Advice on startinggame and keeping it from dying [Archive] - Wizards Community

Advice on startinggame and keeping it from dying [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Anya
12-13-05, 09:35 AM Over the past 10 years or so, I've run a number of campaigns with the same core players. Often, they've ended due to unsolvable conflicts between characters or constant arguments between Dm and player (ie, what do you mean my pally has asassins after him all the time? Dude, you just told the queen in public 'you're writing checks your ass can't cover' at a high court...she's mad! Well, she's not my queen...etc)

Also, while some of the players have truely fantastic luck at rolling up stats...some don't.

So, for the first time, I instituted a point buy. [the guy (player 4) who always brings his chars showed up with 17,17,17,15,13,13. He wasn't happy when I told him I'd changed the generating method]. Spelled out the campaign world. All's good. Starting at 6th level.

Player one is 4Ftr/2Rgr going into order of the bow. Favored enemy goblinoids, will kill any warriors that he encounters, refuses to accept surrender, etc.

Player 2 is druid 5 aasimar who wants to be exalted and go into the Lion of something prestige class(exalted deeds). Player has worst dice luck of anyone I've ever met.

Player 3 fighter 6 in plate with tower shield. Commented 4 times during creation that he can hit an AC 30. (yeah, not germain, but I wish he'd stop repeating himself)

Player 4 Human Paragon 3 cleric 3. After character gen and first run, called me today saying he wants to take the prestige class 'battle healer' from the minitures handbook? which I don't own. Wants to redo his feats and skills so he can get into it quickest.

I plan to probably say no to player 4, based on how he described the prestige class; I'll make my final decision when I see it in print. I don't know if I'll let him switch his skills and feats since he's already played the character in a run. Opinions/suggestions?

Character 1 and 2 are going to come into conflict, since if player 2 wants to play an exalted I'm going to use chap 1 in that book to define what he ought to do. Which will conflict sharply with character 1. How to keep this from driving the party apart?

Thay're going to be in a 3.5 version of Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. Player 4 is trying to persuade a 5th person (who's ok, though ditzy) to play, which brings me to a final problem.

Alone of the group, player 4 hates,hates,hates shared gm worlds and DMpcs. He's a happy powergamer and loves fights, which I'm ok at running. Generally 2-4 fights/session are needed to keep him from complaining. The other two people who I've swapped off with (ie, could you run this fight for me) are much better at runnng fights than I am. He also hates it when they run fights. I think this is more due to the fact that he has to work harder to win. He's trying to bring in the 5th player to prevent me from having an NPC rogue (for all the traps) so that I can't have someone else occaisionaly run fights while still participating (ie, punish me). He openly admits this.

The other reason I want the ability to have other people run the (to me, very tiring) fights is that I'm pregnant and get tired easily. This isn't going to go away anytime soon, so any suggestions are welcome. I'd like for the campaign to run for a while. I hate coming up with new worlds. :)
Illion the Red
12-13-05, 09:52 AM I'm sorry to say it, but you may be doomed from the start. Exaulted characters require a high level of maturity from the entire party which is why I am reluctant to allow them into a campaign. This could be a big problem for you.

One thing I would avoid is giving them any "helper" NPCs unless they specifically go looking to hire one. No Rogue in the party? Get past the traps the old-fashioned way...brute force, healing, and dumb luck.

As for the one Player's need for the combat twitch...I don't suppose you could just tell him to suck it up and deal. Not every encounter is a fight and there are consequences for attacking everything. I'd be tempted to throw in a few rolplaying encounters with overwhelming CRs to start out. I'm sure that after the third time he's been killed, he'll get the point...but then again, maybe not.
Madfox11
12-13-05, 10:08 AM When looking at your problems, the main reason seems to be the fact that you give your players a huge freedom in designing their characters. Some groups can handle it, but others cannot. My players for example, came to the conclusion that they could not, not necessarily because of getting too powerful characters, but because of interparty conflict. They actually limited their own character generation by deciding to all play dwarves from the same clan. Just remember that you as a DM do not have to do all the work, and one of the things I prefer to let my players do, is to come with a good reason why PCs would work together. Then again, considering how one of your players objected to a change in character ability generating, I am not sure how your players would react to further limitations.

