Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Jul 06, 2004 18:36:54	By Crimson Hellkite So, my friends walked into my living room. I had everything set up: five chairs at the table, with mine at the table's head. My DM screen was up, and I had all my maps organized. There was a set of dice behind my screen and one in the middle of the table. All the miniatures were on the map in the middle of the room, as they were when we left off last game. All my players had their character sheets. We sat down and immediately continued our game of D&D. The party's wizard sat down and looked at his spell sheet, making sure that his oh so important dispel magic was still prepared. The paladin began talking to everyone, reminding them that saving the kidnapped daughter was the first priority, killing the vampire is the second. The rogue instantly began rolling Search, Spot and Listen checks for traps. Does this sound like your game? I sympathize for groups that play their D&D games online, in a chatroom. It's extremely hard for them to organize, I'm sure- when playing online, it's probably extremely difficult to show the players a map. They're adventuring in a dungeon, and you need to show them what their characters know about the dungeon, but that also means you have to conceal more than half the map. Online? That's too much of a headache that most DMs shrug it off and don't bother with maps. That basically means that the players are walking blind. They can't use miniatures (or, at least, using them would cause a major headache), so the players have to basically guess or remember where they are during the battle. But, if you're playing in real life, c'mon. There's no excuse. You should always have a map made for anywhere and everywhere the players go (the exception being if the characters suddenly decide, out of the blue, to go to another town or something along those lines). If making a map is too much of a hassle, then print one out from the Map-A-Week feature. Or, if you happen to have some spare cash, buy the Map Folio. There's also a Map Folio II coming out in August '04. If you can't afford miniatures, then put a penny, nickle, dime, and quarter on your map to represent each player. It's a little extra work, but it makes the game so much more fun, since it simplifies everything in terms of navigation. So, you have maps and miniatures. What else? Effective dungeon building. I once played in a game where my rogue made a Search check every room. He was an elf, and because of his low constitution score, he couldn't afford to be hit by any traps. Throughout the whole dungeon, there was not a single lock, trap, ambush or anything that would require a rogue. Now c'mon, traps and locks are a fun part about D&D. They may not have as big a role as monsters or treasure, but they're still there. The rogue can't pick the lock? Then you either bash the door down or you find another way in. The trap just burnt off your cloak of resistance? You're in a dungeon, there's probably another one in here! If you're having trouble making good traps and locks, look at the Complete Divine book, page 69. In this sewer hideout of Olidammara, there's a great placement of good traps, locks and spells for a good 10th or 11th level party. However, since it's a rogue hideout, there may be too many; plus, it's a very small place. It's up to you where and how many traps and locks you place. Here's something else: making sure that you put the party mage to use. By use, I don't mean "blow stuff up". Look at how many spells mages can use. Why not have them use more than just fireball? Look at all those spells that the mage will probably never use: scare, illusory script, geas/quest, ventriloquism, the list goes on. Look at Gandalf. Throughout all of Lord of the Rings, I don't think he cast one attack spell. Sure, lobbing a magic missile spell at enemies is great fun, but that's not all mages can do. Causing an avalanche to kill all your enemies with a shout spell sounds more useful than slowly chipping at their hitpoints with other spells. The rogue's unconscious? Open/close. The fighter needs to do more damage? Bull's strength. The bridge is destroyed and you need to get across? Fly. I was also going to talk about the lack of random encounters and how to use CR correctly, but I'm sure I just inspired some energetic habbits- you can go to the Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual to look them up yourself. :D Now, as to games being too fancy. Before I begin, I want to make something very clear: I'm talking about pre-epic games. "Save the world" type campaigns are perfectly fine for epic level games. This article is talking about games before epic levels. The biggest problem with games nowadays is that the DM tries to make an adventure where you save the world. Wait a second... why would the players, low-level characters, save the world when there's Elminster and Drizz't? Mordenkainen and Bigby? Solar angels and epic-level characters are rare, but they can save the world a lot easier. What happened to the simple games, like the games the Gamestoppers play? Simple games; negotiate with giants to not destroy a village. Recover a religious artifact that was stolen by a cult of Nerull. Kill the vampire that's murdering people in the town. Why does it have to be save the world? Why not just killing a priest of Gruumsh, or rescuing a damsel in distress? No, seriously, I'm sick and tired of playing in games where the players have a part in saving the world. EPIC CHARACTERS DO THAT.
