In this thread I am asking advice from Bawylie and Iserith on a few points they have brought up time and again which have intrigued me and made me want to be a better DM.
Please do not come in for the sole purpose of threadpooping. This is intended to be a civil thread between civil people. Disagreement is not necessarily threadpooping, but attitude definitely is.
Bawylie and Iserith - I am attempting to retrain myself to be a better DM and I am taking some things you have posted to heart in this regard. But I am filled with questions.
I want to use better narrative and the rules laid out on page 3 of the Basic PDF to limit skill checks to just those where the outcome is uncertain and the failure can be interesting.
So my first question stems from something that happened in the first session of my new campaign. This is the first campaign as DM in almost 10 years and the first for me in 5e. The group ran across an Intellect Devourer which got away. After some time searchign for it the group gave up. Eventually they headed back to town after tying up a few things and the party warlock wanted to try to research the creature and find out more about it. There is a local temple/library of Oghma in town so he went there.
How would you handle something like this?
The players have indicated their goal: find the Intellect Devourer.
After a failed search, they've decided to change their circumstances and approach. This time, they're researching their prey. What does that get them?
Now, normally, I'd give them the ecology, etc of the Intellect Devourer just for spending the time researching. You read enough books, you get the info available. Next I'd ask them what they want to do now.
My players would have maybe extrapolated likely hidey-holes. And id be inclined to grant advantage on search or investigation following that lead.
But we've got another cool tool in 5E. Inspiration. And I might likewise give that to the researching player and see what he does with it.
Ultimately, though, I want to find my players' intent and their approach to achieving that goal. Research alone won't find the monster unless it's hiding in a book. But it should be rewarded by giving them another bite at the apple. And also by making their subsequent efforts more fruitful.
If you wanted to make research into something interesting, you'd need to establish stakes for success and failure before calling for a roll. Just as hunting the intellect devourer requires stakes.
Where do you want the focus to be? The research or the hunt? Where do the players want it to be? Zero-in on the intent before anything else.
I hope I'm not threadpooping when I also make a suggestion, lol.
I would describe the temple and ask how the player wants to proceed. I would assume he would try to ask one of the priest if he could suggest a book that would inform him of Intellect Devourers.
I wouldn't ask for charisma check for that because I don't think the priest would have a reason not to comply. Don't know much about Forgotten Realms lore so correct me on that if I'm wrong. He would probably suggest a book or two. If time is relevant at this point, I might ask for an Investigation check to see how much time it would take him to find relevant passage. If the PCs are just in downtime mode I would just narrate how it takes him some hours to read through relevant passages.
Edit: Added critically missing "not".
Also, from there on out it would just depend on what the warlock is trying to do with this knowledge or what knowledge he's specifically interested in.
bawylie wrote:
Good advice, bawylie. I don't think my voice has much credibility, but that is all exactly what I'd want as a player- my actions have consequences that help me achieve my goal. Using advantage on searches, inspiration for researching (if it fits the character), and some information about where devourers are likely to live are all good rewards for a player who considered researching them.
EDIT: If one character is a Sage, definitely give him inspiration for doing the research.
abs1nth wrote:
eleran wrote:
iserith wrote:
eleran wrote:
Another general question. How much do you allow/do/encourage away from the table actions? My Warlock player is PMing me all the time with stuff he wants to do between sessions such as the research. Should I tell him to wait til we get together as a group again?
Timborama wrote:
eleran wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
Timborama wrote:
eleran wrote:
eleran wrote:
eleran wrote:
Alright, where you have a larger plot, there's a few things to keep in mind.
First, mysteries exist to be solved. At first, a few cryptic hints give little to go on. Later, other clues and evidence bring the larger picture into focus. The solution to your mystery isn't the End - it's actually the midpoint of the plot. Once the mystery is solved, the Big Question should still remain. "Now what do you do about that?"
Second, don't give up the ghost BEFORE the midpoint. Decide what information simply cannot be available no matter what at this point. The I.D. can certainly point to more adventure, but shouldn't solve the whole thing. Treat it as a breadcrumb.
On sages and research. My inclination is to Give rewards for smart play, not to withhold rewards behind the gate of an ability check. Unless there are complications attached. "Unavailable book" bores me. Librarian needing a favor is okay, but this is a matter of decision, not a roll. In short, give the sage the ecology info and inspiration (is what Id do). Sage is thus rewarded for taking smart action & playing according to character and you can reasonably expect that behavior to be repeated. Whereas gating it may be a deterrent.
On the subject of between-game gaming. Mostly I take the initiative on this.
I write personalized scenarios to each character (not player) and demand that they do not discuss it with any other player or with me. Sometimes I write flash fiction (250 words, no more) and send it to the group, asking again for no discussion with me.
When they come up with stuff and want to talk about it, I generally note it and tell them we'll see how the game goes.
(I have too many players to keep messaging every day, but I make sure they're engaged between sessions, once each or as a group. My sessions tend to be 2 a month for each group vs weekly, tho. Again, lots to manage).
I'd consider not only making the research rewarding, but also turn it into an adventure opportunity. Perhaps they meet a priest at the temple, or a traveling scholar/wizard/etc, who is very interested in the same subject, but he wants to go one step further: he wants a live intellect devourer, and is willing to pay extremely well for it. Now the players have a tangible motivation to continue their pursuit, above and beyond feeling responsible for it (which is itself a wondrous thing, you have a good group of players if they feel responsible for their ingame actions. 