Of course, being strict about character generation do not prevent conflicts between players (including the DM). By the look of it, you prefer a completely different style then at least one of your players. There is little you can do about it, except talk with the involved player and accept it or boot the offending player. Your player seems to see the game as a way to release some tension without worrying about the consequences.

As for DM NPCs, don't use them. Let the players do the work if the think they need the rogue. My experiences are not to good with them, and while most are due to bad DMs, it is a trap that is easy to fall in, and what is more, it distracts you from running the game.
Jester_
12-13-05, 10:09 AM There's alwayz a fine line between keeping the Players happy and yourself happy. Ultimately that's the balance of the game.

I used to play with 8 people - 6 of which were hack & slash powergamers (they roleplayed, they just didn't ACT - if you know what I mean).

So having 6 people constantly min/maxing all these sub-classes and alternate paths etc really made char creation a pain in the ***** so I finally got fed up and did the ol K.I.S.S. principle (Keep It Simple Stupid). If a player wanted to be an assassin - fine - he was a Fighter and his specialization etc would be in unarmed combat/stealth/etc.

Battle Healer? Could either be a CLR or a FTR - who just happens to max out Mend/Heal spells etc. Rather than let the books do the work for the players - I preferred to let the players take the basics and do the work themselves. Let them flesh out "basic" characters w/out me having to memorize extra rules/bonusus/penalties etc. I encouraged players to flesh out a "role" not a "class". If that makes sense.

So in your case - stick with what you normally have done in the past. If you have let prestige classes in before, but rarely - and don't want to in this case - just say it was a nitemare before and you wanna try to keep it simple. Making one small adjustment across the board (point buy in this instance) is kewl. Making 1 small adjustment for 1 person isn't IMO.

As far as Players 1 & 2 conflicting - I would sit BOTH of them down and remind them the goal is to work together. Maybe they, as players, can find a compromise that works for both of them. Since the conflict is between the two of them - I would let the two of them work it out while you mediate/supervise/help.

As far as Multiple GMs. Personally - I don't mind as long as it's the same GM for the entire nite/session. More than 1 person per session changes the tone/pace/style too much for me. That's just my opinion tho. I didn't mind coming in next week and having "Dave" take over for "Bob" and then the following week they switched it up. But in a single nite - I'd find that distracting.

If combat tires you out - I would suggest possibly taking a short break before heavy combat sequences ("hang on I need a refill"), or possibly identifying the parts of combat you have trouble with the most and possibly finding advice/suggestions on how to speed it up/smooth it out. It doesn't hafta be viewed as tiresome and slow. There are ways to speed things up and little tricks etc I'm sure we all have that once you make them habit will make combat fly by.

As far as DM/PCs. I rarely did it. If the party was missing a particular class - I encouraged them to do some roleplaying, do some investigating/asking around and come up with the class they needed on their own thru guilds/organizations/churches/etc. You could have a hell of an adventure just doing that. In your case tho (switching DMs), I don't think it should really be an issue as long as yer not an "active" player while you DM - meaning I wouldn't initiate searches, or combat, or peace talks or anything...basically just be an extra body while you are DMing.

Hopefully this helps~
Anya
12-13-05, 11:26 AM I'll gladly take hints on fights- it's not that they're boring, it's that keeping track of everything, up and down to see the figs, reminding people to place their mini where their char is, arguing with players 1 and 4 over rules calls, having to look up rules to settle arguments, waiting for player 3 to take 5-10 minutes to figure out what the heck he's doing when it's his turn, etc, etc tires me out. Player 1 also likes fighting a lot, and I want the game to be fun for all the players.

Prestige classes are all on approval only. I've talked with player 2 about reading chapter 1 of exalted deeds- he hadn't yet. He's pretty inarticulate, and the role would require him to argue with char 1, so I wanted him to know it before he went into it.

