid attacks, and recruit more PCs and NPC's, who are local residents, to help investigate the Caves of Chaos.  Later on, on a resupply trip to a nearby city, they meet more PC's in a tavern and have them join up.
2) The Keep having been rescued, a wounded merchant comes in.  He's been robbed penniless, and his daugther and teamsters have been captured by humanoids.  Off the PC's go.
3) The old man in the tower in town, who has been providing training for the PC's and generally runs adventuring groups for the country, wants a job done.  A magic item that creates food would be useful for the war effort -- go fetch.
4) The old man in the tower in town wants another job done.  An isolated neutral town that supplies the dwarven colony in the mountains is no longer in contact with the outside world, and the dwarven company that investigated never came back.  The PC's are Tier 2 escalation for the country's problems now.
5) The old man in the tower in town wants to make the PC's nobility, but he needs them to deal with a current noble who hasn't provided the required troops for the war.  Some lame excuse about orcs and wolves.  Beneath the PC's station, but the real mission is to straighten him out and get the troops moving -- and the hint is the PC's get to keep the manor if the noble doesn't straighten out.  Also, they hear rumors that a bard was singing about their last adventure in town and now has gone up river . . . since the baddy who escaped last time was a bard . . . 
6) The bad guys in the last episodes weren't orcs and wolves afterall, but orcish werewolf commandos trying to cause political disruption.  Some have escaped . . . others were captured and told about who hired them and where they entered the country . . . so the PC's go after them.  Cue the chase and investigation of the infiltration route, which is a whole separate adventure.

Second party;
1) PC's go to a wild party, and are hired by an masked group to take out some bandits.  (Three Days to Kill adventure.)
2) Arrested for possession of stolen goods (from the bandits they killed) and suspected of being members of a rival gang, the PC's are arrested and given a mission in exchange for being let go (much like the scene in "Conan: The Barbarian").
3) Having completed their mission, the PC's are free and rewarded.  They decide to investigate a scroll they found, that mentions a lost dwarven fortress.  The old man in the tower, a retired adventurer, and a dwarven jeweler they deal with all give them clues, and they set out in search of adventure.


----------



## Merkuri (May 31, 2009)

I have some advice from a player's perspective.  I have never DM'd (unless you count the really lame games I ran for just my sister when we were in middle school and had just discovered the game), but these are qualities I value in a DM, or things I enjoy that DMs do.

1) _Try to maximize fun._  Everything you do should be to make the game fun for you and your players.  Think about long-term fun, too.  Things that are fun once may not be fun if you continue to allow them to happen.  For example, preventing a character from dying seems like a good idea, but doesn't maximize long-term fun.  Most people find that losing the threat of dying makes the game less fun.  It's rarely fun to lose a character, but without that threat the whole "fun quotient" of the game goes down.  

It can take you a while to figure out _how_ to get the most fun out of a game, but if you keep this rule in mind whenever you DM you'll be on the right track to being an awesome DM.  It's really the most important thing a DM can do, I think.  Everything should take a backseat to fun.  If a rule is getting in the way of your fun, ignore it, or change it.  That's really why we're all here playing this game, and why the rules were created - to have fun.  If following the rules to the letter is not fun, _don't do it!_

2) _Encourage player creativity._  One of the best ways to do this is to say "yes" as much as possible, but remember tip 1 above - make sure it'll keep the game fun in the long run.  Like others have said, this usually means your "yeses" will end up being "yes, buts" or "yes, ands".  One of the wost things a DM can do is to keep saying "no" to creative players because they'll eventually stop trying to be so creative, and that won't be fun for anyone.

3) _Listen to your players, both to what they say and what they do._  Ask for feedback, and try to take what they've said into consideration.  Try not to take criticism personally.  If a player says something bad about your DMing style they're usually not trying to hurt you, they're trying to make you into a better DM.  

Look at how your players have designed their characters and give them challenges that the characters have been designed to overcome.  If a player creates a character that has a lot of abilities focused around dragonslaying then that player probably wants to fight dragons, so toss in a dragon every now and then.  Try to give every player a little bit of what they want.  You don't have to give everybody everything they want all of the time, but if you can give at least one person what they want each adventure and you keep spreading the "love" around evenly you'll be doing great.