).
Perhaps the patron is on the level, and just wants to pay them for an intellect devourer. Perhaps he has much darker motives. However it goes, I encourage the path that leads to more opportunities for both RP and adventure. You can decide what works best in the context of your campaign.
In general, when your players tell you what they want to do, in word or by action, go with it, expand on it, let them build their story. You can steer it in directions that are fun for you, of course; everyone is meant to have fun. The only time you really have to switch gears is if things start going in a direction that you or any of the players are really uncomfortable with.
eleran wrote:
There's a kind of DM-specific fine line between what IS adventure and what facilitates adventure.
IMO, the research thing exists to facilitate the players' goal of hunting down the I.D.
Iserith might use the research as a springboard to different/more adventure.
All valid. Turn these both into big dramatic questions and see what you get. Wherever possible, try not to annoy your players for having come up with an idea. Again, a fine line.
If I were a sage, I'd expect to be able to do my thing without having to jump a lot of hoops. So for me, you'd set a baseline of stuff (like the ecology) that's readily achievable, and then gate an even greater benefit behind a risk/cost. And then you slyly ask if I'm interested in what's behind door number 2...
bawylie wrote:
So, heres the point where I tell what I am up to in the campaign and try to garner advice as to how to accomplish it under my new paradigm.
The campaign started with a serene day about town being interrupted by the appearance of a fireball streaking ocross the sky (think the fireball seen in Russia in 2012). It crashes few miles from town. The PCs volunteer to go investigate.
Upon arrival they find a smallish crater with pieces of stone at the bottom. They figure out that if you put the pieces of stone together they form a hollow sphere about 5' across. On some of the pieces they spot raised figures and realize that when those pieces are put together the raised figures form a rectangle like a block of text. The Warlock (Sage) makes a rubbing for further research when they return to town. The raised type is in Qwalith, the language of Mind flayers. Once deciphered it will begin to reveal the Mind Flayer plan which is one of the big campaign arcs.
They find 3 sets of footprints going away from the crash site in 3 different directions. This is a day and a half after the crash. After another days travel they hear arguing voices speaking Draconic. I had planned for this encounter to be a negotiation between the kobolds in the bushes and the party unless things went bad.
The kobolds are on a mission to deliver a chest of treasure as tribute to a Green Dragon who has moved into the territory as a new resident. But the kobolds were attacked by an Intellect Devourer and there numbers have been decimated to the point they can no longer carry the chest. When the party stumbles upon them they are arguing about the best course of action, go back and admit failure to the Kobold boss, or try to figure out a way to complete the mission. Unbeknownst to the kobolds one of them has been taken over by the Intellect Devourer. He plans to bide his time and either sneak away from the kobolds at a later time or stay with them and hope to find an even better thrall for its Mind Flayer masters.
A couple of members of the PC prtyy decide to sneak up on the kobolds who are arguing behind a hedgerow. I decide the kobold arguing would give them a -5 to their passive perceptions to notice the sneaking PCs. In retrospect I should have given the sneakers Advantage. Regardless the sneakers rolled 5 & 6 respectively and were noticed by the Kobolds. Combat ensued. The kobolds were defeated and the Intellect Devourer was seen and then fled. A letter was found on the Kobolds outlining the mission. A hint was dropped in the letter that provided the name of the entiry to whom the kobolds were to deliver the chest as tribute. It even outlined where this entity was dwelling. The PCs tried to give chase to the ID but lost the trail after some time passed. They decided to head back to town and file a report.
The options the PCs think they have are to try to find the ID they already met, track down one of the other sets of footprints from the crater (2 more Intellect Devourers) or visit the area where the Kobolds were headed to see what has taken up residence there (a young Green Dragon).
I could go on but this has gotten out of control already. Any advice is greatly appreciated.
Advantage and -5 to passive perception work out the same, so don't fret over that. (Note that if you have disadvantage on Perception, that's -5 on the passive perception score, and advantage is +5.)
As for the research question posed earlier, I'm not sure why your local library would have a book about intellect devourers.
And finally, the ID-controlled kobold probably should be making a bee-line for that green dragon instead of hanging out and arguing with other kobolds. I'd much rather be stuck in a dragon than in a lousy kobold if I were an intellect devourer.
Alright, sounds good. Plenty of hooks for the players to take. If it were my game, I'd set a countdown for a few things. First, the tracks - they're not going to last forever and/or someone else is going to follow them. So I might tell the players, if it rains, those tracks are gone and tell them I'll be rolling 1d20 each day. It rains on a roll of 16-20 (86.65% chance that it rains at least once in a week). Characters can try to predict the weather which might call for a Wisdom (Survival) check. A successful check lets the PCs see the next day's roll in advance. Failure means DM rolls twice and takes the higher result.
Next, there's the countdown I mentioned with the research and intellect devourer. They'll have to weigh how much time they can spend on research against the intellect devourer running amok plus any potential turn in the weather taking away two of their hooks. Also, what is the intellect devourer's goal? Is it doing something for the mind flayers?