I'll go with the advice on no rogue- it'll make 4 happy. I won't need other people to run the fights if I can find a way to do them without being exhausted by them. The short break idea could work.
Illion the Red
12-13-05, 11:41 AM How to run fights the quick and easy way:

1. Record everyone's initiative at the start. Put the list up where it can be seen by everyone. (Folded 3x5 cards hung over the top the the DMs' Screen works like a charm).

2. When the fight starts, (and the Characters are not surprised), give them 30 seconds to discuss what they are going to do before jumping in. (This gives you time to get your things together and think about what will happen now that you know the initiative order). Once the fight starts, give the Players 6 seconds each to act. If it takes longer to describe what they are doing, then give them more time...just don't give them more time to decide on what they are doing. (If the wizard doesn't know what his spell does, he'd better figure it out right quick while others are going). If someone takes too long, skip them.

3. Assign someone you trust in the party to track spell effects for you.

4. Keep a cheat-sheet on common combat modifiers and rules handy. (Grapple, Disarm, and Sunder are a good start).
KJW
12-13-05, 01:31 PM Anya, you sound like an unhappy DM, which means it is time to make some changes. The following suggestions are all things I either do or have done and they work, but some might be extreme for you or your group.

1. Everyone must play a good alignment. I sometimes will allow neutral alignments, usually LN and very rarely CN. I will allow alignment shifts, even to evil, but I play the consequences pretty realistically. I find that making everyone start off good will promote party harmony and usually give the party more focus. This does not end conflict, my PCs squabble quite a bit, but the arguments don't escalate to campaign shattering proportions.

2. As for prestige classes, feats, races, and spells I allow the Core Books (PHB, DMG, MM) and the Complete series. For prestige classes I sometimes allow a wider range, but it is based on the player. I freely admit that some of my players I would allow to play the Half-God Harbinger of Apocalypse, while others I require to stick to my limits. Some players are more mature than others and once you realize this it makes things easier.

3. I leave the party composition to the party, if they want an NPC then they will hire one, if they want a new PC they will recruit one. As a DM I leave the PCs to manage their own internal affairs, for better or worse.

4. If the PCs want a NPC, I roleplay the NPC, but I usually let a PC run the NPC in combat. I never have DMPCs but I often have lots of NPCs, DMPCs are bad ideas, NPCs are wonderful tools and my current group has 2-5 NPCs with the party. Letting a PC run the NPC allows the NPC to be more useful, defuses any issues of DM bias, occupies a bored player, and lets the DM focus on his side of the game.

5. Cheat sheets are a necessity for the DM and often a nice gesture to give the PCs to clarify rules and recurring issues. Usually, there is a handful of rules that are always looked up in my games (i.e. grappling) so I have made up cheat sheets to remind me of these perpetual problems.

6. Put the miniatures in storage and go without. Minis are great for the occasional big battle, but you should try a narrative style of combat. It is quicker and far less stressful. You don't need minis to run combat, that is a myth, and I find that once you move your campaign towards a narrative style your players will roleplay more and you will fly quicker through combat.

7. Guesstimate results in big battles, if you are running twenty orcs against the party, roll once for every five orcs, extrapolating from the one roll how all five did with some minor adjustments. You don't need to run everything precisely and as long as you are in the ballpark you are doing great, it is better to move combat along quicker than for it to be a precise engagment. End battles when they are over, you don't need to go through the party killing the last four orcs, just say they flee or that the party finishes off the remaining orcs.

8. Roll initiative for groups of enemies, I try to group all my enemies in 2-3 groups, but you could simplify it down to 1 group. This lets you do all your rolling at once and lets you focus on listening to your PCs the rest of the time.

9. If someone is taking too long to make a decision then have them merely be confused and stand during the round and hopefully they will be quicker next round. I also require my PCs to track their own spell effects and to know their spells, if the wizard is taking too long to find the spell then say he fails his concentration check. This is harsh, but if time is being wasted then you need to be a little more hardline.