#2 zombiegleemax Jul 09, 2004 0:22:26	I disagree completely. I find that not using minatures improves the game in some ways. My last campaign used minatures and it went well but I'm looking for a more cinematic feel. "They're adventuring in a dungeon, and you need to show them what their characters know about the dungeon" No, dungeons are rare. Why would there be a bunch of monsters packed into a cave? Sure sometimes they are, but such a situation needs an explanation. I prefer a more realistic world. In the standard D&D world farmers need to be careful about erosion. If too much dirt washes away monsters will swarm out of the ground and he'll have to call some adventurers. Digging a well for water, now that's just asking for trouble. "The trap just burnt off your cloak of resistance? You're in a dungeon, there's probably another one in here!" Ugg... no there isn't. No way. If magic is that common too many assumptions about how the world works have to be thrown away. "Look at Gandalf. Throughout all of Lord of the Rings, I don't think he cast one attack spell." You're on the right track but I think that you missed the point. Not only is Gandalf a powerful wizard but he is also a maiar (celestial). Yet this epic character casts few spells and owns few magical items. The other characters don't cast spells at all. The reason? The story would make no sense at all if magic were everywhere. "Wait a second... why would the players, low-level characters, save the world when there's Elminster and Drizz't? Mordenkainen and Bigby?" Because losers like them don't exist in my campaign world. D&D is at its best when the PCs are among the most powerful people in the world. Epic characters? You mean like 8th level? Because I can't imagine someone higher level than that. I can imagine looking at a character sheet with a bunch of number on it, but I can't imagine some guy who never misses, can cut through low level soldiers like butter, and won't go down despite ten arrows in his chest.
#3 questionc Jul 09, 2004 1:02:34	If you get the time, do us a favor and do talk about random encounters and the proper use of CR, as I've looked at the DMG and Monstrous Manual quite a bit and am not quite sure about what it is you are suggesting. Also, about maps... I don't really have any experience in organizing a 'mapless game', but after having made my attempt at DMing, it struck me that running combat without a map might actually be a good idea. Of course, the DM would need some kind of map to keep track of everything, but provided he's reasonably competent at describing a scene, it wouldn't seem too hard for a DM use descriptions that would more than suffice for a map. I dunno, it just seems like if you really sit down and spend some time on turning a map into good descriptions (which you'd like to have anyhow), you can get by without a map.
#4 ineednosalt Jul 09, 2004 1:14:33	DMs write Save-The-World campaigns for non-epic characters because, in the long run, saving the world is just that much more fun than killing a cleric or negotiating with giants. Additionally, it gives you a good, solid stepping stone up to saving *other* worlds, too. You make it sound like you dislike that the players take the spotlight ; but that shouldn't be a bad thing. Elminster and Drizzt shouldn't be saving the world if your players would rather be the ones doing it.
#5 tzor Jul 09, 2004 15:11:46	As someone who is a DM in an online game I can generally agree that it can be a problem sometimes, although my problem is that my cable access does not allow me to run as a server and most of the good programs out there require the DM to either run as a server or uses peer to peer which is considered a server by my cable access provider. There are some good programs out there that allow you to hide parts of a map. There are some good mapping programs that can make decent maps in minutes. Even an online game shouldn’t have to suffer from lack of maps. In one worst case I made a map, and covered the parts of the map the players hadn’t explored. I come from the really old school where we used to draw maps on graph paper that used to fill up the entire paper. There is no excuse for not having a map. Sometimes you can make them up on the fly, as for example, a random encounter at a random street corner. But you should have some sample maps ready in case people want to explore buildings or the like. In the old 1E and 2E Lankhmar scenario there was a section of random building maps. Map-A-Week is really good here, and the printed edition of Map-A-Week is somewhat useful in a tabletop game. In my games I have put locks on doors because they belong there. Traps also need to “belong there.” The monsters or encounters that live near the trap have to have some way to avoid it. Secret passages are also something that needs to belong. On the other hand, there isn’t anything wrong with a low level “save the world” campaign. This is especially true in my Lankhmar campaign where the biggest NPCs tend to get heroes to do all the work for them, and sometimes the big heroes are otherwise occupied and you have to go to the minor leagues. Of course saving the world is not always obvious, and sometimes you just have to save a village.