Finally, there's the issue of the kobolds and dragon. The kobold boss gets concerned when his minions haven't reported back, so he sends out a warband thinking that they were ambushed, double-crossed him, or were eaten by the green dragon. The warband finds the PCs' tracks (unless it has rained!) and sets an ambush for them. If they don't find the PCs' tracks, the green dragon comes into play wondering why its tribute hasn't been paid on time. Perhaps the PCs run into a battle between the kobolds and the dragon - do the PCs come to the aid of the kobolds this time?
Anyway, point being, I like to apply time pressure as a way to increase tension and create a sense of urgency. It also affords the opportunity to make meaningful decisions and tradeoffs and encourages players to get creative to avail themselves of all the opportunities before them.
iserith wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
So the thing to do, IMO, is start to have ID possessed people use a certain phrase incorrectly. Like they culturally don't understand. And from time to time, have an ID appear on certain baddies defeated by your group. Not the Orc warchief, but one of his sworn spears. Not the duke, but his seneschal. Etc.
The players will run across stuff like this until you're ready to start dropping your next big hint. The captured IDs maybe start cryptically referring to "the reunion" or "the appointed time."
Meanwhile roughly outline the Illithid invasion plan and be sure to note (and create) visual, observable progress in that plan.
(PS your game sounds a lot of fun)
I'll just pop in with a little inspirational reading/listening.
I'm a big fan of a game developer called Robin D Laws. The games he advocates are very much in line with the way iserith DMs and does a really really good job at explaining them.
The books I can reccomend if you have the resources (time/cash) are from the Gumshoe series of RPGs. The way they run skills in a nutshell is that you autosucceed on any knowledge type skills, but can use resources to "crit". The lessons learned from reading these books has made my groups D&D games sooooo much more interesting than they were. He is also the author of Feng Shui (and it's sequal that's kickstarting right now).
Audio. if you like listening to stuff while you travel/work/relax there are a few podcasts that give good inspiration:
"Ken and Robin talk about stuff" is a podcast centered around GMing, game design and other stuff. There's 100+ hours in there???but I've found it. Very worthwhile
"One Shot" from the peaches and hotsauce network is a podcast of a guy called James D'Amata that plays different one shot games with people. It gets progresivley better and better as it goes along, and some of the things he does is hugely inspirational for a GM. He also runs another podcast called critical success which is 100% about GM advice! but I would suggest listening to that as a companion to one shot rather than on its own
As I said, it's really improved our view and ability at DMing, but take it or leave it
If your looking for ways to improve how you DM I'd also recommend reading other RPG's, even if you don't play them.
HeroQuest
Hillfolk
Burning Wheel (My favourite RPG)
Dogs in the Vineyard
All four have fundamentally altered how I play my games just from reading them and I particularly found that with Burning Wheel. Burning wheels approach to Intent, Task & failiure should be standard for all games IMHO.
Also the ideas of let it ride and fail forward are essential elements in pace and drama for games I want to run.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5aPG3kLxJ4 is a link to a podcast about BW and Intent, Task & failiure and worth a sit down...quicker than buying and reading the book.
My summary of the main points would be ask your player what he wants to accomplish and determine the right skill to roll not the other way around. This keeps the player thinking about the game fiction not his stats. Once you know the intent and the task required to accomplish it make it clear what the consequences of failiure are but try to avoid win or lose scenarios's. Using your example (and trying to apply the concept to D&D) if the players fail at their research you let them know that their poor research leads to perhaps a delay in reaching their objective or a misunderstanding of the creatures vulnerabilities etc.
Let it ride is another favourite of mine, I grew to hate playing sessions where you had to roll your balance skill every 5ft or were a wizard who had to make an attack roll, followed by a spell penetration check, followed by a saving throw...and maybe a concentration check for good measure. Roll once! Take success and failiure and move forward, don't allow rerolls for the same task unless circumstances fundamentally change (caveat subject to D&D mechanics).
Fail forward is another essential DM skill. Don't write yourself into a corner where moving the games forward rely on the success or failiure of a roll. Rather than a deadend let failiure create complications.
Anyway I waffle, read the books I recommended they explain it much better and are great reads.
Thanks for great suggestions folks. I have a lot of reading/listening to do before I start to plan the next session. Luckily all of us in the group are married with other things in our lives so we don't play again til near the end of October so time is on my side in that respect.
As I think of things I will be asking more questions. So subscribe and lets keep gettign together and share experiences.
eleran wrote:
eleran wrote:
"Whatever blocks they end up with, they'll have to put into some sensible order as best they can. (How 'bout that, Brad?!)"
Expertly done.
Research:
There are several models you might want to consider, if considering including investigative elements to a game.
1. 3 clue rule
This method allows the characters three seperate opportunities to get the useful information, at a difficulty level where they 'should' in principle make one of the tests. This means that the PCs will likely get the material, but that each bit is slightly different. It is a good way of avoiding clue stall, while maintaining a game that is more traditional in nature, and less storygame inspired.
2. Clue plus
This method is inspired by the Gumshoe system, and basically means that when your PCs say "I am going to the library to research x", you ask them to role. Regardless of the outcome you give them the basic information they need to advance the story. If they fail, that is all they get, but on a success, you give them an additional peice of information, such as an enemies weaknesses.