10. Here is my rule for rules challenges: 1) You have to give me a page number and a brief reason why you think I am wrong. 2) I make a quick decision. 3) Discussion ended. 4) The player can talk with me AFTER the game if they so desire. I do not get in rules arguments with my players, I have discussions. If they are polite then all is well and I am happy taking some time for us to work out an issue. If they argue with me the discussion is ended and they lose. This works for getting kids to act properly and also on gamers.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Anya 12-13-05, 09:35 AM	Over the past 10 years or so, I've run a number of campaigns with the same core players. Often, they've ended due to unsolvable conflicts between characters or constant arguments between Dm and player (ie, what do you mean my pally has asassins after him all the time? Dude, you just told the queen in public 'you're writing checks your ass can't cover' at a high court...she's mad! Well, she's not my queen...etc) Also, while some of the players have truely fantastic luck at rolling up stats...some don't. So, for the first time, I instituted a point buy. [the guy (player 4) who always brings his chars showed up with 17,17,17,15,13,13. He wasn't happy when I told him I'd changed the generating method]. Spelled out the campaign world. All's good. Starting at 6th level. Player one is 4Ftr/2Rgr going into order of the bow. Favored enemy goblinoids, will kill any warriors that he encounters, refuses to accept surrender, etc. Player 2 is druid 5 aasimar who wants to be exalted and go into the Lion of something prestige class(exalted deeds). Player has worst dice luck of anyone I've ever met. Player 3 fighter 6 in plate with tower shield. Commented 4 times during creation that he can hit an AC 30. (yeah, not germain, but I wish he'd stop repeating himself) Player 4 Human Paragon 3 cleric 3. After character gen and first run, called me today saying he wants to take the prestige class 'battle healer' from the minitures handbook? which I don't own. Wants to redo his feats and skills so he can get into it quickest. I plan to probably say no to player 4, based on how he described the prestige class; I'll make my final decision when I see it in print. I don't know if I'll let him switch his skills and feats since he's already played the character in a run. Opinions/suggestions? Character 1 and 2 are going to come into conflict, since if player 2 wants to play an exalted I'm going to use chap 1 in that book to define what he ought to do. Which will conflict sharply with character 1. How to keep this from driving the party apart? Thay're going to be in a 3.5 version of Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. Player 4 is trying to persuade a 5th person (who's ok, though ditzy) to play, which brings me to a final problem. Alone of the group, player 4 hates,hates,hates shared gm worlds and DMpcs. He's a happy powergamer and loves fights, which I'm ok at running. Generally 2-4 fights/session are needed to keep him from complaining. The other two people who I've swapped off with (ie, could you run this fight for me) are much better at runnng fights than I am. He also hates it when they run fights. I think this is more due to the fact that he has to work harder to win. He's trying to bring in the 5th player to prevent me from having an NPC rogue (for all the traps) so that I can't have someone else occaisionaly run fights while still participating (ie, punish me). He openly admits this. The other reason I want the ability to have other people run the (to me, very tiring) fights is that I'm pregnant and get tired easily. This isn't going to go away anytime soon, so any suggestions are welcome. I'd like for the campaign to run for a while. I hate coming up with new worlds. :)
Illion the Red 12-13-05, 09:52 AM	I'm sorry to say it, but you may be doomed from the start. Exaulted characters require a high level of maturity from the entire party which is why I am reluctant to allow them into a campaign. This could be a big problem for you. One thing I would avoid is giving them any "helper" NPCs unless they specifically go looking to hire one. No Rogue in the party? Get past the traps the old-fashioned way...brute force, healing, and dumb luck. As for the one Player's need for the combat twitch...I don't suppose you could just tell him to suck it up and deal. Not every encounter is a fight and there are consequences for attacking everything. I'd be tempted to throw in a few rolplaying encounters with overwhelming CRs to start out. I'm sure that after the third time he's been killed, he'll get the point...but then again, maybe not.