#6 Edymnion Jul 10, 2004 1:03:51	Low level characters saving the world, no, thats not a good thing. Getting a bunch of low level characters to go adventuring with the express purpose of saving the world later, thats a bad thing. But whats wrong with saving the world when they reach the high levels? Not all of us play in games that have the Faerun guys like Elminster, or that have "iconic" characters like Bigby in them. In many games, the high level PCs ARE the biggest, baddest force of Good around. Or, maybe its just not a big enough deal to get the big guy's attention. Yes, an army of Solars could beat back the encroaching necromancer horde. But why would they? They're immortal, they can just wait it out. Plus, they've got the Blood War to worry about, fighting demons and devils. Stopping one armor from conquering some stuff simply is not important enough to draw them away from their duties. Just like the President could come down and settle a big dispute in your city. But, in the grand scheme of things, your city doesn't really matter, and he's got more important things to do. Actually, I take it back. There are times when asking a low level party to save the world is a good thing. One sprang to mind while I was typing. The greatest fantasy adventure of all time, it started off with a godlike being charging a bunch of lvl 1 commoners to save the world. It was called Lord of the Rings. Sometimes, the big boys simply can't do the job, and it takes, to quote Tolkien, "The most unlikely of heroes" to succeed. If you're just going to sit down for a session or two, saving a town or finding an item is fine. If you're going to be playing a campaign designed to stretch YEARS into the future, I know that I for one darn well expect to have some truely epic adventures (not Epic as in greater than lvl 20, but epic as in vast and grand). Take a game I've just started up. The characters are starting out breaking their way out of slavery. By the end, they will (hopefully), save the world. But that won't be for a long, long, long time. Until then, the campaign is essentially going to be "Find item X" for the actual game to game play. There's nothing wrong with planning big. Just make sure that its actually appropriate for the characters. And remember, "saving the world" is relative. Saving the world could be as small as keeping your country from being overrun. Saving the world could be as big as keeping the fabric of reality from unravling and the destruction of the entire multiverse. Or it could be anywhere in between. And frankly, the guys trying to keep the entire multiverse from collapsing (which would mean the destruction of the Prime, the Elemental Planes, the Outter Planes, Celestia, the Abyss, EVERYTHING) really couldn't care less about what happens to one little city on one individual plane. They have much more important things to do just trying to keep the world there and in one piece in the first place, get somebody else to stop some monkey in the world from trying to mucking it up.
#7 zombiegleemax Jul 14, 2004 4:56:48	I disagree with your entire post except this: "The biggest problem with games nowadays is that the DM tries to make an adventure where you save the world. No, seriously, I'm sick and tired of playing in games where the players have a part in saving the world. EPIC CHARACTERS DO THAT." I entirely agree 100% on this. Campaigns about saving the world are boring and aren't innovative. ~ Lock
#8 thugpoetry Jul 14, 2004 7:41:51	DM's are lazy? Oh boy, let me introduce you to a couple DM's that I know...;) (Yes Onion, I'm looking directly at you). It seems like the premise is "why would the PC's save the world when there are icon's like Drizzit, Elminster, etc etc etc to do it?" My response is, hey, if you've got a group who doesn't want to have the fate of the world in their hands, then by all means, let them negotiate with giants, or kill vampires. My favorite character saved the world a couple of times, mated with a gold dragon in human form, restored the timeline to the original flow. Oh, and I stole items, saved friends, figured out what was killing things down in the mines, joined a secret agency. It's what we enjoyed. Your mileage may vary.