3. Success with complications
This method is similar to Clue plus, in that the PCs get the information regardless. However, a failure means that their research in some way complicates the story. This might be that the who thing takes longer than expected, or it might mean that the opposition set fire to the library while the PCs are in their.
bawylie wrote:
eleran wrote:
A lot of good advice in this thread. I heavily endorse the recommendations for the Ken and Robin Talk About Stuff podcast, anything by Robin D. Laws (Hillfolk, Gumshoe) and Burning Wheel.
I'll also add two more recommendations:
First, Gnome Stew (http://www.gnomestew.com) is the premiere website for GM advice, and all of their books on GMing are excellent and also highly practical and usable.
Second, Dungeon World is another excellent game that will vastly improve the way you GM, and it is a lot more accessible than Burning Wheel (and easier to relate to 5E). Like Burning Wheel, good GMing is basically built into the rules and reinforced by the system itself. Much of the advice you see repeated on these fourms comes directly from Burning Wheel, Dungeon World and similar "indie" games. Just reading Dungeon World and applying it to 5E will be extremely beneficial - it's not like you need to stop playing 5E and go start a Dungeon World game. It is also an open ruleset so you don't need to buy it to check it out:
Dungeon World GM's Section: http://book.dwgazetteer.com/gm.html
Speaking of Ken and Robin Talk About Stuff, they recently did an episode segement on red herrings:
http://www.kenandrobintalkaboutstuff.com/index.php/episode-97-hamsterface/
The short version is that you don't need to add red herrings because players will create them on their own, but it has a lot of good advice on managing the red herrings created by the players.
bawylie wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Cool. I've never listened to them so if you don't mind leaving some thoughts/impressions...
It's a good discussion, mostly centered around how red herrings don't work as well in RPGs as they do in ficiton.
The first bit is that players almost always create a bunch of red herrings on their own, so a GM doesn't need to create red herrings - just managage the ones that players chase on their own. The idea with managing them is that because they are basically dead ends and time wasters, you should 'fix' that problem - either by getting that portion of the adventure over with quickly so that they can eliminate the possiblity and move on, or make sure they red herring has a reward or benefit of some type so that it wasn't a waste of time, such as a new NPC contact or other information that will be useful towards something else later.
Another important note is to keep your mystery flexible - you may want to change a red herring from false to true if the player's are pursuing something interesting or fun - in other words, their red herring might be better than what you originally planned if you change the mystery so that it isn't a red herring after all.
On the 3 Clue Rule and Clue Plus.
To begin with, I tend to mistrust so-called rules that place process ahead of purpose. To me, this is a philosophy of picking up a tool before deciding what job you're going to work on.
The 3 Clue Rule is a big offender in this regard and another. The premise is that a single clue may go overlooked or misinterpreted, whereas multiple clues leading to the same conclusion will increase the chances of obtaining iseful and correct information. In reality, it's asking a DM to do 3 times the work just to bend the odds of something useful happening upwards. It fundamentally misunderstands what a clue is and how it (and mysteries) should be handled.
A mystery or investigation is a backward reconstruction of events which already have happened. Clues aren't merely hints or leads to an answer. They are Evidence Of a Fact. And they come in two forms. Direct evidence (such as a dead body) and indirect evidence (like a trail of blood and drag marks in the floor).
A mystery is "solved" when the relevent facts are pieced together to reconstruct the most likely series of events.
Therefore, when you design a mystery or investigation, you must first determine what happened. Then you must create the evidence that proves the facts of what happened. Because your players are not likely real life detectives (and you're not Sherlock Holmes), the evidence must be 1.) Obtainable, observable, and accessible
(not hidden) and 2.) must clearly prove a fact OR lead to a fact (if followed-up).
Elaborate mysteries with multiple chains and clues are oversold. A single bit of evidence can be sufficient to prove a fact, but it doesn't have to be the only evidence that exists. And because players tend to have access to magic, you should be generous with the evidence you give.
Remember also that the "solution" to the investigation is the MID-WAY point of your plot line. "You've figured out the answer. Now what are you going to do about it?" (TV and movies can put it at the end because, again, the writer controls the placement of all required people and evidence. You don't.).
If you want to see this kind of thing done in an engaging way, look at some of the investigation side missions in Batman: Arkham Origins. Batman scans a crime scene for evidence, reverse-engineers the crime, identifies the perpetrator, and then locates and busts him. They only take 10 minutes of play but that's good pacing for that game.
Ditch the 3 Clue Rule. It's worthless. Instead, write evidence that actually established facts and GIVE IT TO THE PLAYERS. Don't make them jump through hoops. The point of a mystery is to solve it.
Add: the 3 clue rule is the "pixel bitching" of mysteries.
"Well, eventually these idiots will stumble across something useful."
I've had a problem with a new DM that touches on this. When investigating a village the only person who would talk to the party was the local Innkeeper.
The DM tried to roleplay him as a terrifed man who was scared the party would stir up a hornets nest and get the villagers killed.
From the Players viewpoint they guy was shifty as hell, and probably in cahoots with the bandits.
The different viewpoints eventually let us down the completely wrong path and ended up with all but one of the party dead and the whole village slaughtered and on fire.
It's a good lesson on the importance of good communication and the DM's responsibility to stop the game and make sure the Players are understanding him/her correctly. Especially when there's a mystery to solve.
I wish that story were less common among D&D games.