Madfox11 12-13-05, 10:08 AM	When looking at your problems, the main reason seems to be the fact that you give your players a huge freedom in designing their characters. Some groups can handle it, but others cannot. My players for example, came to the conclusion that they could not, not necessarily because of getting too powerful characters, but because of interparty conflict. They actually limited their own character generation by deciding to all play dwarves from the same clan. Just remember that you as a DM do not have to do all the work, and one of the things I prefer to let my players do, is to come with a good reason why PCs would work together. Then again, considering how one of your players objected to a change in character ability generating, I am not sure how your players would react to further limitations. Of course, being strict about character generation do not prevent conflicts between players (including the DM). By the look of it, you prefer a completely different style then at least one of your players. There is little you can do about it, except talk with the involved player and accept it or boot the offending player. Your player seems to see the game as a way to release some tension without worrying about the consequences. As for DM NPCs, don't use them. Let the players do the work if the think they need the rogue. My experiences are not to good with them, and while most are due to bad DMs, it is a trap that is easy to fall in, and what is more, it distracts you from running the game.
Jester_ 12-13-05, 10:09 AM	There's alwayz a fine line between keeping the Players happy and yourself happy. Ultimately that's the balance of the game. I used to play with 8 people - 6 of which were hack & slash powergamers (they roleplayed, they just didn't ACT - if you know what I mean). So having 6 people constantly min/maxing all these sub-classes and alternate paths etc really made char creation a pain in the ***** so I finally got fed up and did the ol K.I.S.S. principle (Keep It Simple Stupid). If a player wanted to be an assassin - fine - he was a Fighter and his specialization etc would be in unarmed combat/stealth/etc. Battle Healer? Could either be a CLR or a FTR - who just happens to max out Mend/Heal spells etc. Rather than let the books do the work for the players - I preferred to let the players take the basics and do the work themselves. Let them flesh out "basic" characters w/out me having to memorize extra rules/bonusus/penalties etc. I encouraged players to flesh out a "role" not a "class". If that makes sense. So in your case - stick with what you normally have done in the past. If you have let prestige classes in before, but rarely - and don't want to in this case - just say it was a nitemare before and you wanna try to keep it simple. Making one small adjustment across the board (point buy in this instance) is kewl. Making 1 small adjustment for 1 person isn't IMO. As far as Players 1 & 2 conflicting - I would sit BOTH of them down and remind them the goal is to work together. Maybe they, as players, can find a compromise that works for both of them. Since the conflict is between the two of them - I would let the two of them work it out while you mediate/supervise/help. As far as Multiple GMs. Personally - I don't mind as long as it's the same GM for the entire nite/session. More than 1 person per session changes the tone/pace/style too much for me. That's just my opinion tho. I didn't mind coming in next week and having "Dave" take over for "Bob" and then the following week they switched it up. But in a single nite - I'd find that distracting. If combat tires you out - I would suggest possibly taking a short break before heavy combat sequences ("hang on I need a refill"), or possibly identifying the parts of combat you have trouble with the most and possibly finding advice/suggestions on how to speed it up/smooth it out. It doesn't hafta be viewed as tiresome and slow. There are ways to speed things up and little tricks etc I'm sure we all have that once you make them habit will make combat fly by. As far as DM/PCs. I rarely did it. If the party was missing a particular class - I encouraged them to do some roleplaying, do some investigating/asking around and come up with the class they needed on their own thru guilds/organizations/churches/etc. You could have a hell of an adventure just doing that. In your case tho (switching DMs), I don't think it should really be an issue as long as yer not an "active" player while you DM - meaning I wouldn't initiate searches, or combat, or peace talks or anything...basically just be an extra body while you are DMing. Hopefully this helps~
Anya 12-13-05, 11:26 AM	I'll gladly take hints on fights- it's not that they're boring, it's that keeping track of everything, up and down to see the figs, reminding people to place their mini where their char is, arguing with players 1 and 4 over rules calls, having to look up rules to settle arguments, waiting for player 3 to take 5-10 minutes to figure out what the heck he's doing when it's his turn, etc, etc tires me out. Player 1 also likes fighting a lot, and I want the game to be fun for all the players. Prestige classes are all on approval only. I've talked with player 2 about reading chapter 1 of exalted deeds- he hadn't yet. He's pretty inarticulate, and the role would require him to argue with char 1, so I wanted him to know it before he went into it. I'll go with the advice on no rogue- it'll make 4 happy. I won't need other people to run the fights if I can find a way to do them without being exhausted by them. The short break idea could work.