4) _Don't be afraid to change things the players don't know._  I remember reading some awesome examples of this on EN World before, but I can't think of any specific examples right now.  Basically, if you have something planned out and the PCs somehow get it into their heads that something different is going to happen, feel free to wave your magic DM wand and make what they think into the real truth, especially if what they came up with is way cooler than what you had originally planned.  If you get good at this they'll never even know you changed anything.  It makes the players feel smart because they figured out your grand mystery and if their idea was better than yours it can also make the whole adventure more fun.

5) _Make the world react._  The PCs should have a real, tangible effect on the world around them.  Have them overhear NPCs discussing things the PCs have done in neighboring towns.  If they failed to pick up on a quest hook let them find out what happened because they didn't take action.  If they saved a village let them hear events that have gone on in that village after it was saved.  Adding little details to make the PCs know they had some effect on the world around them adds greatly to the immersion and make the players feel like what they did really mattered.


----------



## Tigh (May 31, 2009)

Myth and Legend said:


> I am more interested in character development and role playing than hack-and-slash dungeon crawling. Thanks!




If I may be so bold as to interject here.  A role playing game is about what the players are interested in.  A DM will reserve their real interest and discover the players interest as their own instead.  A role playing game can evolve into a Campaign.  A Campaign is when the players ask you for more.  This is also the clue that players are comfortable and their interests are being realized.  In the presence of this rare gift of permission the players may allow you to start bringing your real interest in.  Even enjoying them.



Tigh


----------



## Rel (Jun 1, 2009)

Tigh said:


> If I may be so bold as to interject here.  A role playing game is about what the players are interested in.  A DM will reserve their real interest and discover the players interest as their own instead.  A role playing game can evolve into a Campaign.  A Campaign is when the players ask you for more.  This is also the clue that players are comfortable and their interests are being realized.  In the presence of this rare gift of permission the players may allow you to start bringing your real interest in.  Even enjoying them.
> 
> 
> 
> Tigh



That is one perspective.

I think that conversely the GM's enthusiasm is contagious and sets the tone for the game.  An GM excited and engaged with the game they are running tends to encourage involvement from the players.  If the GM isn't having fun from the start then the game is already in jeopardy.


----------



## aboyd (Jun 1, 2009)

haakon1 said:


> You're missing the point.  The OP's assumption was that the only way to keep her PC's from killing the NPC who gives them a quest -- a goal she announced as wanting to do -- was to make the NPC uberpowerful compared to the PC's.  I was pointing out there are other ways to prevent the PC's from going on a psychopathic rampage -- again, a goal she seemed to already have -- than having every NPC be more powerful.



No, I'm not missing the point.  I understand that there are other solutions.  However, my post was made to point out that one of your "other ways" was actually "the same exact way."

To recap, your alternative to having an uberpowerful quest giver was to have _uberpowerful bounty hunters._

That's still just bullying the players into compliance via uberpowerful NPCs.  As such, it's not an alternative at all.


----------



## Merkuri (Jun 1, 2009)

Tigh said:


> A role playing game is about what the players are interested in.  A DM will reserve their real interest and discover the players interest as their own instead.






Rel said:


> I think that conversely the GM's enthusiasm is contagious and sets the tone for the game.




I think they're _both_ important.  Both the GM and the players should be having fun.  If you're in a situation where the GM and the players want different things and you can't or won't split up the group then you need to compromise.  Telling the GM to bow completely to player wishes or the players to take whatever the GM gives them is a way to end up with a burnt-out GM or bored players.

Nobody can get what they want all the time, but everyone (players AND GMs) should get what they want some of the time.


----------



## Janx (Jun 1, 2009)

Tigh said:


> If I may be so bold as to interject here.  A role playing game is about what the players are interested in.  A DM will reserve their real interest and discover the players interest as their own instead.  A role playing game can evolve into a Campaign.  A Campaign is when the players ask you for more.  This is also the clue that players are comfortable and their interests are being realized.  In the presence of this rare gift of permission the players may allow you to start bringing your real interest in.  Even enjoying them.
> 
> 
> 
> Tigh




I disagree (as do some other folks).