Theros wrote:
@Ansbach
Uhh, I don't know about that. If you as DM need to ask your players to make an insight check to determine how an NPC feels, you're screwing up your portrayal of the NPC. Obviously terrified people should be obviously terrified. No check.
Im also not going to ask players to roll dice when they haven't stated some kind of intent and action.
It sounds to me like that situation was haphazardly slapped together without a dramatic question. Naturally it turned out crap. if we had a blank sheet of paper and wrote at the top "Francisquito, innkeeper of the Wide Hearth is suffering under the oppressive 'protection racket' of a local gang of bandits, who use his otherwise happy inn at their whim for nefarious and illegal dealings. Fransiquito is terrified and held under threat. Can the players overcome his fears and get Francisquito to cough up information he has on the gang?"
Now, while we don't know the answer to the question, at least the DM is damn sure what the scene/scenario is about. He knows how to portray the innkeeper and what information is obvious and what needs effort to obtain.
Write your dramatic questions, people!
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
The DM thought he was doing fine and that we were just fooling around and not listening to him. It wasn't until the whole village was already in flames that he seemed shocked that we didn't understand the clues he was giving us. He was a new DM and we didn't want to hurt his feelings halfway through the adventure.
It was easy to see the problem in retrospect but isn't it always?
Theros wrote:
What do facts do? They are the concrete answers to your mystery.
Who did What? Where? When? Why? And How? You need no more than 5 facts. Therefore you need no more than 5 pieces of evidence (at the absolute most) that establishes those facts.
And frankly, "what" and "where" are usually gimmes anyway. Often so is "when."
"The diamonds where stolen from the safe last night."
"Bill was murdered in the alley sometime after he left the tavern."
"The Queen makes frequent visits to a rundown tower at the edge of the kingdom, often under cover of darkness."
"What's up with all these Intellect Devourers we keep finding?"
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
I've never played gumshoe. But I'm not running mysteries in gumshoe either.
Youre absolutely right that I'm assuming the players will 1.) find clues and 2.) use the evidence to establish facts.
In my game, the clues and evidence are clear and discoverable. Intentionally. I don't assume the information won't be found. Unraveling the mystery is the point of the exercise so I assume those things WILL be found. And the solution to the mystery is the end of the middle act of the adventure. The third act posits the final question of "you have the answer, now what?"
Ive never had to shotgun clues all over the place and I've never run a mystery that required blind luck to eventually run across a bit of data to solve. It seems like an insane way to play a game. Why flirt with adjusting the odds of useful info? Why not simply increase those odds to 100%? Why not use the million clue rule? Or do what I do and be clear about what's observable?
Here's what I'm saying. You've got a puzzle that has 5 pieces. Adding pieces doesn't reduce complication.
So all we're talking about is the success to fail ratio of locating and correctly placing each piece.
You think I have a problem because I have multiple failure points. I wouldn't write a game without the possibility f failure as an outcome. I wouldn't write a game where failure bottlenecks play. And I wont add complication or adhere to process at the expense of my players.
They're not investigators. I don't demand system-competence. But everyone has seen Sherlock holmes, scooby doo, & CSI. Etc. So I construct games they can actually play. And I dont gate the game behind blind luck, which is all the 3 clue rule is.
Clue plus is better. But it's still like step 4 in writing a good mystery.
I think you are forgetting that I agreed with you that Clue Plus is vastly superior to the 3 Clue Rule. We are on the same page that clues should be found easily, so forget about finding them - is it not possible to misinterpret evidence in your mystery adventures?
All I'm saying is that having multiple avenues of approach to solving a mystery is a good idea if you don't want to railroad the players, because an individual clue can be misinterpreted by the players - and allowing that misinterpretation is part of the fun of solving a mystery.
It's probably a good idea to clarify the Gumshoe method of clues for those unfamilar with it, because it's a great way to handle mystery adventures:
The basic premise is that it takes the focus away from finding clues and puts it on correctly interpreting clues, so it creates more of an investigation-style of mystery. It's not actually called Clue Plus (I think Eris.Shrugged coined that term above or is talking about a similar concept), but that is a good way to think of it. Basically there is a Core Clue that the players will find no matter what. A Core Clue is a clue that will advance the story - the bare minimum needed to keep things moving forward. The players can then use their skills to find extra clues or more details about a core clue, either making the mystery easier to solve or giving them some other kind of benefit.
You can bring this over to 5E in a couple of different ways. One way is more or less direct - you make certain that the core clue is found automatically, and extra clues and information can be found through successful Investigation/Perception/Insight checks - or may be found without rolling dice if the players take the correct actions. Another way is to use it in your interpretation of a single die roll result related to a skill check (which is also kind of how Dungeon World does things). On a failure, they just get the minimum information needed to move the story forward, maybe along with some form of complication. On a success, they get the extra helpful information and/or no complications.
The purpose of this method and other similar ones is to avoid bottlenecks where failing to find or correctly interpret a clue causes things to grind to a halt - and to put the emphasis on intrepreting clues, which many think is more fun than just finding them.
if you don't want to railroad the players, don't railroad them.
if, for some reason, they misinterpret evidence, that's on them. Additional clues don't mitigate that issue. Fortunately, D&D now includes an Intelligence (investigation) check. So if they ask "what does this mean?" you could, I guess, ask for that check and at that point, employ clue plus.
