Problems with a new DM

[DragonKnight]

Ok, was hoping someone had some advice for this. In our group, myself and my fiancee are generally the two DMs, trading the head of the table back and forth when we need a break.

One of our players has been talking about taking the DM chair and we're gonna him him a chance, we've talked about characters and done all that, and he's finally told me about the game. Involves plane hopping (something I really can't stand, since he emphasizes it will happen a lot), and that he's allowing players to go a little wild with their character concepts.

A few examples, one player is a fighter with split personalities and has a cocaine problem. This would be ok in a good roleplayer, but I already anticipate this player acting like a looney tunes character over this. The other new player is a sorcerer with a curse that randomly turns her into a magic carpet....

The three veteran players in the group are dreading this, but don't want to tell him how badly an idea this is. Not that we want a game as serious as a WWII history book, but if it's as silly as we're anticipating any type of character we came up with will stick out like Mona Lisa in a Penny Arcade comic.

I have no idea how to tell him how bad this is. I don't want to just not play, or tell him bluntly that he's making a mistake, it'll crush any drive he has to DM. I just want to find a way to approach him with constructive criticism so that this won't fall through. All of us just want to have fun, and don't want to ruin his in the process. Any advice would be appreciated.

[jiriku]

Well...

You could just roll with it. Play an half-dragon anthropomorphic rabbit wild mage with an imaginary friend who's human. Talk in a funny accent. Your fiancee can play a tibbet warblade devoted to the Striking Tiger discipline who's constantly trying to cook and eat your character. Do silly things. Ham it up, have a laugh, and treat the game more like a casual board game that gives friends an excuse to hang out together than a serious hobby game.

If everyone is just in it for the lulz, the campaign probably won't last long before people lose interest. Then after a month or so, start talking up a more "serious" game concept that you or your fiancee has and get the new DM interested in playing that game as a player.

Thus, everyone gets a good laugh and a change of pace, the new DM gets a chance to try his hand in a light-hearted, low-stress environment, then after a month or so, the group moves back to its usual fare. You'll probably get a few good laughs out of the sidetrek, the new DM will be glad everyone enjoyed his first effort, and his subsequent games may take a more serious direction (especially if you mentor him a little about how to build good campaigns).

[pres_man]

Well...

You could just roll with it. Play an half-dragon anthropomorphic rabbit wild mage with an imaginary friend who's human. Talk in a funny accent. Your fiancee can play a tibbet warblade devoted to the Striking Tiger discipline who's constantly trying to cook and eat your character. Do silly things. Ham it up, have a laugh, and treat the game more like a casual board game that gives friends an excuse to hang out together than a serious hobby game.

If everyone is just in it for the lulz, the campaign probably won't last long before people lose interest. Then after a month or so, start talking up a more "serious" game concept that you or your fiancee has and get the new DM interested in playing that game as a player.

Thus, everyone gets a good laugh and a change of pace, the new DM gets a chance to try his hand in a light-hearted, low-stress environment, then after a month or so, the group moves back to its usual fare. You'll probably get a few good laughs out of the sidetrek, the new DM will be glad everyone enjoyed his first effort, and his subsequent games may take a more serious direction (especially if you mentor him a little about how to build good campaigns).

Yup, pretty much this.

The best way to show something is ultimately not going to work out is to let people do it.

Believe me, at some point he is going to be bored with the idea and want to do more serious stuff. I am guessing that every experienced player/DM has at some point had the "silly campaign" which fun for a time but quickly lost its shine. Let this guy experience that, don't rob him of it just because you yourself have probably already experienced it at some point in the past.

[McSmack]

I concur with Jiriku. Just as when you DM you have to adjust the game style to what the players want, as a player you should try to make a character that fits in well with the group. If it's going to be a silly game then play a silly character.

I've seen a lot of new DM's overstretch a bit, and try to give players way too many options. Knowing when to say no or when a particular concept won't work is something that comes with experience.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's wrong or even that it's a bad idea. It's a different idea, and one that might be difficult to DM, especially fresh out of the gate, but that's what learning is about.

I'd definitely give silly a whirl, though. Play a kender cleric devoted to Kraft - God of Dairy, or a bard with Perform (mime) or something crazy. Have you and your fiance's charaters be married or engaged, but reverse the genders. Or have the woman be a half-orc and the man a gnome. Feel free to cut loose and have fun with it.

[Aemoh87]

Ok, was hoping someone had some advice for this. In our group, myself and my fiancee are generally the two DMs, trading the head of the table back and forth when we need a break.

One of our players has been talking about taking the DM chair and we're gonna him him a chance, we've talked about characters and done all that, and he's finally told me about the game. Involves plane hopping (something I really can't stand, since he emphasizes it will happen a lot), and that he's allowing players to go a little wild with their character concepts.

A few examples, one player is a fighter with split personalities and has a cocaine problem. This would be ok in a good roleplayer, but I already anticipate this player acting like a looney tunes character over this. The other new player is a sorcerer with a curse that randomly turns her into a magic carpet....

The three veteran players in the group are dreading this, but don't want to tell him how badly an idea this is. Not that we want a game as serious as a WWII history book, but if it's as silly as we're anticipating any type of character we came up with will stick out like Mona Lisa in a Penny Arcade comic.

I have no idea how to tell him how bad this is. I don't want to just not play, or tell him bluntly that he's making a mistake, it'll crush any drive he has to DM. I just want to find a way to approach him with constructive criticism so that this won't fall through. All of us just want to have fun, and don't want to ruin his in the process. Any advice would be appreciated.

This is a huge problem with new DMs. My biggest advise to them is run standard greyhawk. No changes at all. It will help them a ton and later on they can incorporate their fun but disruptive ideas once the campaign is living and established.

The plane hopping thing he should listen, characters drive campaigns not DMs. I have seen players refuse to acknowledge problems because it wasn't where they wanted a campaign to go. Hardheaded and stupid, they were still right.

As for being whacky and zany, this is where you as players have more power than him. Set the tone. An example of this is Rorshack (spelling?) from watchmen. Play the campaign as serious as you want and if some one is being too whacky show it through role play. Who would really want to have a cocaine addict around them? It's there job to prove they belong with the party, not yours. Many of my characters hate inconsistencies (one of the traits I tend to repeatably play without knowing). They would confront the sorc and say fix this or I refuse to depend on you. And the the split personality character they would not want to be around some one so chaotic. Especially if their other alignment axis didn't match up.

Or you could hope this is short lived and play it. I am not a big fan of this option as I don't have alot of time so I prefer slightly more rewarding games. If you do go this route just embrace it, but I don't know what to tell you if some players want this campaign to continue for some time or if the DM decides this is his "style".

[Tvtyrant]

Or you could just see if it works. Honestly, some of the best campaigns I have played in started out silly and then matured into something serious. If the characters are interesting enough people will become attached to them and so death will matter more to them.

[Aemoh87]

Or you could just see if it works. Honestly, some of the best campaigns I have played in started out silly and then matured into something serious. If the characters are interesting enough people will become attached to them and so death will matter more to them.

But if three of the five players are not interested at all it is a problem. Also some characters take humorous as a chance to go nuts and do whatever they want, whiles other see it as a chance to play funny builds or have a light hearted campaign.

One guy is addicted to drugs so this obviously won't be light hearted.

[Tvtyrant]

But if three of the five players are not interested at all it is a problem. Also some characters take humorous as a chance to go nuts and do whatever they want, whiles other see it as a chance to play funny builds or have a light hearted campaign.

One guy is addicted to drugs so this obviously won't be light hearted.

I played an alcoholic in a campaign before and that was pretty light hearted. It all depends on what the person/party finds funny, and as I said the only way to know if it will work is to try it.

[Aemoh87]

I played an alcoholic in a campaign before and that was pretty light hearted. It all depends on what the person/party finds funny, and as I said the only way to know if it will work is to try it.

Still from the sound of the post it looks like he is walking into a go nuts fest not a light hearted campaign.

I have seen alcoholic played alot. Alcoholic dwarf is practically cliche these days. But multiple personality drug addict is not a character with depth, it's a free pass to do whatever whenever with no intentions of getting better. And I feel like if this veteran player thought the multiple personality drug addict wasn't a completely shallow character he wouldn't have a problem with it. Just now I am wondering if Dragonknight feels this campaign will lack and depth at all. If your out there Dragonknight, chime in!

[HalfDragonCube]

Want to go nuts?

Play exhalted.