It's all about supply and demand.  DM's are rare.  Players are not.  Therefore, a GM gets to run the game he wants.  Because he does all the work, and there's not likely anybody to take his place.

Now that doesn't mean you go to the extreme of the GM can run a bad game and the players have to take it.  Obviously, players can quit.

Additionally, a good GM does observe what his players want, and incorporates it into his game.

But technically, it is a GM's market.  If the GM wants to run a heavy RP campaign, then the players kinda have to take it or leave it.  Odds are good, they'll take it, because they have no alternative.  Unless a campaign totally sucks, a player will play a campaign type they are less interested in, just because they want to game.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jun 1, 2009)

Myth and Legend said:


> Yes thank you for that example, this was another thing i wanted to bring up. At higher levels in 3.5 DnD Arcane magic is arguably the thing that makes and breaks combat. So then, how do i design mid-high level spellcasters to be a challenge but not (as you say) go on a PC murder spree.
> 
> I am under the impression that things like Finger of Death and Mordekainen's Disjunction are bad?




Save or dies are not necessarily bad. In 3.x, they can add variability and excitement to the game. Being in an aura or an area effect that does 10 damage every round and getting hit for 15 damage while you slowly bleed hp off the bad guys is somewhat predictable but it is not necessarily more fun than making a save against magic that would have slain you instantly and then watching the bad guy be consumed in fire after failing the save against your destruction spell. Save or die spells create problems when:

A. The character is essential to some part of the plot or other. If you are playing a p&p Baldur's Gate II and the Bhaalspawn character dies, then the game is over. If you are not trying to make a character (or each character's) backstory essential to the plot, this should not be an issue.

B. The character is not easily replaceable. If you are in the middle of the temple of elemental evil and everyone around you is an enemy then replacing the dead PC will be difficult. OTOH, if the character dies in the last fight in the Moathouse, the player can just bring in a new character when the party gets back to Hommlet. Maybe he sees the PCs fighting and his mysterious masked stranger jumps in and helps them. (Of course, he has to introduce himself afterward and find out that they are pursuing a similar goal). Perhaps the hero-worshipping kid brother of one of the PCs starts tagging along after him right after they get into town. ("Get lost kid." "No, way, this is fun.")

C. The character can't be brought back from the dead. If you are level 13+ and have the components for a resurection spell, then having a character die is not necessarily a big deal. Just bring him back. Some DMs don't like characters returning from the dead but in the core rules, easy resurrection shows up shortly after the save or dies start flying.

So, you will want to use save or die spells sparingly, but don't toss them out of your arsenel just because the 4th edition designers thought that they were bad. (4th edition designers had a lot of ideas about balance and game design and they tossed most of them aside five minutes after the first book was finished).

Mordenkeinen's disjunction is a different story. It is bad, not because it is a save or die but rather because it is a pain to roll out, always works on active spells, and messes with the economy of the game.
1. Pain. How many magic items do you have? Make a save for each of them. Fifteen minutes later, you're still rolling. Hey, here's my luckblade. I'd forgot I had that. I'll use it to reroll the save for my main sword. Yet another roll.
2. Always works on active spells. So the dragon is all spelled up and ready to go--Mordenkeinen's disjunction and all his spells go down, automatically. Automatically reducing the targets to a completely unbuffed state is too good.
3. Messes with the economy. In 3rd edition, your character's items are a large component of your abilities. (It's true in 4th edition too--try making a level 30 fighter without magic armor and see how long you last). Now, if you suppose that you have a fairly good save and thus lose 1/4 to 1/3 of your items on each casting of mordenkeinen's disjunction, you will have to get a lot of treasure each time it is cast just to stay where you were. No-one wants their +5 ancestral sword of awesomeness to go away, but it's even worse if you hit level 18 and your equipment is not as good as it was at level 17.

