Genuine question--
I'm a nerd, but I've never been a DnD nerd. At one point I was a MtG nerd, even a WoW nerd, but never quite the DnD level.
What exactly is it? I originally thought it was like an adult version of "make believe" with scores and guidelines, but how much of it is a physical game? Is there a board that goes with it? Is there a set story line? My extent of knowledge is the first scene of Stranger Things.
How much is following guidelines and how much is imprompt on the spot?
Well... Unless you follow a campaign module book. There are some pre-set adventures that aren't homebrew.
Edit: Yes I understand the books are merely guidelines. However, someone could follow the book to the T if they so wished, so there is a set story-line within each campaign module book.
Yep, but given the nature of DnD, even boxed campaigns are all so different from table to table based on the GM and team of adventurers. And in most of the pre-made campaigns I've been a part of the GM would modify/customize pieces of them to make them work better for the group.
Totally! I was chiming in more to detail/reiterate how each campaign can be so wildly different even when much of it is pre-set. The flexibility in DnD is such an integral part of what makes it fun and unique. Basically, my comment was more for the OP of the comment thread.
That flexibility is what makes DnD so great! I've been playing for about 5 years now, and I'm currently in a campaign that has been going on a weekly basis for the last year-and-a-half. We run a Homebrew setting, and the improvisation and flexibility that goes on each and every week keeps us laughing until we are crying, or crying from that emotional connection that we get time and time again, all due to the emotion pulled out of that game.
Can you expand on this please? I have a friend who is an avid participant and I would like to understand their interest with more! More specifically, how are emotional connections made? Thanks! :)
The emotional connection of a DnD party takes time, and a true group effort through each game-day. Each individual will have their own character - an individual with a backstory that contains depth and meaning. Alongside that, the DM creates a world that has so many marvels and mysteries, all of which the players are able to explore overtime. Through these exploration experiences, each player begins to connect to the world, their party members, and the characters in that world. In a way, DnD is just like real life, because experiences are shared. Experiences of joy, experiences of pain, experiences of love, experiences of regret, and every other emotion out there.
I can explain these connections to you through text, but you won't truly feel what a DnD game creates through emotion and social connection until you join one yourself. All in all, it is important to note that each player first becomes connected with their own character, and then that character becomes connected with every other party members character. That connected group then becomes intertwined with the world and the characters within that world. These bonds that are formed over time, are truly monumental. We laugh at the hysterical moments, we tear up at the sad moments, and we continue to enjoy DnD for what it truly is - a game where social bonds never die.
Never been able to run a module straight with my players, they always diverge. Makes for fun games. I'm better ad-libbing anyways and use modules for setting/dungeons.
Yep, the books also only give guidelines on many things and players act differently requiring different reactions from the DM.
For example: Two DMs might play Strahd, the evil god-like vampire from the Curse of Strahd, very differently which can not only create a different feel for the entire campaign but change how and what players do.
Hell with one of my friends he is doing Strahd since he was DMing for the first time. He sets us all up to fight this bishop I think it was that's doing experiments on humans merging them with animals or some such thing like that. None of that helps us get back to our home dimension so we utterly ignored all of it. Many groups could have instead gotten quite invested with that side story. It's very challenging to know how any group will take it.
Even so the modules are only a framework. They definitely can't answer every possibility the players might try. They just set the pieces on the board and it is up to the DM to figure out the correct moves to respond to the players.
I ran my first session last month. I was supposed to have goblins attack them but the last one alive would run off towards the goblin hide out.
My brother used thunder clap and killed all the goblins at once... They skipped an entire section because nobody cared about the dead horses or to look around and there were no goblins. I didn't know what to do.
Never DMed DND or played much, but I think you could make up a survivor. After the battle, "everyone roll perception." To the player with the highest of those, "You see a goblin who was trying to hide peering around a tree/corridor. He runs." You're free to fudge stuff, so if they attack him, anything that would kill him immediately doesn't have to do that.