[Gamer Girl]

You need to point out the difference between going a little wild and disrupting the game. And this is a huge, huge difference.

1.Point One--D&D is a group activity. That means everyone needs to be able to have fun, in and with the group. Having fun, is the whole point of the game. If you have a game where one or two people are having fun, and four are not, then there is a problem with the game.

2.Point Two--A little wild, by it self is disruptive. This is why you don't see A little wild type people acting out in groups. They can't do it. While the wild person loves it, all the normal people can't stand it. Take any group situation, like at work or a sports team, you don't see the 'wild people' disrupting things. No matter how 'wild' someone is, you won't see a welder use their torch to light peoples clothing on fire or a baseball player who hits a ball and then sits down on home plate. As wild as they are, they don't let the wild effect their job/team. (The perfect example here is Charlie Sheen. He is a wild nut, yet he was able to show up to thousands of 10-12 hour long work days to shoot his TV and 'act normal').

3.Anything Disruptive, is No Fun--Take any group activity. If one person is disruptive, then no one has fun. And then what is the point.


You can point these out to the DM. But if he does not want to listen, you can try:

1.Ignore the Wild--Just play the game and let them run wild. Let them do whatever. Mostly they do it to get attention, so don't give it to them.

2.Be Ready and Willing to Derail the Adventure--The classic 'wild' person will mess up a game on purpose. So when the wild guy kills the king and then set the whole kingdom after you, be ready to drop the plot about saving the princess.

3.Be Ready and Willing to Stop Playing--The king is dead, and the law is after you. And then the wild player makes things worse. Be ready to stop playing. You could just 'let' the characters be caught or killed, or you could just sit back and not take any actions.

[Geigan]

You could talk to the other players yourself. Not every responsibility falls squarely on the DMs shoulders. If you think you won't have fun as a player because of another player's actions why don't you try talking to that player about it. If they end up being disruptive in game you could try to help enforce a little order yourself. I'm not saying you have to be the party paladin but you could at least smack them up side the head for obvious stupidity. When someone suggests stupidity in our games(i.e. lets kill helpful NPC x, I pull the lever that I know will set off trap, Let's slaughter the villagers of the town we're trying to save) it's typically not the DM smacking the player for it. If you have a PC who's acting stupid just to act stupid you don't have to let him get away with it.

[Aemoh87]

You could talk to the other players yourself. Not every responsibility falls squarely on the DMs shoulders. If you think you won't have fun as a player because of another player's actions why don't you try talking to that player about it. If they end up being disruptive in game you could try to help enforce a little order yourself. I'm not saying you have to be the party paladin but you could at least smack them up side the head for obvious stupidity. When someone suggests stupidity in our games(i.e. lets kill helpful NPC x, I pull the lever that I know will set off trap, Let's slaughter the villagers of the town we're trying to save) it's typically not the DM smacking the player for it. If you have a PC who's acting stupid just to act stupid you don't have to let him get away with it.

The problem here is it sounds like Dragonknight is afraid of entering a campaign that rewards "stupidity" and is going to waste his time. Sounds like he is thinking proactive not retroactive.

It seems like new DMs encourage this sort of thing more than most. I think it is because they want to allow everything and anything in the epic but underdeveloped game world that incorporates all the random ideas and party cliches they have.

[MlleRouge]

Hey folks, I'm dragonknight's fiance. I actually found this on accident and thought I'd pop in and say a few words.

First off, I've approached the DM and discussed the game's potential hangups, or at least the ones I'm personally concerned about. He expressed genuine desire to keep all the players happy, but he's also been very selective about who gets to play. This is where I'm worried. He's choosing four players out of a large group (I'm running a separate game on another day of the week in which *everyone* plays. That's a whole different matter), and he's chosen players with very different tastes.

Dragonknight and I enjoy serious fantasy with occasional breaks of lightheartedness. One of the other players the DM has chosen is very prone to over-the-top, potentially disruptive behavior. Note this guy is a pretty new player...He's playing something a little bit loopy in my current campaign, and I've had to tell him no a few times. He isn't a problem player or even bad, but someone has to keep an eye on him.

I understand dragonknight's concern about him being disruptive, since I'm not sure that the new DM will know how and when to tell him 'sorry, you can't do that'.

The fourth player I'm not sure about. She's new to our group and performs well in my campaign, but this character idea she wants to run this time is....way, way, way out there.

As for me, I've told the DM that I'm suspending a lot of my usual doubt and am willing to give it a try. I decided to embrace the weirdness a little bit and play something a little bit bizarre, but not to the level that the others are.

So I'm basically going to try and embrace it, but the DM understands that I may bow out if it collides too much with my taste. He seems understanding, but I can tell he's really interested in making us happy. But the group of players he's selected are going to collide when it comes to setting the tone.

My best guess at the moment is to sit down with the other two players and have us all discuss what we're looking for as players, and hope we can find some common ground...The DM has been understanding of reservations so far, but I hope he doesn't try too hard to please players who want totally different things. That's why I think we, the players, need to communicate..maybe we can come up with something more coherent to ask of him, so i the end we can all have fun.

[Aemoh87]

If your playing a second campaign sometimes that can make a more out there campaign work because your still getting your usual fix.

[Epsilon Rose]

May I make two suggestions?
First, it makes sense to start your first time DMing with a small group and if this group is being drawn from a larger pool then it makes sense to pick people who will play well in the concept you want to run.
Second, if half the party is quite literally insane it's actually a good idea to have one or two more normal people to actually give direction to the campaign and to have some reference point to play the crazy antics off of (i.e. a straight man).

Of course, who ever finds themselves in that role should want it since it'll require some work on their part. It also might be good if they were the party face.

Edit: also, if you're not terribly opposed to it some systems will work better with crazy characters and dissonant parties. Both maids and BESM come to mind.

[MlleRouge]

Both are good points, Epsilon :) Starting with a small group is always wise for a first time DM, though I think a simpler plot concept would have been wise as well.

And as for your second suggestion, I bet that's already went through his head. When I spoke to him in private, he said he hoped having a couple of experienced players would benefit the game overall. I suppose that's one of the reasons that 'knight and I were invited.

I'm going to be optimistic about it, though I still have concerns. I'm not sure if I can enjoy playing alongside a split personality and a magic carpet...Im hoping that all of us talking about it some will help smooth things out.

[Lord Vampyre]

If he wants the players to go a little wild with their character concepts, he has probably been feeling slightly restricted in your campaigns. Like a lot of children, he wants to see what happens when the boundaries are removed. He'll only find this out by you letting him to experience a game without boundaries.

If you go with the flow, you will increase whatever enjoyment is to be had from this kind of a game for both him and yourself. He will learn 1 of 2 things from his experience: 1. It was a disaster, and never do it again. Or 2. That was fun, but not something to do all the time.

Who knows, you may end up liking the game.

[MlleRouge]

Just in case anyone is interested in the outcome of this situation:

I talked to the DM again,as well as sat down with the other players. The other players have reigned in their concepts a little at his request (the magic carpet got rejected by the DM, which I suspected might happen) and Knight and I are both going to drift a little bit farther out than we usually do. In essence, we're going to meet in the middle and see what trouble we can get in to.

The DM admitted that he was trying a bit too hard to keep everyone happy. He also said he thought everyone might have gotten the wrong idea when he first pitched his game. I can believe that, especially since he was obviously surprised by some of the concerns. He went on to say that he does want a serious game, or at least a dramatic one...He wants quirky, not stupid.

So in short, we all discussed some compromises, and it looks like everyone is going to be content with the outcome. It all boils down to trusting one another (DM included) not to do anything annoying...And since we're all playing together in a different campaign, I'm pretty sure we already know how to do that :)

For what it's worth, the new game will still have a rather different tone from the current one that I'm running...Mine is rather harsh and survival oriented, and the new DM is pitching something based around exploration and action.

Nice contrast? Let's hope! Either way, I already love my new Pally that I'm going to be playing.


Thanks to everyone for your advice.

[McSmack]

Good to hear. I hope it turns out well.

[Just_Ice]

Turn your brain off for a bit and give it a chance. Don't block, and have some fun.

Or, perhaps, you've forgotten how to do so?

[Jolly]

Good Lord....

People dealing with their concerns by meeting to discuss them in an open and forthright manner, instead of stewing in resentment, whining about it, then passive-aggressively lashing out?!?! What strange forum have I joined, cause I know this isn't Giantitp... :smallbiggrin:

Good job on working things out like adults.