Now, it can show up every now and then without ruining the game. Kyuss used it in the final encounter of the Age of Worms campaign that I played in and it didn't ruin the game. But the spell should not be in normal use.

So, those things aside, how do you use arcane spellcasters in mid to high level 3.x. Here are some design principles I have found effective.
A. Very rarely have a spellcaster alone. Put the spellcaster in the room with a summoned devil and a nightmare and a horde of peons. Rather than having the BBEG be a wizard 3 levels higher than the PCs as an EL=Party level +3 challenging encounter, have the BBEG be one level higher than the PC but give him a summoned devil with a CR two levels lower than the PCs, a high priest two levels lower than the PCs, and a half-dozen elite guards four levels lower than the PCs (who make up for that level deficit with careful construction and support from the devil, priest, and BBEG).

B. Always have an escape plan. Your wizard will be grappled. He may be silenced. Always max his concentration ranks. You don't need freedom of movement (always) but have a minion with benign transposition to get him out. Give him dimension door. Give him a rod of silent spell. Etc.

C. Buff your allies. Those six orc elite guard fighter/barbarians four levels lower than the PCs will pack a good punch when the BBEG casts haste on them. (Especially if his cleric cast recitation and the devil included them in an unholy aura).

D. Battlefield control is your friends. Use wall of force to separate the party. Better yet, ready a wall of force to separate the party for use when the cleric is about to cast a spell. That way, his spell probably won't hit (if an attack) or benefit (if a buff) its intended target AND the party ends up split. Use wall of ice and wall of fire similarly. Bigby's grasping hand and evard's black tentacles are similarly ridiculously effective. Acid fog does a little bit of damage but it will stick PCs in the time out box for long enough for you to get the upper hand on their allies.

E. Good old fashioned area damage is still effective against PCs. Empower that fireball. Double points if it also heals your allies at the same time. Empowered fireball on the PCs and the iron golem they are fighting for the win. (Lightning bolt if you have a flesh golem ally and mass inflict serious wounds if you have undead allies).

F. Debuff. Dispel the party's wards and buffs. The fighter who was confidently fighting in your allied Mezzoloth's cloudkills won't be so cocky when his heroe's feast takes a hike. Nerf the party. Ray of enfeeblement (also comes in highly effective quickened and empowered varieties). Let's see if you can even stand up in your platemail with a -12 strength penalty. Enervation also stacks up quite nicely.

G. Save or screw. Who needs save or die? Glitterdust and the PCs are blind. The barbarian isn't so scary with a 50% miss chance, is he. (Uncanny dodge means your rogues won't sneak attack him to death but you can't have everything). Greater Command to halt and gloat as the paladin spends ten rounds watching his friends die. (Admittedly, this may be painful for the paladin's player, but that's what allies are for--a dispel magic, dispel evil, or even just a save buff should help him unless he is horribly unlucky, and if he is horribly unlucky, then he just would have spent ten rounds whiffing anyway).

H. And don't forget the finger of death. To make it more effective, rather than simply casting it, use it as a readied action to disrupt a spell. Made the save? OK, well you still take damage. DC 10+3d6+caster level+spell level concentration check or lose the spell.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 2, 2009)

My boilerplate advice for OD&D Referees is: Don't Lie, Don't Cheat.  

If a DM makes stuff up at the table, then they are just making every action taken by the players of the game irrelevant.  It's not like folks decide to switch around the arrangement of the board in a 1000 hour wargame between play sessions in the name "more fun".  It's the exact same deal with RPGs.  Making a player's sword a +4 instead of a +1 simply invalidates the game.  So, in effect, don't use things like Rule Zero, DMG p.42, or any kind of DM fiat.


----------



## Myth and Legend (Jun 2, 2009)

Thank you everyone, especially the people who took the time to write those huge posts. I have learned a lot from you guys, i almost feel confident to start the game. One other thing, what would you think about taking a co-DM along, to help with rules and character reviews? Or will that break the game discipline?


----------



## aboyd (Jun 3, 2009)

I think a co-DM is fine, if you're friends with that person or have worked out a nice arrangement where that DM will defer to you.