#9 zombiegleemax Jul 15, 2004 21:00:45	I also dislike the FR "super-NPCs." I reduced the problem by reducing their levels. I eliminated the Chosen of Mystra Template, got rid of the unsightly leftover 2e-style multiclassing, tossed in some prestige classes to keep the NPCs balanced with the players, and lowered the most powerful NPC's level from 39 to 25. CR 25 Elminster: Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Dweomerkeeper 14/Archmage 5 CR 24 The Simbul: Sorcerer 3/Wizard 3/PrC* 13/Archmage 5 CR 24 Telamont: Shade Wizard 5/Shadow Adept 12/Archmage 5 CR 23 Khelben "Blackstaff" Arunsun: Wizard 5/Guild Wizard of Waterdeep 10/ Archmage 5 CR 23 Storm Silverhand: Bard 18/Harper Scout 5 CR 23 Szass Tam: Lich Necromancer 5/Red Wizard 11/Archmage 5 CR 22 Halaster Blackcloak: Wizard 17/Archmage 5 CR 20 Alustriel: Wizard 15/Archmage 5 CR 19 Manshoon Wizard 14/Archmage 5 *The Simbul has an unnamed prestige class that is similar to the Dweomerkeeper but designed for wizard/sorcerer multiclasses. This does not eliminate the problem, but it reduces it by putting a strict and reasonable level cap on NPCs and limiting the number that can rise to such levels. It's a heck of a lot easier to make a difference as a 15th-level character when the high-level NPCs are few, far between, not two and a half times your level, and deadlocked with other high-level NPCs that will kill them if they blink.
#10 zombiegleemax Jul 22, 2004 13:39:38	As a DM of 20 years, I disagree with Glak. If your game has combat, miniatures add to the game. PERIOD. Please don't try to say they don't, because if you're using Dungeons and Dragons 3rd edition, you are using a system based on rules. Rules which govern combat/movement, etc. Having a large erasable mat and miniatures is INVALUABLE for determining reach, attacks of opportunity, movement, line of site, etc. It also gives the players a point of reference to themselves, the monsters and the other players. How far is it to heal the rogue? How many monsters must I run past? Things your character would see in real combat and would make note of. Things you don't have to bug the DM about... =) As far as world saving by the lowly, this is how it works in D&D: low levels suck for saving the world if you stick to the rules. This is not Lord of the Rings, this is not the Hobbit, this is not books about poor pathetic retches who fumble their way through saving the world. Let's compare Lord of the Rings to D&D. Frodo... 2-3rd level commoner Sam... 2-3rd level commoner Pippin... 2nd level rogue Merry... 2nd level rogue Ok, they were pathetic. By all rights, they ought to be dead. But they had help. Aragorn - 12th-15th level ranger Gimli - 10th level fighter Legolas - 10th-15th level fighter/ranger/order of the bow initiate? Look at the moves they do and you'll see their abilities are extremely high level. And now... Gandalf - Epic level celestrial?! And remember, they start the game with a major artifact and quickly gain a powerful weapon, a powerful suit of armor, etc. Now, assuming your characters AREN'T the 10th level and above crew--assuming they are the hobbits--they spend the entire book running. Is that REALLY what you want your characters doing? DM: You see an orc. Player: Run. DM: You see a ring wraith. Player: Run DM: You see a rabbit. Player: Run Being a pathetic wretch might be interesting to read about and how he suffers through tribulations, overcomes temptations and mostly survives from sheer dumb luck. However, in a gaming sense, it's not fun to most players. Especially those attracted to Dungeons and Dragons. There are other, more freeform, RPGs out there that might appeal to your sort of gaming more. For dungeons and dragons, I suggest this approach. Levels 1 - 3 - Spreading your wings - the characters learn about their area and their surroundings, doing simple adventures (kill the monster troubling the town, guard this caravan, etc.). Perhaps mention rumors of something bigger, but nothing more. Levels 4 - 8 - PCs do some significant tasks, rescue kidnapped princess, slay marauding monsters. Good time to introduce a henchman of the main bad guy. Levels 9 - 13 - Introduce the PCs to your theme. The world gets invaded, the dragon takes over the