Avenues of approach are ways to find and interpret clues. They're investigative methods and techniques. That's all on the player end.
A mystery is one exception to the DM axiom: Design obstacles, not solutions. Because technically a mystery has a solution. Overall though, HOW the players arrive is on them. All you must do is make the information discoverable and accurate.
bawylie wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
If you NEED insurance, you've written a bottle neck. Stop, give them the info they need to clear the bottleneck and resume.
(Or better, catch it early and rewrite it).
bawylie wrote:
If that's how it seems, I believe you've misinterpreted. Again, if you need insurance to get through a bottleneck, you've written a bottleneck.
Also, how am I catching it from both ends here? "You've set them up to fail!" AND "You've set it up so they can't possibly fail!"
I can't win here, and I'm not going to continue. I'll just reiterate, nobody uses the 3 clue rule outside of the process-focused. It's not intuitive or reliable.
Agreed on not continuing. I'm sure we have misintrepreted each other since we both think we are right - that means we probably aren't talking about the same thing! If I have misintepreted you, I think it is because you still haven't told us what you do when your players misinterpret a Core Clue?
Also, where did Iserith vanish to? He advocates using the 3 Clue rule all the time - I'd be interested to see you two debate it for a new point of view, since mine seems to be about half way in between...
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
D&D supports adjudicating actions. And it does a fine job of it. The scenario writing aspect is on the DM.
What do i do when someone fails? I describe the current situation and ask what they do next. I don't police success or failure, not my job.
bawylie wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
I think we have drifited off on a tangent that is no longer productive to discuss. I started with saying I agree with you for the most part, so we are really just discussing a small percentage of an area that we don't exactly agree on.
To get things back on track:
eleran wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
And that's it. It's not different than anything else you ever do. Pose a situation, ask what they do, adjudicate the results. Failure is an option. In combat and out. My job is to fairly adjudicate their actions, not keep them in a corral. It's to be honest with the outcomes. Not call for insurance rolls. Nor put backups just in case.
Being that they are clever, they'll typically try backtracking, double-checking, or divination in order to verify. I've seen them turn from dead ends and put themselves back on track. I've seen them rule out bad evidence on their own.
Properly written, they need no insurance. Fairly and honestly presented, they require no alternate paths. Because being wrong or mistaken leads somewhere, not to nothing, I have no bottlenecks.
Ive really tried to answer you and I hope this does.
Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me Bawylie, I understand where you are coming from much better now. Like I said, we are mostly on the same page - it a different approach that really just boils down to a small difference in playstyle. I think the simplest way that I can explain the difference is that mine is very similar to yours but includes more options - some of which are shortcuts, some of which are alternate routes - that I think are worth the extra effort, which is not much with my prep style (I'm heavy on improv).
OK, time to start plannign for the next session.
5 days will have passed since the PCs encountered the Kobolds and the Intellect Devourer. They have a letter retrieved from a kobold instructing him and his team to go to the village of Elgaud, which has recently been abandoned during a dark days event, and to take a treasure laden chest to Xanderthrax as tribute and down payment to make the Kobold tribes his resident lackeys.
The PCs of course are in possession of the treasure laden chest (LOTs of coins and a few gems) and have returned to their own town to research the Intellect Devourer.
The successful research has revealed the nature of Intellect Devourers and their link to Illithids.
The group plans to travel next to Elgaud to find out who Xanderthrax is and what he is doing in the old village. One of the PCs is a refugee from said village and the sole survivor. Unbeknownst to the party Xanderthrax is a Young Green Dragon who has found the village abandoned and is interested in establishing his lair here and letting the wilderness reclaim the buildings. He has sent out feelers to different tribes of Kobolds about needing lackeys and gotten some responses. Had he received the treasure laden chest taken by the PCs that tribe of Kobolds would have been the "lottery winners" and taken up residence in Elgaud to serve Xanderthrax.
The village is 2 days from the PCs town by horse.
My idea was for Xanderthrax to be out gallavanting when the PCs arrive, but I would like a clever way to telegraph hsi presence other than having him fly overhead or something just as obvious. When the PCs arrive in Elgaud village I want them to get a sense of the destruction wrought during the dark days a few months ago, as well as get a sense of the accellerated growth of the wilderness throughout the town due to the Dragons' presence. Basically I want to try to give the PCs a sense of the Dragon Lair this village is going to become.
I think I can set that mood, but am always looking for suggestions. What I really need is interesting encounter ideas. I think there should be some Kobolds here, either waiting for Xanderthrax or looking for him, or something.
Post some ideas and as i start putting words to paper I will post some ideas I come up with as well.
BTW, thanks to all for making an awesome, civil thread.
Just started reading the Dungeon World site about Fronts. I guess it is time for me to start makign my campaign and adventure fronts. This seems like a great opportunity to expand my DM toolbox.
OK, here goes. I am going to try and design an adventure front for the coming session.