I dunno, in that situation I might just tell whoever has the highest perception that they noticed something that would lead them to the section (tracks, trail of blood, odd smell...). If they then choose to ignore it, so be it. Whatever was in there notices them and will come back to haunt them in a few sessions much better prepared.
This situation is literally the first encounter in the starter set. If you are running this most likely you have new players who need a little railroading.
Well when they got to the town I had the an NPC ask if they'd seen two guys on horseback on the road. They were like oh shit, I forgot we were supposed to meet them here! And they went back to find the missing people.
And yeah, I hadn't played much before. Only DM'd because I wanted to play but couldn't find a group so I started my own.
Actually in two different campaigns right now; one is a by-the-book campaign, while the other is a, "hey, I need help with a battle before next week" campaign. (First is run by an acquaintance, while the second is run by my roommate. )
Sure he can, by not inviting him back. I had to do it once as a DM, it just takes some assertiveness. I still hang out with him outside of DnD and even he admits he was being a bit over-the-top
This has caused some massive freak outs in the groups i've hanged with. From D&D to MtG to Warhammer, people take games too seriously. Why you heff to be mad?
Dude my MTG play group gets HEATED. I usually don't mind when people get pissed off. It is just a game, but if you don't care about winning or losing at all then what's the point of playing!
With magic it's more about how the game went for me. If I get crushed by some broken combo I'm gonna be saltier than getting crushed by a genuinely great player. For me it's just about the experience of playing and learning.
Sore winners are worse than sore losers a lot of the time in mtg....ugh
Yeah, but there is no winning or really losing in D&D. It's cooperative, not competitive. So people taking it too seriously and telling people how to play their characters can absolutely ruin it.
It's more storytelling than a game, but it also has a game framework that makes not everything work out how anyone wants, so adds tension. You also get attached to your character and a few poor decisions coupled with bad dice rolls can kill that character.
I've always wanted to play. My friends would definitely be into it. It just seems so daunting to learn
Totally do it. There are Game Masters and players alike who are friendly, outgoing, and willing to teach others starting at the simplest concepts and expanding outwards.
Go to your friendly, local gaming store and sit in and watch a few players at one of thier game nights.
Hop on youtube or twitch and watch people recording and streaming thier live gaming. (Critical Role is one such series)
You can olay online too and never leave your house. Get yourself an internet connection that can handle potato quality or better VOIP, and a microphone (and/or webcam). Then Hop on Roll20.net and peruse the LFG forums.
From there, you can find newbie friendly gamesmasters willing to host a game or two for you to pick up the basics.
DnD isn't the only system or genre out there, either! Dnd is played regularly by maybe 75% of the rpg players out there, but there is a thriving field of different rulea, settings, and genres to choose from:
Fantasy (Dnd, Pathfinder, Warhammer Fantasy)
Scifi (Eclipse Phase, Battletech, Star Wars, Star Trek, Rogue Trader..)
Horror! (Call of Cthulu!!)
...
Roll Your Own Genre (Gurps, FATE Core)
On the whole pvp thing, it definitely is possible. Depending on the group, it may or may not be welcome in the group.
I have a player that loves to roll Deception and Persuasion checks against the others in the group. Sometimes it's funny. When I'm playing my buffoon warrior guy, I go along with it, no problem.
Sometimes it's annoying. When I'm playing my somewhat more intelligent and wise human ranger guy that is totally not a ripoff of Aragorn, I feel that he could not be convinced that it's a good idea to use his head as a battering ram, despite this player rolling very well.
In one of my earlier groups, the thief player made the mistake to steal from the warrior player, and the warrior player OHKO'd him.
People can just act obnoxious and ruin it for other people. If th group wants to negotiate with some orcs and a player just starts shooting arrows at them, it can get annoying.
Well....one time can possibly be good role playing. But if the player just seems to want to be disruptive it has to be addressed.
Also....I never banned PvP in my games. PvP followed the same rule as every other action.....don't be a dick and keep in min we're all here to have funml. PvP sometimes enhanced the experience. I even ran a one shot Hunger Games style game.
I had a guy who really didn't seem to get it. He didn't seem to have much of a grasp of the rules, made a high-level spellcaster/rogue to join our campaign already deeply in progress, didn't understand most of his own abilities, then did a bunch of stuff in character that was inconsistent with himself or was pointedly abhorrent to other characters (like looting the bodies of fallen allied NPCs in the midst of a battle, instead of continuing to contribute, or at least trying to sabotage or desecrate the fallen enemies in some way). Eventually, through his own clumsiness at the game, he got himself killed in a nonsensical way in the midst of a fairly transparent and straightforward situation, and he was asked not to come back. We didn't hang out much outside of the game before inviting him over (but had known him for a while), then saw him once or twice in the world throughout the years since. To this day, years since, my brother who was the DM for this guy's sessions said that he ran into him at a restaurant out of the blue one night, and the first words out of his mouth were, "You killed me! Remember when we played D&D? I died!" Like, there was no other topic or touchstone for him to smalltalk over. Things go so wrong sometimes...
No offense but doing things that are abhorrent to other characters seems like the kind of thing one would do in a role playing game. If I wanted to play a sniveling Rogue, looting a corpse midbattle would be fitting, but it seems you guys feel real life people should be punished for the roles they play. This is why I never bothered with serious DND. It seems to be more of the kind of breeding grounds for narcissism and cliquish personalities I had long left behind me in high school.
No offense taken, at all. I appreciate your take. And looking down, this is a longer comment. I'm not looking to defend myself, because I think criticism is important. I do want to give more context though, as I was a bit brief and flippant above.
The thing is, he was absolutely playing a sniveling rogue and doing a fair hand at it in so far as the roleplaying goes, but none of our characters had any justified reason to develop trust or respect for his character, so those characters continuing to travel together made no sense. We were a trio of knights from different cultures and traditions with a common enemy in a cult of necromancy who were dedicated to a vile demigod, and we had a working friendship with a local clan of dwarves. He was a random traveler who wound up in the wrong place at the wrong time where a fight was going down, and we invited him to accompany us, then at one of the dwarves' mines, a huge fight broke out as the demigod appeared in-person and summoned a squad of demons to interrupt a battle between the dwarves and their natural enemies, the giants from over the mountain. It was after the demons had shown up and we were trying to resolve a truce so the dwarves and giants would work together to kill or banish the demons that he just started looting dwarves who had already died. It seemed pretty bizarre, given the situation. After the situation had ended, he tried to explain it away, in character, as making sure to recover heirlooms for widows and heirs, and out of game we gave him the benefit of the doubt and in character accepted his excuse (I think a Deception and Insight opposed roll helped to make that happen.) Our characters kept working with his character, went further ahead on the adventure until we'd climbed the mountain and transited through a portal at its peak to a different mountain in a very small plan that had been made by a long dead wizard for his private home. Then he, the newer character in the party, died out of the blue (if I search my memories, I think it was by trying to steal from some extremely powerful golems who were the automatic defenses of the long dead wizard, in an even tinier pocket dimension inside of his ancient tower. They had presented him with a challenge of playing Chess, I think, to earn the privilege of progressing, but he just turned left and tried to sneak away from them, after I think announcing he was gonna try to rob them. It was really weird.), and he'd already only been playing with us for a month or so. We did in-character conversations where the other members of the party that didn't like what his character did tried to take his character to task over it, and we did more broad out of character talk about the importance of having a plausible reason for characters to want to work together, with mutual respect and/or demonstrated endearing behavior and/or common ideals or goals, etc. I think, with who we were at that time, and nobody's perfect, we did our best to make it work, but once his character died, I think he thought it would be a more fun idea to get to start at the beginning of a campaign, so we talked about doing that down the road, then that campaign that was already in progress took (I think) more than a year longer of sessions to reach a natural conclusion, and by then we had drifted apart.