country, etc. They can't confront this big evil directly yet, but give them information on tools that can. Levels 14 - 16 - PCs run around collecting the pieces they can use to destroy the villian. In the process, he sends his henchmen to deal with them... perhaps trying to get the pieces before the PCs. Level 17+ - Now they are powerful enough to use the items they've collected and rid the world of the villain. They can directly confront the bad guy, perhaps having to over traps, henchmen, etc. Granted, that's off the top of my head and is a very general guideline. Basically, you work in steps. Introducing "let's save" the world at 1st level or "We must kill the ancient lich" would be enough to scare most people out of their wits, not to mention... there will be other with more experience and more power who should be saving it instead of 4-6 pathetic retches from the four corners of the realm. If you ARE going to introduce the "Let's save the world" theme at 1st level... at least do the extra work to make it sound plausible. WHY are they the ones that has to do it? Here's a good way. An ancient evil that was banished long ago has returned... it took 6 artifacts to banish it before, but those objects were keyed to the heroes who wielded them, to prevent them from falling into enemy hands. The characters are the LAST surviving heirs who can wield the weapons. The race begins to see whether the heroes or the evil finds the artifacts first. Why must they do it alone? Because the evil will be watching the powerful mages, and if they players are discovered, they will be killed. But the mage/priest/etc. that contacts them will guide them thru notes, etc. Again, just off the top of my head, but it makes a heck of a lot more sense than some of the stuff I've played thru. Be creative. Sure, it's suspension of disbelief, but make it easier to suspend disbelief.
#11 sphyre Jul 26, 2004 8:31:23	Originally posted by Crimson Hellkite I sympathize for groups that play their D&D games online, in a chatroom. It's extremely hard for them to organize, I'm sure when playing online, it's probably extremely difficult to show the players a map. They're adventuring in a dungeon, and you need to show them what their characters know about the dungeon, but that also means you have to conceal more than half the map. Online? That's too much of a headache that most DMs shrug it off and don't bother with maps. That basically means that the players are walking blind. They can't use miniatures (or, at least, using them would cause a major headache), so the players have to basically guess or remember where they are during the battle. Oh how I wish I had that benefit. In a chat room? I could explain the environment without interruptions. People could role play better (Everything is in character without () and you cant use /emote or *Sphyre does this* to designate actions. Maps? Wonderful. No paper involved. I have a map. Someone wants to see an updated map? I can real quickly cut out where on the map they are and then make a picture out of it. Takes 5 seconds, and is much crisper and clearer than normal. Then post it to the chat room (at least I'd hope that the chatroom has that capability, at least in some computer formats) Battle? I admit that's probably harder, but on the bright side, people who play on a computer are at the computer, they aren't busy talking with their neighbors mid-battle and thusly it takes approximately 5 minutes for anyone to pull off one move action and one standard action or one fullround action. I think I'd benefit from online play more than give up, so I'd have to say I'd disagree with you there.
#12 finarin_panjoro Jul 28, 2004 16:45:19	I couldn't disagree with this article more strongly. Miniatures and battle maps are entirely unnecessary in D&D. All you need is a decent imagination and a good description of the scene. I'm running a game now that meets for 1 hour a week. We don't have time to set up maps and miniatures. We meet on our lunch break and just play and I, as DM, describe the scene. We've found that battle is not only faster, it is more fun without miniatures. It returns a cinematic element to the game and forces everyone to picture the battle in their heads.