Illion the Red 12-13-05, 11:41 AM	How to run fights the quick and easy way: 1. Record everyone's initiative at the start. Put the list up where it can be seen by everyone. (Folded 3x5 cards hung over the top the the DMs' Screen works like a charm). 2. When the fight starts, (and the Characters are not surprised), give them 30 seconds to discuss what they are going to do before jumping in. (This gives you time to get your things together and think about what will happen now that you know the initiative order). Once the fight starts, give the Players 6 seconds each to act. If it takes longer to describe what they are doing, then give them more time...just don't give them more time to decide on what they are doing. (If the wizard doesn't know what his spell does, he'd better figure it out right quick while others are going). If someone takes too long, skip them. 3. Assign someone you trust in the party to track spell effects for you. 4. Keep a cheat-sheet on common combat modifiers and rules handy. (Grapple, Disarm, and Sunder are a good start).
KJW 12-13-05, 01:31 PM	Anya, you sound like an unhappy DM, which means it is time to make some changes. The following suggestions are all things I either do or have done and they work, but some might be extreme for you or your group. 1. Everyone must play a good alignment. I sometimes will allow neutral alignments, usually LN and very rarely CN. I will allow alignment shifts, even to evil, but I play the consequences pretty realistically. I find that making everyone start off good will promote party harmony and usually give the party more focus. This does not end conflict, my PCs squabble quite a bit, but the arguments don't escalate to campaign shattering proportions. 2. As for prestige classes, feats, races, and spells I allow the Core Books (PHB, DMG, MM) and the Complete series. For prestige classes I sometimes allow a wider range, but it is based on the player. I freely admit that some of my players I would allow to play the Half-God Harbinger of Apocalypse, while others I require to stick to my limits. Some players are more mature than others and once you realize this it makes things easier. 3. I leave the party composition to the party, if they want an NPC then they will hire one, if they want a new PC they will recruit one. As a DM I leave the PCs to manage their own internal affairs, for better or worse. 4. If the PCs want a NPC, I roleplay the NPC, but I usually let a PC run the NPC in combat. I never have DMPCs but I often have lots of NPCs, DMPCs are bad ideas, NPCs are wonderful tools and my current group has 2-5 NPCs with the party. Letting a PC run the NPC allows the NPC to be more useful, defuses any issues of DM bias, occupies a bored player, and lets the DM focus on his side of the game. 5. Cheat sheets are a necessity for the DM and often a nice gesture to give the PCs to clarify rules and recurring issues. Usually, there is a handful of rules that are always looked up in my games (i.e. grappling) so I have made up cheat sheets to remind me of these perpetual problems. 6. Put the miniatures in storage and go without. Minis are great for the occasional big battle, but you should try a narrative style of combat. It is quicker and far less stressful. You don't need minis to run combat, that is a myth, and I find that once you move your campaign towards a narrative style your players will roleplay more and you will fly quicker through combat. 7. Guesstimate results in big battles, if you are running twenty orcs against the party, roll once for every five orcs, extrapolating from the one roll how all five did with some minor adjustments. You don't need to run everything precisely and as long as you are in the ballpark you are doing great, it is better to move combat along quicker than for it to be a precise engagment. End battles when they are over, you don't need to go through the party killing the last four orcs, just say they flee or that the party finishes off the remaining orcs. 8. Roll initiative for groups of enemies, I try to group all my enemies in 2-3 groups, but you could simplify it down to 1 group. This lets you do all your rolling at once and lets you focus on listening to your PCs the rest of the time. 9. If someone is taking too long to make a decision then have them merely be confused and stand during the round and hopefully they will be quicker next round. I also require my PCs to track their own spell effects and to know their spells, if the wizard is taking too long to find the spell then say he fails his concentration check. This is harsh, but if time is being wasted then you need to be a little more hardline. 10. Here is my rule for rules challenges: 1) You have to give me a page number and a brief reason why you think I am wrong. 2) I make a quick decision. 3) Discussion ended. 4) The player can talk with me AFTER the game if they so desire. I do not get in rules arguments with my players, I have discussions. If they are polite then all is well and I am happy taking some time for us to work out an issue. If they argue with me the discussion is ended and they lose. This works for getting kids to act properly and also on gamers.