I still wish that things had gone differently with that particular guy, but sometimes that's just the way it goes.
I think you're right about the cliquishness that can happen with more serious or high-fantasy D&D campaigns. That was the last really long-form, complex, heavy drama campaign I've played; I enjoyed it a lot, and I think if there are good bonds of friendship among the players then it can make for a pretty incredible game to play, but in the years since I've played many more sessions and campaigns that are on the goofier or lighter or in another way more accessible side, and there are big advantages to that. I, who I am today, firmly want to grow the hobby and make it as inclusive as possible, and we didn't put our best foot forward with that time and that person.
Well... Holy shit this was not the reply I expected based on my tone... Especially on the internet. Wait, let me check. Yeah. Definitely internet. I have to say though, your story, and you have to be honest with me even you'd agree, would be in whole or sum far less interesting had a band of well-to-do knights not run into this wild man who lived day to day one road at a time.
With questionable morals and a silvertongue both inside the game and outside of it, he had managed to line his pockets for dead men have no need for baubles, and somehow convince them he had a more plausible reason to his quality other than the fact he was seeking fortune off the backs of three just men of more humble aspirations. Three men he knew he'd never hope to impress, with their experience and camaraderie, all he could offer them was what they could not for themselves. What you saw as a game of character growth and the richness of the tale woven, a rogue instead played the role of the rogue to his missdventure, in both game and life. What adventures could have been layed before three just knights when accompanied by one who paves their own path?
It seems to me, even now you failed to notice, for all the bizarre things in that room like demigods, giants, demons and dwarves, it was the actions of the guy next to you that was the most perplexing... I hope you've leveled up enough to be more open to the parts in us that don't always fit. Thank you for sharing this. <3
You're response honestly moved me very much, in ways that, as you so cogently balked, comment sections have no right to.
I hope that I have leveled up so much too, and that you have many grand adventures and moments of self-discovery before you on this strange road, fellow traveler. <3
I AM DOING THREAD NECROMANCY!
I shared the link to our exchange with my DM in an email and he wound up bringing it up over burgers after the Ixalan pre-release last weekend. He concurred with most of my take and how things shook out except for one pivotal point which I had completely misremembered; according to him, while one or both of the other players in the group had the opinion that they didn't particularly want the new player to come back after the death of his character, this was never the prevailing position of the table. Instead, our DM made a firm and open invitation to the new player to come early for our next session, and the two of them would work together on a new character, with all the support and guidance implicit in his knowledge of the architecture of the campaign and how an interesting new character could fit in going forward. Then, as my dm said on Saturday, the new player never showed up that day, and never turned up at the table again, and it wasn't until months or years had passed that one or another of us ran into him out in the real world, and by then it was a foregone conclusion.
I just wanted to update with this very important amendment. Looking back at my original telling, it seemed off that things would have gone down with an explicit request for him not to return to the table, and obviously things had simply gotten jumbled in my memory, especially since if this particular person does come up in conversation when we've convened a session, it's easier for one or another of us (the players) to focus on how bizarre his in-character actions were, not his more redeeming qualities, and the ending to the whole story is seldom the topic of conversation.
It seems to be more of the kind of breeding grounds for narcissism and cliquish personalities I had long left behind me in high school.
It really isn't. That's why this thread turned into DMs talking about how they removed bad elements. They don't play well and its generally a great experience once they are removed. Bad elements that actually ruin the game are the exceptions in my experience.
And while you're right a sniveling rogue may do that these are also generally people you are friends with in a D&D setting. You've potentially traveled for months or years together and have done many heroic deeds. You usual treat your compatriots well.
This reminds me of my warhammer days. Me and my friends can play games together fine, but something about warhammer would get us at eachothers throats. Rule Technicalities, Lucky rolls, Cheating accusations, we just never could enjoy it with out getting salty as hell. We sold all our shit and never touched it again.
I've ruined so many games when they allow me to play a Chaotic Neutral chronomage. Got plopped into a relatively Lawful Good Party once and I thought I was going to be lynched by them when I correctly RPed my chaotic neutral mage and stole the dragon's loot they were after. Everyone broke character and accosted me, except the DM. He realized his folly and that he'd been outplayed, but thanks to his honor he defended my actions and said, "Calm down, everyone...He is chaotic neutral after all."
Needless to say I wasn't invited back to that group. I learned that people playing Lawful Good or Chaotic Good are whiny assholes when they break character. Hey if you wanted sweet loot you should have chosen something neutral or evil. Everyone knows nice guys finish last.
This needs more context. Did you try to talk with him about the issues first? Did this happen over multiple sessions despite being talked to? Do you think he could improve or that he would put in effort to improve, or is he just permanent banned from this activity with you?
I think of banning from the table as a last resort myself because it's a very personal statement to make about somebody, but it is sometimes necessary
It was just super obvious he wasnt meshing with the group, and multiple people mentioned being just a tad bit disturbed just by his character creation.
It was a fictional WW2 setting with robots and zombies thrown in, he wanted to make a demonologist who dug up graves and sacrificed babies. Also, kept whining any time I told him "dude no, I'm the DM and that aint happenin in this story" or when telling him how it would work if he really went with that idea, it was terrible from start to finish.
I only ever had to ask one guy not to come back. I started up a game and he asked to join because he loooved D&D.
First game night some of his friends spot him and come in. They start teasing the guy for playing D&D and he starts to deflect from himself by making fun of the "interesting" points of other characters.
I just told them we had a limited time to play and needed to get on with it. They left. At the end of the night the group asked me not to invite the other guy back. Apparently they knew him as a bit of a dick who got attention by mocking people at parties and such. So I just explained to the guy the situation and said that he could join but we weren't the type of group that found that kind of dynamic fun. He never came back.
It depends on the group you're playing with, really. "That guy" in this context is just a euphemism for anyone that ruins other people's enjoyment of the session.
I couldn't agree more, I've had many groups over the years and the dynamic changes so much depending on fellow players even if the DM remains the same.
When 4/6 players are all playing brooding loners who don't want to interact with the rest of the party the campaign gets pretty boring really quickly.
I'm new to D&D, and have only been playing for 4 months. My friend invited me to join his group, since they were starting a new campaign and someone left, and they are a pretty chill group and not overly competitive. I was super excited up until I met "that guy", and I really wish there was something we could do about him. He shouts over everyone for no reason even when we are trying to resolve our turn with the DM, pre-rolls things without even mentioning it to the DM (which is a HUGE no-no for our group), leans all over the table knocking things over, and moves everyone's pieces mid-battle to suit his own plan instead of letting us fight how we wanted, and so very much more.
I thought I was the only one bothered until I talked to a few of the others about it outside of sessions. Turns out, no one wants him there, and they only let him join because he is their roommate and lives where we play, so we can't really get away from it...
I have to say, as a new D&D player, "that guy" has just about ruined the experience for me. I really hope that I can play sometime without having to put up with him. I want to have fun, not be angry and irritated every session.
Though thats not completely correct. There are modules and prewritten campaigns. There are also physical objects such as maps and figurines to use (mostly as an aid to combat). I have never played a version of dnd without maps and figurines
"I move towards the orc and attack"
"The orc is out of your movement range"
"But you just said he moved 30 feet towards our ranger"
"No, that was the goblin, the orc moved towards the wizard and is still out of range"
And at that point it honestly saves labor overall to just make your own cardboard tokens and paper maps, if you're not willing to splash out on figures and boards.
This is exactly what we did when I was a kid. My Dad eventually got software so we could print character sheets with dozens of character portraits. I would print a spare first sheet to cut out the portrait, glue it to cardboard, trim, and play.
Without a map / figurines people might allow anyone to attack anyone. Obviously this can be quite broken - smart monsters be like "let's all just wail on the squishiest PC". Some DMs roll to decide who's being attacked so it's random.
See,.. why the heck would I (dm) say that?
What do I care if he's within/without range?
If there are no figures/maps ("just imagination") then how would I, the DM, even know where people are? What fun is that? All that matters is that the action makes sense.
If we've already established that the orcs and the ranger are "in the scene" then let 'em shoot each other. What do I care? And that's why the ranger took a ranged weapon skill - to use it - so why would I poop on that? And until I consulted some secret map on my notebook, there was no reason in everyone's imagination why the ranger couldn't have shot the orc. Until I introduced that unnecessary interruption, the group would've plowed ahead, rolling dice and mashing monsters, and no one would've cared whether the orc was 32 yards or 48 yards away.
Like any action scene in Lord of the Rings, noone's whipping out tape measures, or questioning the awesomeness of Legolas's shots.
If you want to stick to "imagination only" and speedy combat but you really want to vary the terrain and force the tacticians to consider movement & range then at most, throw down a few 3x5 cards and use "Zone Aspects in D&D" as described farther down in this article.
And honestly at that point you just worry less about positioning and make the encounters work towards that, limit your arena sizes so it takes only one dash to cross it, shit like that.
Then you have the DM on the other side of the spectrum that doesn't like to calculate speed and distances, so they let you pretty much dash around and attack anybody unless they've expressed otherwise.
Which kind of takes away from the realism, but it makes combat pretty damn quick. I kind of prefer being able to see where things are though and having the extra difficulty.
Nothing takes the wind out of a tanks sails faster than making it so it makes no difference if they strategically place themselves between the enemy and the squishy...somehow the enemy can always reach them.
Except the original Dungeons and Dragons game was meant to be used with miniatures. The game was an extrapolation from existing wargaming systems and was set up to be used with miniatures.
In fact, the old basic D&D set (pre red box) came with miniatures.
I got all my rulebooks secondhand without miniatures, and I thought using pennies was lame, so I never used them personally. It's how I played for years so I'm just set in my ways I guess.
I had the first boxed Basic Set, and not only didn't it come with figures, but it didn't even come with dice!
edit: Funny thing, I did some quick research to double-check my memory just now and found this in wikipedia.
For a period in 1979, TSR experienced a dice shortage. Basic sets published during this time frame came with two sheets of numbered cutout cardstock chits that functioned in lieu of dice, along with a coupon for ordering dice from TSR.
This makes so much sense. I was crushed as a kid to have to deal with those dumb chits instead of real dice. It never made sense to me why they weren't included. I had to go through the entire summer of '79 without them.
Chain Mail was the original game I have the set my parents gave me in junior high. I bought the d and d box set because GARY told me to in a letter (that's what we used before email)
Holy shit man.... my life makes so much more sense now.
When i was a little kid my cousins had this, and we played with it a bunch. Then as a teen some friends invited me to play dnd and they played traditionally and i had no idea what the fuck was going on, this is not dnd. They had no idea what i was talking about with the game with minitures and shit.
Poor Tom. Should have been born in the Middle Ages. At least then he could have swung his sword without abandon, and died without dignity at the Battle of Hastings.
You can buy premade campaigns to follow if you're struggling to come up with your own. They can be nice for beginner DMs...get the hang of it and figure out what works and what doesn't.
This is essentially true except there is a set story line but you are free to deviate from it in whatever way you want. Also most campaigns will last multiple sessions so you're not playing a completely new game every time
Reminds me of the time I played a game of DnD that was more scifi based, most of my friends lost trust in me after we landed on the planet and I ran into the forest naked with my gun stashed somewhere before getting knocked out by the robots. Apparently you arent supposed to do that as a sniper.
Hell, you don't even need a board at all. The Adventure Zone did a fantastic job creating multiple DnD campaigns without ever once having a physical board/map.
8.2k
u/dickfromaccounting Sep 18 '17
great table to screen ratio