#13 zombiegleemax Jul 31, 2004 6:57:55	Just to nitpick, but Gandalf, or any other character from LoTR for that instance, isn't epic at all. Some guy read through the whole book with the sole purpose of finding everyone's level, and Gandalf is a level 5 sorcerer :D. Using the movie is pointless, as they had to boost everybody's leetness a lot.
#14 critical_mass Aug 31, 2004 2:48:30	Oh how I wish I had that benefit. In a chat room? I could explain the environment without interruptions. People could role play better (Everything is in character without () and you cant use /emote or *Sphyre does this* to designate actions. Maps? Wonderful. No paper involved. I have a map. Someone wants to see an updated map? I can real quickly cut out where on the map they are and then make a picture out of it. Takes 5 seconds, and is much crisper and clearer than normal. Then post it to the chat room (at least I'd hope that the chatroom has that capability, at least in some computer formats) Battle? I admit that's probably harder, but on the bright side, people who play on a computer are at the computer, they aren't busy talking with their neighbors mid-battle and thusly it takes approximately 5 minutes for anyone to pull off one move action and one standard action or one fullround action. I think I'd benefit from online play more than give up, so I'd have to say I'd disagree with you there. Ugh, as a person who DMs almost exclusively online, I would LOVE to have some sort of map or real-time mapping program. And chat-room RP can be pretty bad. You don't know when someone's saying something until they're done and hit enter, so people are always stepping over each other in conversation. And everything's so halted. The PCs enter a room, you spend twenty seconds typing out the quick description, and they're already trying to head in different directions. And don't even get me started on trying to run combat or having PCs browse the friggin' internet while playing.
#15 jagggar Sep 04, 2004 21:43:37	I haven't played a full session with an actual minis map yet. Whenever we got into combat, the DM MIGHT sketch the area on graph paper, erasing gets messy after a while. What's in my head as far as combat with minis, I think I'd prefer it. Online: I've been thinking about setting up a message board game with some of my friends. My plan is to upload maps to a free server and give them links to it. Put a coordinate plane on the maps when they battle and have them identify positions by "I move to (3,7)" and such like that. Far as role-playing goes in chat rooms, it works well, I don't actually know about running it completely with D&D rules and such, but I have some nice RPs going with a couple of friends.
#16 wwad_dup Sep 12, 2004 18:28:59	Crimson Hellkite, you overemphasize the need for maps in a D&D game. Not everything needs to relate to a physical representation of where the PCs are like they are lost in a shopping mall. Most of a D&D game happens in your head, not on the table. It's a game of thought and imagination. I see nothing wrong with meeting online, and judging by the tone of your article, I assume you haven't. While I prefer meeting in person because I work from home and otherwise don't get to socialize with adults very often, I wouldn't disparage those who must or prefer to play online. Maps aside, which as I said I don't use that often and I do play in person, online play can actually have advantages over in person play that I'm sure you haven't considered. 1) A decent teamspeak-type program can allow whispers to other players that allows text or speach to only go to specific people--cutting down on table chatter or meta-game knowledge 2) anyone can use a character portrait and speech altering software to basically wear a costume to the game--the DM can play the role of several NPCs and make the whole scene more immersive for the players 3) Some players live too far away, have transportation issues, or may have physical challenges that prevent them from attending a live game--network games allow players to transcend geographical and physical boundaries that may otherwise prevent or stall a game such as vacation, working out of town, rural living, injury/illness, really bad hygiene, a DUI, etc. 4) if you're having problems with a player that can't be resolved, it's much easier online to just change a chatroom password than it is to change your playing location IRL or change your home address 5) sometimes the laptop screen can distract players and DMs from the game but there is often so much information needed to run the game quickly and efficiently that the computer is needed--while playing online, the whole game is on the computer so no one is distracted 6) campaigns have a better chance of staying together longer if online play is an option for a longtime group--campaigns that have already existed for several years no longer have to stop playing when a few players or the DM move or graduate college. Don't close out a perfectly good option for roleplaying. You may not always be physically fit or living near gamers or have access to transportation--but I hope for your sake you will.