In other words, that DM needs to agree that while he/she might give you advice or look up rules for you while you play, he or she must _not_ argue with you or otherwise undermine you during your own game.  If you make a decision about the rules that the other DM dislikes, that DM must agree to basically shut up about it and support you.

I'm not suggesting that if you do something bone-headed, the other DM should say, "Yay, great idea!"  He or she might say, "Um, have you read page 146?  It talks about that.  I could find the paragraph in question, if you like."  But if you want to just move on, or if you read the paragraph and decide to ignore it, well, the other DM needs to support that.

If the other DM cannot support your decisions, then the other DM is acting as a toxic force against you.  So yes, have a co-DM, but make it clear that you are the final decision maker.  State beforehand that it is possible for you to decide something that the other DM won't agree with.  That way the DM isn't going into it thinking, "We'll agree about everything, this will be easy."  He or she should visualize you disagreeing, and should visualize backing down.  If that person is OK with that, it would be a valuable thing to try.


----------



## Rechan (Jun 3, 2009)

I find the co-DM gets bored really easily.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 3, 2009)

The great thread HERE: DM ADVICE


----------



## Sundaram (Jun 4, 2009)

Hand of Evil said:


> The great thread HERE: DM ADVICE




Must have been reading my mind!

Thanks so much for the link/list.  I'm going to try DMing for the first time after being a player for over 15+ years and am looking for all the advice I can scoop up.  

Dig!


----------



## haakon1 (Jun 5, 2009)

Merkuri said:


> 5) _Make the world react._  The PCs should have a real, tangible effect on the world around them.  Have them overhear NPCs discussing things the PCs have done in neighboring towns.  If they failed to pick up on a quest hook let them find out what happened because they didn't take action.  If they saved a village let them hear events that have gone on in that village after it was saved.  Adding little details to make the PCs know they had some effect on the world around them adds greatly to the immersion and make the players feel like what they did really mattered.




This last one is a very good idea.


----------



## haakon1 (Jun 5, 2009)

aboyd said:


> No, I'm not missing the point.  I understand that there are other solutions.  However, my post was made to point out that one of your "other ways" was actually "the same exact way."
> 
> To recap, your alternative to having an uberpowerful quest giver was to have _uberpowerful bounty hunters._
> 
> That's still just bullying the players into compliance via uberpowerful NPCs.  As such, it's not an alternative at all.




To recap: The OP wanted to have an NPC give the PC's quests, without the PC's killing the quest giver.  To solve that, she was using an uberpowerful NPC as the quest giver.

I suggested using the campaign world, rather than the quest giver NPC's power level, as the control factor to prevent the PC's from killing the quest giver for no real reason.  For example, law enforcement or friends of the NPC quest giver, whether that's a peasant or a bureaucrat or merchant or whoever, might not like the PC's acting as murderers and might come after them.

You interpret that as meaning I would send uberpowerful NPC's to kill the PC's, and therefore that I still use uberpowerful NPC's as my control factor.

Which is where you misunderstood.
(a) The deterrent is the concept of a reactive game world, not a particular NPC or group of NPC's.  Not the details of what might happen to the PC's, but the concept that something might or probably will happen.  Something campaign driven . . . like the people who are selling the items on consignment at the magic shop being pissed off if the PC's kill the owner (low level) and loot the stuff.  I don't have or need the details on who all those people are, it's just a logical concept that's a deterrent.

(b) There's no need for a bounty hunter to be uberpowerful anyhow.  Slipping poison in somebody's beer or blocking the exit to an inn room and starting a fire doesn't require a high level NPC.  The last time an NPC sent killers after PC's IMC, they were neither more powerful nor more numerous, just clever -- attacking when the PC's were split into three groups (one group having chased after a red herring the NPC's set up) and some of them were drunk.  The fight turned out to be a draw, with the killers escaping and no PC's slain.  And of course there are other deterrents besides trying to kill the PC's, such as merchants refusing to deal with you, demons trying to recruit you, etc.


----------