This front will be titled "Exploration of the ruins of Elgaud village"
Thos interested in the village are obviously Xanderthrax the Young Green Dragon and a small tribe of Kobolds interested in becoming lackeys of said Dragon. It is possible the village itself (which is transforming into a Dragon's Lair) might also be a danger. I have also contemplated things that could happen after the dark days which is what took this village in the first place. It seems to me that inevitably as the 3 days of darkness wane there are going to be creatures who came to the surface during this time might get left behind for one reason or another and have to fend for themselves until the next dark days, living like an alligator in the sewer as it were. I have even envisioned a group of heroic types who have dedicated themselves to 2 core duties, helping protect the weak during the dark days, and cleaning up messes like stranded creatures after dark days.
You'll want some thorny thickets forming throughout the village that suggests it is being tended to in a way that will create a labyrinth when it's done. Grass and vines taking over the place in noticeable ways - a few hours would have an area that was fairly clear choked with weeds. There is a distinct lack of game in the area, suggesting a hungry predator, but lots of rodents and birds which seem to always follow and watch the PCs. There is no sign of a dragon whatsoever otherwise except for a contingent of the King's Guard that came this way and was attacked by the dragon. The horses were chewed up and stripped of meat as were the soldiers. The area reeks of chlorine and nothing of value remains. Still, there is not a single track or other sign of what did this to these unfortunates except for a clue in the clutches of the dead guard captain - a single green scale.
I think a different kobold tribe has won the right to serve the dragon and when encountered their scales appear to be changing from brown to green as a result of the dragon's presence.
eleran wrote:
For your first few fronts, pay close attention to the structure. Stick close to it. As you grow more comfortable and familiar, you'll get a sense of how you can use them. To start they're merely organizational format. As they grow, you'll find it easy to manage whole campaigns based on a few questions.
Fronts don't ever contribute to good encounter design though. So watch you don't get lazy.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
There ya go. And one of the guards survived (or was purposefully left alive?) but he's mostly catatonic from the dragon's fear, occasionally muttering "the green fog..." while gasping and clutching at his throat. This is someone the fighter knows (and is free to establish how). He takes no food or water and might never recover.
eleran wrote:
a few quick thoughts. I would use some bits of a lot of posters.
set a scalable DC for the informaiton with two rolls One for the investigation and one for the deception hiding of what he is trying to do.
for the information
DC 5 they find out that the information is not available here but can be found elsewhare
DC 8 they find out only what it is called and that it is carniverous or some other minor unimportant fact
DC 10 they find out its enviroment type
DC 15 they get most if not almost all the information presented in the MM
DC 18 they can guess its location
DC 20 they guess correctly its location
To Hide the search
DC 10 the person helping with the search is bothered by the search and suspicous of the questions and the party is alerted to this strange request
DC 15 the person helping only recognizes the person as a fellow academic and the party is not alerted
DC 20 the person helping is compleetly at ease and helps knock some time off how long it takes to find the information
for the investigation itself use both/ eithor/ or investigation and arcana
This way a minimum of they can get the information is the worst that happens which will not stop the adventure. in most cases a player will be using +4 or more for this roll so the DC 10 is not going to be that hard to meet ehich would give them some clues and if they hit the 15 or better than you give them a solid lead and perhaps scare them of how far reaching this might be.
Why? The only interesting outcome of your system is DC 5, which leads to more adventure.
If you're making a system that's designed to ensure a credible lead, why not just give out the credible lead? What's the process bring to the table?
Mostly I just create alternate what if scenario possibiities. I would then random determine the effects and see where the story evolved. I would not try to use these extra what if's as ways to pull a DM gotcha situation. Like the ID then knows and takes over the innkeeper etc ... just to mess with the players inishative and thoughts and plans. Thats being a Dik Dm.
The first is just to give scope to the advancment of the adventure witout putting what happens on rails. You could just as easily flip a coin or roll with only a few listed possibilities, I just like using the given game mechanics and abilities to facilitate that roll choice. The DC 5 is a give away even the worst at a skill should using two bonuses pluss the basic proficenty get at least a +4 so even a critical failure roll would advance the story line .... just as the OP pointed out it would give the enemy more time and time is a factor.
The second is to allow the PC's skills to actually effect the adventure. It would put into play extra interaction options between the PC and the NPC ... it could also lead to interactions with the rest of the party. The hiding the search is based on the PC wanting to hide it not only from the NPC, but also the PC's and with out even realizing it the enemy. So what are the chances that the ID could find out because you creeped out the "librarian" and that librarian let his toung waggle in the wrong place?
It may not add much on the player side of the screne, that is apparent at first glance, but it makes these simple quests reuseable since the random chance chart can be used and almost any small town source of information. simple reusable charts are a good thing.
I'm sorry, I still dont get it.
if I'm concerned with progress, I just progress.
I use checks to resolve ambiguities and determine outcomes that aren't foregone conclusions. If there IS a foregone conclusion, I don't require dice. So I'm wondering why I'd use your system - what ambiguity is resolved? What are the stakes? (But maybe I'm simply missing the charm, here - I dont know).
Where's the dragon's current lair? It's possible your PC's might decide to skip the town and hunt the dragon directly.
If you'd rather this not happen, I suggest having a captured kolbolt say the dragons always moving around sleeping in a different area every night.
If it was a central plot point that required completion to advance the story Yes you are correct there is no reason to make it a long drawn out situation to get the information that in the end you have to give them of the game ends.
If it is not needed for that reason and it is more about players playing as their characters trying to interact with the game world and use their core character traits to act like their character would then I create the above situation. They have asked me to chalange them in said manner so that they can interact with the NPC as their character would. If I just give them the answor and do not present them with more chances to act like their character they will not be happy about it. They were the one that wanted this interaction and as long as it wont hurt the fun level for every one I should at least look at it and try to engage the player in a way they enjoy.
Do you get what I am trying to say?
Drycanth wrote:
Theros wrote:
OK, so game day approaceth and the PCs will be heading to Elgaud village ruins. Currently the village ruins are being retconned by a Young Green Dragon who seeks to establish a lair and use it as a base to control a region that is busy with trade and other human commotion. The village lies near a main road between larger settlements.
The Dragon, named Xanderthrax, is a young dragon who has recently (20 years ago) left his parent to strike out on his own. He has wandered for some time looking for a proper place to establish a lair befitting a Dragon of his (self assured) stature. My long term goal, if he should live so long, is to make Xanderthrax a player in the area, politically and economically. He is quietly arrogant. I want a similar affect as if a new landed noble had moved into an established area. Xanderthrax has courted a few Kobold tribes to join him at his lair to become his vassals and guards and watch dogs. One tribe has won this honor by supplying tribute. This tribe is in the midst of "moving in" when the PCs come to the village to investigate. I do not intend for the Dragon to be encountered by the party at this time, but his existence should be omnipresent.
I plan to play up the transformation of the village with lush new growth of foliage in odd patterns which suggest creating a cave of green in the center of town incorporating former village buildings into the design. This should strike a chord with the PC who is originally from this village.
As the PCs approach the village they will find a trade caravan that has been attacked and ravaged by something large. Using suggestuions from upthread one of the guards will be hanging on to life and will mutter somethign about a Green Fog before he passes on. This guard will be known to a PC who used to be a caravan guard captain himself. The smell of chlorine will still be a background smell at the scene. It has been a day or so since the Dragon raided the caravan.
The main encounter and only combat I have planned is when the PCs reach the village and are met by the Kobolds who are there to setup for the rest of the tribe that is moving there but not arrived yet. I want some good traps sprinkled around since that is part of the Kobolds job for the Dragon is to make the lair difficult for outsiders to approach. I have researched and printed out some VC traps from the Vietnam era as inspiration. Right now I am studying them to think about ways to telegraph them to the players.
Does anyone have any good outdoor traps suggestions that might fit this idea?
Any ideas are appreciated.
Also, something fun might be to have the dragon drive an apex predator out of the forest. Something like an owlbear. There's a terrifying roar followed by an owlbear hightailing it out of the forest. Naturally it runs straight into the PCs but its primary goal is escape. If attacked, it defends itself only long enough to get away. If the PCs investigate the forest where they heard the roar, they find signs of a struggle and a single green scale.
iserith wrote:
As an adventure site, I imagine these ruins with large, clear avenues that lead to a sort of town square. These avenues are mined with IEDs and other Kobold traps - also they have clear line of site to the square, in which the kobolds have set up ballistae so they can fire down the open lanes.
This setup denies access to the major traffic lanes, driving invaders to other, less direct paths. These secondary paths lead to kill-boxes/ambushes.
Routing these ruins would take considerable investment and time. But they're the "foyer" to the dragon's lair. So the PCs can learn of the existence, even location of the dragon, but won't be able to force a direct confrontation without first taking this stronghold.
The local church's belfry has also been repurposed as a watchtower. The bell is rung when the kobolds spot trouble. Taking over this church is a good objective for the PCs since it means the kobold's alert system is compromised. It might also mean a minor boon granted by whichever deity was once worshipped there.
That's a good one. Take and HOLD might be a different matter entirely. Taking it may grant you one shift's worth of "free range". So like 8 hrs running around without the alarm. Holding an outpost in hostile territory would require substantial resources.
Yeah, disabling the bell in some fashion sounds like the thing to do before leaving.
I was only thinking a token force of Kobolds in the village at this time, specifically, 7 grunts, 2 Urds and 1 Shaman (Acolyte NPC repurposed), Do you think there should be more?
If it's been established that the kobolds are moving into this area as a result of having been chosen by the green dragon to be his minions, then I'd expect to see more and more kobolds arrive each day. So start with a token force and a new, slightly bigger force shows up on each following day until it reaches some upper limit and stops or until the PCs stem the tide.
Depends what it's for. If it IS a base, I'd use it as an adventure site (6-8 solid encounters in there, replenishing daily, really work to hold).
If you're just using it as 1 encounter - totally diff approach.
Fair enough. I was approaching it as a single encounter, but the idea of an encounter site has a lot of validity. The end goal for the Kobolds obviously is to drive off/kill the PCs without bothering the Dragon. They see this as a chance to prove themselves to the big fella.
What is the ultimate goal of the PCs? Do I even need to worry about this since my job is to facilitate and adjudicate?
I think if you present a dramatic question, you won't need to determine their goals. They'll tell you.
In other words, if your question is whether or not your PCs can stop the dragon, or halt his progress, or even deliver a setback to the kobolds - your players will set their priorities and outline what they do to answer that question. Maybe their goal is sneak through the site and kill whoever' leading the kobolds. Maybe it's to seize territory. Idk - anything they do is on them. You just have to see if their plan works or not.
Oh! Youre the umpire. You call the balls and strikes. You don't pick the throw.
eleran wrote: