General DM Advice?

[Gwazi Magnum]

Disclaimer: There are currently no plans for me to be DM'ing anything, any time soon. But since it is something that

1) I've been interested in doing for some time now
2) Has been suggested before when people hear things about one of my current DMs

I figure I might as well ask these questions now to give me time to discuss such things (Not be rushed for answers cause group is due to start as X date), and just better expand my grasp on good DM'ing as a whole.


Creating a world
I am just generally unsure how to design an interactive and engaging world. I know the basics, make a map, make some cities, terrain. But that seems pretty bare bones, I'm not sure how to make a world that players can explore, enjoy, has stuff ready for them to do but without forcing them to certain points in the world.


Reacting to Players actions, logic or ideas
I am not the best at thinking on my feet, there are many times where players do something I wasn't expecting and I'm lost on how to react to it. I'm at the same time glad when this happens because it means players are thinking on their own and coming up with new ideas to make their story with so I don't want to simply railroad it back to something I'm better prepared for. But as a result, I usually end up lost and unsure of how to react to players, continue the story or keeps things interesting.

Other times they may of just had better ideas than me when it came to some things, pointing out plot holes and/or loop holes in the NPCs/lore which at that point the world ends up looking pretty stupid.


House Rules? Too much? Too Little?
This is perhaps one of the more confusing ones. Because it's not as simple as the above two where it's simply learning ways to improve, but with house rules there's a balance.

Make too many and the players get overwhelmed and it's no longer really d&d.
Too little is less an issue since that's just RAW, but can often lead to many issues.

House Rules also often had more fun and creativity to games I've found if done right.
So really, the question here is how many house rules do you think becomes too many?
What kind of house rules become priority and which kind should just be forgotten?
Are they any house rules you use or are aware of that can add to a games experience?

While we're at it, I made a class whose goal is to
1. Add creativity to make more concepts for the players
2. Address the martial/magic balance issue

The link is here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=286986), and I'm wondering as a side note if you guys think it's appropriate to use to a d&d campaign? Or does it alter the game too much and there are other methods I should be using instead?


What Point should the DM's say be final?
I am not a believer of DM vs Players, in the slightest.
I always believe the DM is working with the players to make a story and adventure for them.
It's the players game as much as the DMs, so players should have a say and opinions be valued as well. Though, the concern here is that if players got so much say it's no longer the DM's campaign and just turns into a bunch of easy victories for the players, with no real challenge or story taking place.

So at what point do you think it's appropiate for DM to lay a rule down and have it be final and when you do find it's better to allow players to either have input or simply decide something instead of the DM?


Any other advice
Knowing myself, the second I click 'submit new thread' I'll get more ideas for questions to ask. But this is also in case there's any other DM advice people here have that wouldn't of been covered by one of the above questions.

[ksbsnowowl]

Creating a world
I am just generally unsure how to design an interactive and engaging world. I know the basics, make a map, make some cities, terrain. But that seems pretty bare bones, I'm not sure how to make a world that players can explore, enjoy, has stuff ready for them to do but without forcing them to certain points in the world.Check out Dawn of Worlds (http://www.clanwebsite.org/games/rpg/Dawn_of_Worlds_game_1_0Final.pdf). Have your players help you populate your world.



Reacting to Players actions, logic or ideas
I am not the best at thinking on my feet, there are many times where players do something I wasn't expecting and I'm lost on how to react to it. I don't think well on my feet either, so I over prep weeks ahead of time. For a while I was prepped so far in advance that I had to wait and see what they did in some of the upcoming things before I could prep any further.



Other times they may of just had better ideas than me when it came to some things, pointing out plot holes and/or loop holes in the NPCs/lore which at that point the world ends up looking pretty stupid.Run the broad strokes by places like GitP. Other gamers can likely point out any problems pretty quick, if you keep the description of a certain situation concise.



House Rules? Too much? Too Little?
This is perhaps one of the more confusing ones. Because it's not as simple as the above two where it's simply learning ways to improve, but with house rules there's a balance.

Make too many and the players get overwhelmed and it's no longer really d&d.
Too little is less an issue since that's just RAW, but can often lead to many issues.

House Rules also often had more fun and creativity to games I've found if done right.
So really, the question here is how many house rules do you think becomes too many?
What kind of house rules become priority and which kind should just be forgotten?
Are they any house rules you use or are aware of that can add to a games experience?Before you make ANY house rules, you need to understand the rules as the exist in the game, and make a conscious decision on WHY you want to change said rule. I houserule a lot of the Polymorph spells back to their 3.0 versions, because I want the magic to match the myths and legends that D&D is based upon. But it was a conscious decision with a specific goal in mind.


What Point should the DM's say be final?
I am not a believer of DM vs Players, in the slightest.
I always believe the DM is working with the players to make a story and adventure for them.
It's the players game as much as the DMs, so players should have a say and opinions be valued as well. Though, the concern here is that if players got so much say it's no longer the DM's campaign and just turns into a bunch of easy victories for the players, with no real challenge or story taking place.

So at what point do you think it's appropiate for DM to lay a rule down and have it be final and when you do find it's better to allow players to either have input or simply decide something instead of the DM?This question seems a little unclear. Are you asking how much input from the players on the types of adventures they are going on? Or are you talking about settling a rules argument?

For the former, DM a few sessions, then ask for input. Are they having fun? Is there anything you are doing that is inhibiting their fun? Did they like the battle against the necromancer and his undead minions? Or was the crit-immune stuff just killing the fun for the rogue? Was the description of the Vaath (BoVD) eating your intestines, and forcing you to taste it, and feel the joy at tasting it, too much? Did that cross the line for anyone? (That's an actual issue that came up in a game I was playing in.)

As far as settling a rules argument, it depends somewhat on how well you know the rules. I've been hanging around the character optimization boards for 10 years now. I know the rules pretty well. But I'll still get things mixed up or wrong from time to time. I'll let the players object and make a quick case for their viewpoint. If I still think they are wrong, but they can show me the rule quickly, then I'll change the ruling right then during game play. Sometimes it's not that big of a deal, and I'll make a note of the situation so I can research it later; if I was wrong, I admit it, and we play with the correct rules from then on out.

I'll think on what other things I've done that can be of benefit to other DM's.

[Thorvaldr]

Burlew actually has some great world-building advice if you click on the "Gaming" section to your left.

Building your world
I just started a campaign with a custom world a few months ago. The best advice I can give you: have your players help you where applicable. One of my players has a Masters in Medieval Studies. Needless to say, she has been terrific with history and general world building. If one of your players likes drawing or map making, give them a general outline and have them make it awesome. Players can build a lot of the world and that still won't give them too much of an advantage with the main plot... just more ownership of the world. (Which isn't a bad thing at all!)

Reacting to Players
The player's job, as far as I can see, is to ruin our well-crafted and brilliant story as much as possible. :P If a player throws you for a loop, there's no shame in admitting as such. My players usually respond with glee when I get the dumbfounded "You did what?!" look on my face. If you need a few minutes to collect your thoughts, call a 5-10 minute snack/bathroom break.

In terms of pointing out potholes: No they didn't. Best example of this ever described to me was this: A player asks why there are lots of Orc raids on out settlements by the forest if there is also a group of rangers who patrol the area. As a DM, you respond: "Good question, how do you plan to find out?" This should give you enough time to think of something. In this case, maybe the head ranger was in the pocket of an Orc chieftain. Remember: The players don't know everything about the world, you, in theory, do. The world doesn't always make sense at face value.

Final DM Say
Really, the DM's say should almost always be final. I want my players to know that they can't get what they want simply by arguing with me. However, I have rarely, if ever, said "no." Your character MAY try to do this... but they'll need one heck of a roll. Or they'll need to do some other things before even attempting a roll.

I will always listen to my characters, and will give them reasons for why certain things are happening. If a character is upset about what happened to him during a session, talk to him afterwards and explain why you did it. Explain your reasoning. This has happened to me before, and players are usually pretty receptive once they see your logic.

Going back to house rules, here is one of my unofficial ones: We finish any session going by the DM ruling. After the session, we can then look at how I ruled, and change it for future sessions.

Of course, I don't want to sound like I'm 100% "THOU SHALT BOW BEFORE MY DM MIGHT!" If a player looks up a rule, or has a good reason why things should go their way, I definitely do that then.

Other Advice
Good luck, have fun, and don't burn out! And be willing to listen to advice from your players, while still letting them know you make the final call.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Check out Dawn of Worlds (http://www.clanwebsite.org/games/rpg/Dawn_of_Worlds_game_1_0Final.pdf). Have your players help you populate your world.

Seems like a cool system to make a world with, though I'm worried by how much it allows players the ability to destroy other players creations. I can see turning into a game of Risk where players may start to make alliances against other players.


I don't think well on my feet either, so I over prep weeks ahead of time. For a while I was prepped so far in advance that I had to wait and see what they did in some of the upcoming things before I could prep any further.

Run the broad strokes by places like GitP. Other gamers can likely point out any problems pretty quick, if you keep the description of a certain situation concise.

Though players have the tendency to do something that throws the plot into a totally different direction that wasn't planned for at all. What should be done then?


Before you make ANY house rules, you need to understand the rules as the exist in the game, and make a conscious decision on WHY you want to change said rule. I houserule a lot of the Polymorph spells back to their 3.0 versions, because I want the magic to match the myths and legends that D&D is based upon. But it was a conscious decision with a specific goal in mind.

Noted.
I normally find most of my house rules have the following goals in mind

1. Expand a players ability to create a certain concept
2. Allow Martial characters to compete better with Magical Characters
3. Fix things that doesn't make sense.
Like why doesn't Sorcerer already have Eschew Material? How come a Fighter isn't ever able to be a good Diplomat? You see soldiers become charismatic politicians or leaders all the time. Why are some classes doomed to be forever unaware of their surroundings (low listen and spot)?
4. Realism, but only if it both
a) Doesn't add to the complexity of the game
b) Doesn't take away from the fun or experience of the game


This question seems a little unclear. Are you asking how much input from the players on the types of adventures they are going on? Or are you talking about settling a rules argument?

For the former, DM a few sessions, then ask for input. Are they having fun? Is there anything you are doing that is inhibiting their fun? Did they like the battle against the necromancer and his undead minions? Or was the crit-immune stuff just killing the fun for the rogue? Was the description of the Vaath (BoVD) eating your intestines, and forcing you to taste it, and feel the joy at tasting it, too much? Did that cross the line for anyone? (That's an actual issue that came up in a game I was playing in.)

As far as settling a rules argument, it depends somewhat on how well you know the rules. I've been hanging around the character optimization boards for 10 years now. I know the rules pretty well. But I'll still get things mixed up or wrong from time to time. I'll let the players object and make a quick case for their viewpoint. If I still think they are wrong, but they can show me the rule quickly, then I'll change the ruling right then during game play. Sometimes it's not that big of a deal, and I'll make a note of the situation so I can research it later; if I was wrong, I admit it, and we play with the correct rules from then on out.

It was more a general question for both of those.

So is basically what you're saying is that tweak to the encounters to match player preferences and with rulings, go with DM's say if a quick fix can't be shown, but listen to players advice and use other fixes in the future if suggested?


I'll think on what other things I've done that can be of benefit to other DM's.

Thanks :)


Burlew actually has some great world-building advice if you click on the "Gaming" section to your left.

Building your world
I just started a campaign with a custom world a few months ago. The best advice I can give you: have your players help you where applicable. One of my players has a Masters in Medieval Studies. Needless to say, she has been terrific with history and general world building. If one of your players likes drawing or map making, give them a general outline and have them make it awesome. Players can build a lot of the world and that still won't give them too much of an advantage with the main plot... just more ownership of the world. (Which isn't a bad thing at all!)

Reacting to Players
The player's job, as far as I can see, is to ruin our well-crafted and brilliant story as much as possible. :P If a player throws you for a loop, there's no shame in admitting as such. My players usually respond with glee when I get the dumbfounded "You did what?!" look on my face. If you need a few minutes to collect your thoughts, call a 5-10 minute snack/bathroom break.

In terms of pointing out potholes: No they didn't. Best example of this ever described to me was this: A player asks why there are lots of Orc raids on out settlements by the forest if there is also a group of rangers who patrol the area. As a DM, you respond: "Good question, how do you plan to find out?" This should give you enough time to think of something. In this case, maybe the head ranger was in the pocket of an Orc chieftain. Remember: The players don't know everything about the world, you, in theory, do. The world doesn't always make sense at face value.

Final DM Say
Really, the DM's say should almost always be final. I want my players to know that they can't get what they want simply by arguing with me. However, I have rarely, if ever, said "no." Your character MAY try to do this... but they'll need one heck of a roll. Or they'll need to do some other things before even attempting a roll.

I will always listen to my characters, and will give them reasons for why certain things are happening. If a character is upset about what happened to him during a session, talk to him afterwards and explain why you did it. Explain your reasoning. This has happened to me before, and players are usually pretty receptive once they see your logic.

Going back to house rules, here is one of my unofficial ones: We finish any session going by the DM ruling. After the session, we can then look at how I ruled, and change it for future sessions.

Of course, I don't want to sound like I'm 100% "THOU SHALT BOW BEFORE MY DM MIGHT!" If a player looks up a rule, or has a good reason why things should go their way, I definitely do that then.

Other Advice
Good luck, have fun, and don't burn out! And be willing to listen to advice from your players, while still letting them know you make the final call.

Player aid does sound like a good idea. If I am to DM a game that's probably something I would do.

I don't see it so much as their job but an unavoidable element of the nature of D&D.

My worry with saying something like "How will you find out?" is I'm not good at bluffing so players could easily see that I have no answer for them at the moment. And also, they might play to the point it learning it that session where since I'm occupied with DM'ing it all, I haven't been able to think up a better reason still.

I know that players can't get their way by arguing. But I'm trying to look at it from both points for views as well.
Like for example, in one of the groups I'm currently in the DM... is just bad.
It's really the main reason I'm asking this now, in case of the chance his campaign falls flat on it's face again and someone else needs to take charge. He always using DM fiat to make the players unable to do things, suck gold out of them, weaken their concepts etc. Where if he was a member of this forum here he would probably say stuff like "Gwazi is arguing me. He is being a troublesome player by not just accepting what the DM says etc." and I don't want to get to comfortable with the idea of the DM is always right or the most important voice, because that's the position he takes and it doesn't work at all.

Plus I'm worried they may be times I'm out right wrong, but if I follow that rule could end up ruling my way in even if a player is right just for the sake of speeding things up and the campaign hitting a snag because of it.

[Thorvaldr]

Player aid does sound like a good idea. If I am to DM a game that's probably something I would do.

I don't see it so much as their job but an unavoidable element of the nature of D&D.

My worry with saying something like "How will you find out?" is I'm not good at bluffing so players could easily see that I have no answer for them at the moment. And also, they might play to the point it learning it that session where since I'm occupied with DM'ing it all, I haven't been able to think up a better reason still.

I know that players can't get their way by arguing. But I'm trying to look at it from both points for views as well.
Like for example, in one of the groups I'm currently in the DM... is just bad.
It's really the main reason I'm asking this now, in case of the chance his campaign falls flat on it's face again and someone else needs to take charge. He always using DM fiat to make the players unable to do things, suck gold out of them, weaken their concepts etc. Where if he was a member of this forum here he would probably say stuff like "Gwazi is arguing me. He is being a troublesome player by not just accepting what the DM says etc." and I don't want to get to comfortable with the idea of the DM is always right or the most important voice, because that's the position he takes and it doesn't work at all.

Plus I'm worried they may be times I'm out right wrong, but if I follow that rule could end up ruling my way in even if a player is right just for the sake of speeding things up and the campaign hitting a snag because of it.

Ahhhh, now I see where you're coming from! Yeah... DM power trips are no fun, and it is a delicate balance. The thing with D&D is that the DM has to be kind of a dictator... but there is no reason you can't be a benevolent dictator. About 90% of the time if a character wants to do something, I'll let them do it. And occasionally yes, they'll get upset about that 10%. But they're also usually understanding once I explain my rationale to them later. Whenever I make a call against a player, I'm doing it for a specific reason. If I don't have a reason, why would I make a call against them? The whole point is for them to have fun.

So it is rare that I'll rule against a PC. And if I am, I'll (almost) never just say "no." It'll be "Yes you can do that, but..." Then just think about what the PC is trying to do in real life terms. Are they trying to cut down a tree and all they have is a dagger? "Yes, but it's going to take you a few days and some endurance checks." Do they want to try pinning an enemy behind a door when they enter a room? "Yes, but make opposed Str. checks with the enemy. The enemy takes a -2 penalty this round because he was surprised."

And sometimes I have made a wrong ruling, and overruled a player to speed things up. It'll happen. When they bring this to my attention later, and I realize they were right, I apologize and say "You're right, my bad. We'll make sure to play by your ruling from here on out." If you talk with and are honest with your players, they'll usually be pretty understanding. To me, it sounds like you feel that your current DM never really listens to you. If you just make it feel like you listen to your players, that makes all the difference in the world.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Ahhhh, now I see where you're coming from! Yeah... DM power trips are no fun, and it is a delicate balance. The thing with D&D is that the DM has to be kind of a dictator... but there is no reason you can't be a benevolent dictator. About 90% of the time if a character wants to do something, I'll let them do it. And occasionally yes, they'll get upset about that 10%. But they're also usually understanding once I explain my rationale to them later. Whenever I make a call against a player, I'm doing it for a specific reason. If I don't have a reason, why would I make a call against them? The whole point is for them to have fun.

So it is rare that I'll rule against a PC. And if I am, I'll (almost) never just say "no." It'll be "Yes you can do that, but..." Then just think about what the PC is trying to do in real life terms. Are they trying to cut down a tree and all they have is a dagger? "Yes, but it's going to take you a few days and some endurance checks." Do they want to try pinning an enemy behind a door when they enter a room? "Yes, but make opposed Str. checks with the enemy. The enemy takes a -2 penalty this round because he was surprised."

And sometimes I have made a wrong ruling, and overruled a player to speed things up. It'll happen. When they bring this to my attention later, and I realize they were right, I apologize and say "You're right, my bad. We'll make sure to play by your ruling from here on out." If you talk with and are honest with your players, they'll usually be pretty understanding. To me, it sounds like you feel that your current DM never really listens to you. If you just make it feel like you listen to your players, that makes all the difference in the world.

Now I'm better seeing where you're coming from too now. :P

I'm fine with limiting DM over ride for the minority where there's good reasons in place.
I just don't like depending on it or using it commonly like the current DM discussed here does.

He really doesn't tend to listen to the players I find. It's his world, his game, his say is final. Plus he always has a need to be right about stuff, a bad trait for DMs to have in my opinion. I am going to be listening to the players next time I DM a campaign. In my mind players being listened to and enjoying the campaign are the most important parts, if that's not happening then the DM is doing it wrong.

[JusticeZero]

[LIST]
Creating a world
I am just generally unsure how to design an interactive and engaging world. I know the basics, make a map, make some cities, terrain. But that seems pretty bare bones, I'm not sure how to make a world that players can explore, enjoy, has stuff ready for them to do but without forcing them to certain points in the world.Look at a good history book. Not one of the pathetic ones they give you in high school, something like Wolf's Europe and the People Without History. You could populate two or three campaign worlds just from his chapter on Africa, and nobody would ever know where you got it from. read the news and actually dig into it. "This crazy thing happened.." "...Why." These things do not come from nowhere. If you file the serial numbers off, any given country with a shortage of vowels can become anything you want.
As far as having stuff ready? Have some general ideas ready and just use magicians force. The adventure you wrote out in dusty Sulej Aten will, with only minor tweaking, work just fine in the watery canals of the city they decided to visit instead. Nobody will know that you had to rename the characters after they traveled.
When in doubt? Throw them a red herring, listen to them argue about it, then build an adventure out of their fevered conspiracy theories.

Reacting to Players actions, logic or ideas
I am not the best at thinking on my feet, there are many times where players do something I wasn't expecting and I'm lost on how to react to it. I'm at the same time glad when this happens because it means players are thinking on their own and coming up with new ideas to make their story with so I don't want to simply railroad it back to something I'm better prepared for. But as a result, I usually end up lost and unsure of how to react to players, continue the story or keeps things interesting.Here's a secret; players can, with minor coaching, cough up ideas for you. But it helps when you break out of the script mindset. Instead, build situations. "You need to sneak into this guarded keep and smuggle out the baroness's daughter without letting her see you." Let them have a few lucky breaks, but otherwise? It's fine if you have no freaking idea how they're going to pull that off. You know what's there; you're playing the obstacle against them while secretly hoping the obstacle loses. But you do not know their tactics. Don't even think you will know them.

House Rules? Too much? Too Little?
This is perhaps one of the more confusing ones. Because it's not as simple as the above two where it's simply learning ways to improve, but with house rules there's a balance.
-----
Other times they.. point out plot holes and/or loop holes in the NPCs/lore which at that point the world ends up looking pretty stupid.The minimum possible. I find that you can get the most interesting changes by removing things rather than trying to splice rules onto a system. Both house rules and wacky world holes fall under my prime commandment:
You are not half as clever as you think you are.
(And neither am I.)
And what I mean by that is that it's easy to come up with a wild quirk to your setting, or a new rule. However, slowly grinding away and working out all the permutations is what game designers get paid the mid-sized bucks to do, and as things like the tier system and a plethora of broken builds demonstrates, even the pros miss a lot of things. Everything you add has a good chance of going absolutely mad with implications that you had never considered. If you avoid cleverness and stick to the tried and true, you run much less risk of this happening, and it's the subtleties that you add that people will care about anyways.
As far as making things play differently, I have found that excising various common races and letting other things fill their niche instead makes the world feel very differently without really changing the function all that much.

As far as magic levels.. is this your issue or your groups'? Because if it was me, i'd just excise the full-list casting class and call it a day. The archmage is now a bard. Awesome.

[ArcturusV]

Creating a world

I suppose the simplest answer to this, is just to fill it full of stuff. You want to have two things in your mind when you go about "creating a world" (Note: I wouldn't actually start with a "World", start with just the local region you're starting with, other stuff can be vague and over there until they get to it). One is think about the sort of things you and your friends find as compelling fodder. Has there been something where, in previous games a thing gets mentioned and everyone/someone goes "Ooooo!"... for example, a Paladin player I had who just went "Ooooo!" anytime there was a rumor or a mention of a Holy item of any sort. If there's something like that? Throw it into the region. "Oh yeah, rumor has it the ancient Hero Ascelpius is buried somewhere in this area, and was entombed with his legendary blade Rhia.".

The other thing is that you create a setting where things will happen (Albeit slowly) without the input of the players. It might just be me, but groups I've been a part of HATE static settings. If nothing is going to change by itself, then the player actions feel superfluous. Oh, we stopped the rampaging Goblin Horde from sacking Silverymoon... but if we didn't do it, one of the setting's epic level NPCs would have just Deus Ex Machina'd them right out.

So set up the setting so that things will happen on their own, and things will change gradually but slowly. Are two nations enemies? They will go to war if left alone. That war will have an impact as well, winners, losers, bloody stalemates, whatever... but it shouldn't just amount to some group's Fool's Mate Gambit failed, they retreated to lick their wounds, and will do it again later with similar results.


Reacting to Players actions, logic or ideas

Ah, the art of fluid DMing. It's a tricky thing. I had some problems with this myself, particularly because one group I was in, in my younger days, would often beg me for entirely impromptu games. "Oh... we'll go eat for 15 minutes while you cook us up a campaign from scratch. I don't care what, but I wanna play a _____."

It's not as simple as just saying "Yes, and..." like WotC and other guides tend to suggest (Though that is important). One thing is just keeping in mind a good sense of plot flow and pacing. I like to alternate between Conflict and Non-Conflict stuff myself. Because I know I run that pace, it's real easy to adapt when people go "off the rails". Okay, we just had a battle, and I wanted them to explore this room, find some clues, etc. But instead they decide to run back to town. So I just throw in another Non-Combat scene on the way out of the dungeon, or back in town, etc, and subtly weave in a new point that eventually will bring them back to where I wanted them or start a whole new plot.

It's a hard art to grasp at first. One thing I'd suggest doing to make it easier? Come up with an Oh **** List. Just have a list of one or two sentence ideas that you keep in with your notes. When your players go off the rails, pick one of those ideas and weave it into whatever they are doing. It'll make it a lot easier to improvise a plot hook or use their idea to get back to the plot.


House Rules? Too much? Too Little?

I leave house rules for one situation only. And that's when I run into a problem. Until then, stick to the published rules as best you can (excusing some logical cut offs like making mounted combat work, etc). Like... I have a common house rule I use, that you only level up when you're between adventures, resting in a town, safe spot, etc, where you have some time off to hone your skills and learn new lessons. Why? Because of silliness that happened when I was totaling XP after every encounter and this happened:

Wizard: Oh, I leveled up. Okay, now I sit down for 15 minutes and memorize a new set of spells right away, so instead of being weaker for the boss encounter like planned, I'm actually stronger than when I started the day because I have a new higher level spell.

Sure, partly my fault for not watching the XP totals a lot more closely and giving out a few too many Free XPs for things (Good RPage that makes the game more fun tends to grant XP for my games as well, not just killing monsters). But still. It's an example, I made the house rule because suddenly a problem sprung up and I didn't want to deal with it again.


What Point should the DM's say be final?

After one round of talk. Seriously, one of the things that has ruined a lot of games for me is having spineless DMs who let people discus, argue, and sway them constantly. The game needs some consistency to it. Players should be able to do things and expect what will happen before a dice ever goes up into their hand (Or at least expect the range of outcomes). When you open things up to discussion too much, you lose that. The game slows down as people start arguing over every little thing... there's always an asshat or two who wants to try and lie, argue, and dragoon his way into unfair advantages, etc. So my general rule is, if you disagree, you get to say one thing. I'll consider it, then make a ruling. Whatever that ruling is stands for the rest of the session (Including other instances of the same sort of event).


Any other advice

Someone above mentioned trying to be "too clever". That's always my standard advice. As my little league coach would have told you, "Don't go for the homerun swing, just make a good solid cut and try to make contact. That's all." If something seems cliched or simple? That doesn't mean you should avoid it. Heck, something simple but done right will always be better than something "Masterful" and done mediocre.

On top of that? Just make sure you set aside some time to chat with people after the game. Don't go from Playing to everyone packing up and leaving instantly. Having some cool down time lets you hear people chatter. And they'll usually talk about the game. And by letting them talk and hearing what they are saying you can get a lot of ideas about what they'll do next, what they find interesting, possible plot hooks you didn't consider (But might want to), mistakes you made, etc.

[Gildedragon]

So somethings I've found very handy in DMing:
Start vague in your worldcrafting: clearly define only a small area, the rest of the world will be an as-you-go endeavor

Have a notion of tone and limits: know what tone you want in the world, and which things are set in stone. (Noir, no large races or monstrous humanoids, undead are always irredemably evil, etc...)

Allow your player to fill the gaps: your player wants to be a bard; wants their home town to be an artistic haven with a dark secret, want to be a scion of a noble house. Sure! Let them clarify the vast murk of the world. Also of use, the rules for Speak Authoritatively I found somewhere on these boards. Let the world building be a joint endeavor.

Be willing to compromise: the bard wants to be a troll? Well there are no monstrous humanoids in the world, but his town might be troll-descended, or half orcs might be referred to as trolls by less polite company, or they want te regen? Craft Alchemy or a use of Bardic Music or a spell or the heal skill or autohypnosis can be made to do that. It is not a batter of always saying "yes and" but of trying not to say just "no". A "lets see how we can work that in" is enough.

Learn your players' interests and desires. If you're out of steam for a session either brainstorm the next adventure hook with your players, or toss something they want to see into the mix.

Last: LISTEN to your players. From the crackpot theories, to discontented grumblings, pay attention to the people on the table.

Addenda: Keep it fun for yourself. If all your players want a grimdark slaughterfest with rape, murder, theft, disembowelment, while they play brooding unicorns... And you are outright uncomfortable, don't run it. It is possible there is no compromise to be had; that's life. Be honest and frank

[Gwazi Magnum]

Look at a good history book. Not one of the pathetic ones they give you in high school, something like Wolf's Europe and the People Without History. You could populate two or three campaign worlds just from his chapter on Africa, and nobody would ever know where you got it from. read the news and actually dig into it. "This crazy thing happened.." "...Why." These things do not come from nowhere. If you file the serial numbers off, any given country with a shortage of vowels can become anything you want.
As far as having stuff ready? Have some general ideas ready and just use magicians force. The adventure you wrote out in dusty Sulej Aten will, with only minor tweaking, work just fine in the watery canals of the city they decided to visit instead. Nobody will know that you had to rename the characters after they traveled.
When in doubt? Throw them a red herring, listen to them argue about it, then build an adventure out of their fevered conspiracy theories.
Here's a secret; players can, with minor coaching, cough up ideas for you. But it helps when you break out of the script mindset. Instead, build situations. "You need to sneak into this guarded keep and smuggle out the baroness's daughter without letting her see you." Let them have a few lucky breaks, but otherwise? It's fine if you have no freaking idea how they're going to pull that off. You know what's there; you're playing the obstacle against them while secretly hoping the obstacle loses. But you do not know their tactics. Don't even think you will know them.The minimum possible. I find that you can get the most interesting changes by removing things rather than trying to splice rules onto a system. Both house rules and wacky world holes fall under my prime commandment:
You are not half as clever as you think you are.
(And neither am I.)
And what I mean by that is that it's easy to come up with a wild quirk to your setting, or a new rule. However, slowly grinding away and working out all the permutations is what game designers get paid the mid-sized bucks to do, and as things like the tier system and a plethora of broken builds demonstrates, even the pros miss a lot of things. Everything you add has a good chance of going absolutely mad with implications that you had never considered. If you avoid cleverness and stick to the tried and true, you run much less risk of this happening, and it's the subtleties that you add that people will care about anyways.
As far as making things play differently, I have found that excising various common races and letting other things fill their niche instead makes the world feel very differently without really changing the function all that much.

As far as magic levels.. is this your issue or your groups'? Because if it was me, i'd just excise the full-list casting class and call it a day. The archmage is now a bard. Awesome.

History would be a good source to look into, I'll probably look a bit into past events as inspiration for things.
Red herrings might be fun, but I'm trying to avoid stuff like making players chase false leads because a current DM of ours does that... Gives us a 'lead' we waste resources getting there to learn it to be false and end up having wasted our time which usually just annoys the group.

I do recognize that house rules can lead to more issues, which is why I try to get anything I do make double and triple checked by others beforehand.



Creating a world

I suppose the simplest answer to this, is just to fill it full of stuff. You want to have two things in your mind when you go about "creating a world" (Note: I wouldn't actually start with a "World", start with just the local region you're starting with, other stuff can be vague and over there until they get to it). One is think about the sort of things you and your friends find as compelling fodder. Has there been something where, in previous games a thing gets mentioned and everyone/someone goes "Ooooo!"... for example, a Paladin player I had who just went "Ooooo!" anytime there was a rumor or a mention of a Holy item of any sort. If there's something like that? Throw it into the region. "Oh yeah, rumor has it the ancient Hero Ascelpius is buried somewhere in this area, and was entombed with his legendary blade Rhia.".

The other thing is that you create a setting where things will happen (Albeit slowly) without the input of the players. It might just be me, but groups I've been a part of HATE static settings. If nothing is going to change by itself, then the player actions feel superfluous. Oh, we stopped the rampaging Goblin Horde from sacking Silverymoon... but if we didn't do it, one of the setting's epic level NPCs would have just Deus Ex Machina'd them right out.

So set up the setting so that things will happen on their own, and things will change gradually but slowly. Are two nations enemies? They will go to war if left alone. That war will have an impact as well, winners, losers, bloody stalemates, whatever... but it shouldn't just amount to some group's Fool's Mate Gambit failed, they retreated to lick their wounds, and will do it again later with similar results.

I'm pretty sure I could come up with a good amount of mini-quest ideas across the realm fairly quickly.

A constantly changing world would be cool too, though finding the right balance of that would be tricky.
Would this also run the risk though for players getting too busy, trying to stop all the bad world alterations from possibly happening?


Reacting to Players actions, logic or ideas

Ah, the art of fluid DMing. It's a tricky thing. I had some problems with this myself, particularly because one group I was in, in my younger days, would often beg me for entirely impromptu games. "Oh... we'll go eat for 15 minutes while you cook us up a campaign from scratch. I don't care what, but I wanna play a _____."

It's not as simple as just saying "Yes, and..." like WotC and other guides tend to suggest (Though that is important). One thing is just keeping in mind a good sense of plot flow and pacing. I like to alternate between Conflict and Non-Conflict stuff myself. Because I know I run that pace, it's real easy to adapt when people go "off the rails". Okay, we just had a battle, and I wanted them to explore this room, find some clues, etc. But instead they decide to run back to town. So I just throw in another Non-Combat scene on the way out of the dungeon, or back in town, etc, and subtly weave in a new point that eventually will bring them back to where I wanted them or start a whole new plot.

It's a hard art to grasp at first. One thing I'd suggest doing to make it easier? Come up with an Oh **** List. Just have a list of one or two sentence ideas that you keep in with your notes. When your players go off the rails, pick one of those ideas and weave it into whatever they are doing. It'll make it a lot easier to improvise a plot hook or use their idea to get back to the plot.

A back up list is probably something I should make. I can see the use in that.

As for conflict vs non-conflict, it's more the specific adventures I would have issues with rather than a balance of encounter types.


House Rules? Too much? Too Little?

I leave house rules for one situation only. And that's when I run into a problem. Until then, stick to the published rules as best you can (excusing some logical cut offs like making mounted combat work, etc). Like... I have a common house rule I use, that you only level up when you're between adventures, resting in a town, safe spot, etc, where you have some time off to hone your skills and learn new lessons. Why? Because of silliness that happened when I was totaling XP after every encounter and this happened:

Wizard: Oh, I leveled up. Okay, now I sit down for 15 minutes and memorize a new set of spells right away, so instead of being weaker for the boss encounter like planned, I'm actually stronger than when I started the day because I have a new higher level spell.

Sure, partly my fault for not watching the XP totals a lot more closely and giving out a few too many Free XPs for things (Good RPage that makes the game more fun tends to grant XP for my games as well, not just killing monsters). But still. It's an example, I made the house rule because suddenly a problem sprung up and I didn't want to deal with it again.

That house rule specifically I don't think I would use cause if I were to DM, the players it would be with have a tendancy to get themselves into a campaign that makes resting for a period of time normally mean nothing but giving the enemies more time to get stronger.

I also tend to like house rules that focus on balancing the classes more or allowing more character creativity.


What Point should the DM's say be final?

After one round of talk. Seriously, one of the things that has ruined a lot of games for me is having spineless DMs who let people discus, argue, and sway them constantly. The game needs some consistency to it. Players should be able to do things and expect what will happen before a dice ever goes up into their hand (Or at least expect the range of outcomes). When you open things up to discussion too much, you lose that. The game slows down as people start arguing over every little thing... there's always an asshat or two who wants to try and lie, argue, and dragoon his way into unfair advantages, etc. So my general rule is, if you disagree, you get to say one thing. I'll consider it, then make a ruling. Whatever that ruling is stands for the rest of the session (Including other instances of the same sort of event).

I know the risks of talking too much, but I'd rather risk that than risk being a power-hungry, controlling DM who saps fun out of the game for players.



Any other advice

Someone above mentioned trying to be "too clever". That's always my standard advice. As my little league coach would have told you, "Don't go for the homerun swing, just make a good solid cut and try to make contact. That's all." If something seems cliched or simple? That doesn't mean you should avoid it. Heck, something simple but done right will always be better than something "Masterful" and done mediocre.

On top of that? Just make sure you set aside some time to chat with people after the game. Don't go from Playing to everyone packing up and leaving instantly. Having some cool down time lets you hear people chatter. And they'll usually talk about the game. And by letting them talk and hearing what they are saying you can get a lot of ideas about what they'll do next, what they find interesting, possible plot hooks you didn't consider (But might want to), mistakes you made, etc.
[/list]

Keeping it simple, I can do that. :P

If I end up DM'ing I will try to talk with the players about the sessions, but the group it would happen for usually end up playing till late enough that they need to get straight home afterwards to get some sleep.


So somethings I've found very handy in DMing:
Start vague in your worldcrafting: clearly define only a small area, the rest of the world will be an as-you-go endeavor

Have a notion of tone and limits: know what tone you want in the world, and which things are set in stone. (Noir, no large races or monstrous humanoids, undead are always irredemably evil, etc...)

Allow your player to fill the gaps: your player wants to be a bard; wants their home town to be an artistic haven with a dark secret, want to be a scion of a noble house. Sure! Let them clarify the vast murk of the world. Also of use, the rules for Speak Authoritatively I found somewhere on these boards. Let the world building be a joint endeavor.

Be willing to compromise: the bard wants to be a troll? Well there are no monstrous humanoids in the world, but his town might be troll-descended, or half orcs might be referred to as trolls by less polite company, or they want te regen? Craft Alchemy or a use of Bardic Music or a spell or the heal skill or autohypnosis can be made to do that. It is not a batter of always saying "yes and" but of trying not to say just "no". A "lets see how we can work that in" is enough.

Learn your players' interests and desires. If you're out of steam for a session either brainstorm the next adventure hook with your players, or toss something they want to see into the mix.

Last: LISTEN to your players. From the crackpot theories, to discontented grumblings, pay attention to the people on the table.

Addenda: Keep it fun for yourself. If all your players want a grimdark slaughterfest with rape, murder, theft, disembowelment, while they play brooding unicorns... And you are outright uncomfortable, don't run it. It is possible there is no compromise to be had; that's life. Be honest and frank

The start with a small area idea concerns me because it means if the players get a bit curious and want to explore I end up being lost.

Limits, I'll probably limit players to medium and small races.
I tend not to label anything in absaloutes for alignment though.
I don't like it when people follow those too strongly and see the world in black and white.
A constant shade of grey makes the games more interesting in my opinion.

I'll also be sure to get the desires of the players for a campaign down before I make a whole world and such too though.

[JusticeZero]

Red herrings might be fun, but I'm trying to avoid stuff like making players chase false leads because a current DM of ours does that... Gives us a 'lead' we waste resources getting there to learn it to be false and end up having wasted our time which usually just annoys the group.I didn't say have them chase false leads. I said have them chase true leads, but they weren't true until they spent time arguing about what it meant until you had enough to make an adventure out of.

Would this also run the risk though for players getting too busy, trying to stop all the bad world alterations from possibly happening?"Hero of another story" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroOfAnotherStory). Invent a couple of other adventuring groups. You never trip over them, but now and then, you hear stories about how they saved the day in some other part of the world.
The start with a small area idea concerns me because it means if the players get a bit curious and want to explore I end up being lost.Detail the area around them vaguely, but save the major worldmaking for when they start marching that way. Have some encounters to eat time while traveling; that way if they say "Hey, I want to go THERE!" and rush that way, you'll have the time between games to figure out what's there, because they had to deal with situations on the way.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I didn't say have them chase false leads. I said have them chase true leads, but they weren't true until they spent time arguing about what it meant until you had enough to make an adventure out of.

So, give them something with no answer until I'm able to think up of one?


"Hero of another story" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeroOfAnotherStory). Invent a couple of other adventuring groups. You never trip over them, but now and then, you hear stories about how they saved the day in some other part of the world.

That I can have some fun with, though what happens in the chance players end up making enemies with these heroes and try to kill them?


Detail the area around them vaguely, but save the major world making for when they start marching that way. Have some encounters to eat time while traveling; that way if they say "Hey, I want to go THERE!" and rush that way, you'll have the time between games to figure out what's there, because they had to deal with situations on the way.

What about in groups that tend to last longer than others though? Like 9-12 hour long sessions?

There could be an issue there where if I delayed them for the rest of the session it's hours among hours of it where it become obvious what I'm trying to do.

[buttcyst]

world building: start small, single region with 2 or 3 towns and some distinct features like river or lake or forest or mountain. you only need 1 town mapped, if that even, all NPC's for the first few sessions should be simply a note to self of existence unless interacted with, in which case, the most they will have is a name and an attitude toward the party.

Give them a quest out of town and see how they conduct themselves. if they burn it to the ground, at least you didn't work too hard on it, if they are polite and cordial, you can add a few more details to your town during your prep time in the future. I have had many towns whose first map was a few squares on the battle mat and all NPCs and shops were strictly off the top off my head, party never returned, still no permanent map in my records.

As far as expanding from there, big blobs on graph paper is where I always start, your world will become more complex and dynamic the longer adventuring parties inhabit it.

House rules: For my table, entirely situational, usually if there is clarity issues with the raw. all of my house rules involve source material, ability rolls, and feats (I give an extra at lvl 1), nothing game breaking even though it creates higher powered PCs.

As I come across variants that I like, I will usually play test them in a side game and if I still like the way they work I will present them to the group for a vote, sometimes involving a quick arena situation for practical application trial. Most house rules I do are along the "makes more sense this way" line.

"THE DM IS ALWAYS RIGHT": LEFT! a DM is a facilitator, not the alpha and omega of DnD. If a player can show me where I am wrong, or if they can "prove their point" in an adult fashion, then I have no problem reversing a ruling. and if it is something that there is still uncertainty on, I will make a judgment call (good or bad) and then research my decision between sessions and correct things as needed.

When the players do the unexpected: expect this every game session, if the party turns left on the road that every NPC told them to turn right down, and left goes off your map or is unplanned. or better yet, when you planned for 5 days of travel and the party skips it by casting a couple of spells. congratulations, your world just became dynamic and living.

"The goblin raiders are tormenting the village nearby, you head down the road and turn right, the village is about a day out from there."
Party comes to the fork and turns left, not right. Well, now instead of going to the village to get more information, they find themselves in the middle of a goblin encampment, the home base for the raiding parties and the place is swarming and there is an obviously much more powerful BBEG ordering underlings around. bam, party has to turn around, they are not railroaded because they were already informed of the goblin's presence, and now you have an adventure to take down the goblin commander to restore peace in the area, thank you for screwing up my notes PC party, but this just got interesting.

[Gwazi Magnum]

world building: start small, single region with 2 or 3 towns and some distinct features like river or lake or forest or mountain. you only need 1 town mapped, if that even, all NPC's for the first few sessions should be simply a note to self of existence unless interacted with, in which case, the most they will have is a name and an attitude toward the party.

Give them a quest out of town and see how they conduct themselves. if they burn it to the ground, at least you didn't work too hard on it, if they are polite and cordial, you can add a few more details to your town during your prep time in the future. I have had many towns whose first map was a few squares on the battle mat and all NPCs and shops were strictly off the top off my head, party never returned, still no permanent map in my records.

As far as expanding from there, big blobs on graph paper is where I always start, your world will become more complex and dynamic the longer adventuring parties inhabit it.

House rules: For my table, entirely situational, usually if there is clarity issues with the raw. all of my house rules involve source material, ability rolls, and feats (I give an extra at lvl 1), nothing game breaking even though it creates higher powered PCs.

As I come across variants that I like, I will usually play test them in a side game and if I still like the way they work I will present them to the group for a vote, sometimes involving a quick arena situation for practical application trial. Most house rules I do are along the "makes more sense this way" line.

"THE DM IS ALWAYS RIGHT": LEFT! a DM is a facilitator, not the alpha and omega of DnD. If a player can show me where I am wrong, or if they can "prove their point" in an adult fashion, then I have no problem reversing a ruling. and if it is something that there is still uncertainty on, I will make a judgment call (good or bad) and then research my decision between sessions and correct things as needed.

When the players do the unexpected: expect this every game session, if the party turns left on the road that every NPC told them to turn right down, and left goes off your map or is unplanned. or better yet, when you planned for 5 days of travel and the party skips it by casting a couple of spells. congratulations, your world just became dynamic and living.

"The goblin raiders are tormenting the village nearby, you head down the road and turn right, the village is about a day out from there."
Party comes to the fork and turns left, not right. Well, now instead of going to the village to get more information, they find themselves in the middle of a goblin encampment, the home base for the raiding parties and the place is swarming and there is an obviously much more powerful BBEG ordering underlings around. bam, party has to turn around, they are not railroaded because they were already informed of the goblin's presence, and now you have an adventure to take down the goblin commander to restore peace in the area, thank you for screwing up my notes PC party, but this just got interesting.

What if they burn it down though? Are the players just expected to go back to where they came from?

Any house rules you tend to use other than the bonus feat at level 1?

The example of derailing there is a very simple one though, they can either follow where I plan for to go. Or not, and if they don't they end up in a very bad mess. What if they just did something like, 'let's turn around' or 'let's cut through the forest, screw the road'?

[JusticeZero]

So, give them something with no answer until I'm able to think up of one?Exactly. This is one of those spots where you let the players ruminate over this wierd thing they found. Soon, you have lots of material that integrates with the setting to make several adventures.
..what happens in the chance players end up making enemies with these heroes and try to kill them?Then you have a few sessions of adventures that you just have to fill in a few details, don't you?

There could be an issue there where if I delayed them for the rest of the session it's hours among hours of it where it become obvious what I'm trying to do.
You could just say, "I haven't got the details on that place finished yet, and I have some adventures while traveling. I'll have an adventure there next session. In the meanwhile, here's this village on the way we can do stuff with." People are pretty understanding about things like that in my experience, when you are generally prepared with stuff to do along the way to their unreasonably erratic destination. I mean, it's not like you're railroading them, you're just saying "I didn't expect you to go there yet, i'll be ready for it next week."

[Gwazi Magnum]

Exactly. This is one of those spots where you let the players ruminate over this wierd thing they found. Soon, you have lots of material that integrates with the setting to make several adventures.

I guess I could try that when I get stuck. I just hope the players don't get hurried as a result.


You could just say, "I haven't got the details on that place finished yet, and I have some adventures while traveling. I'll have an adventure there next session. In the meanwhile, here's this village on the way we can do stuff with." People are pretty understanding about things like that in my experience, when you are generally prepared with stuff to do along the way to their unreasonably erratic destination. I mean, it's not like you're railroading them, you're just saying "I didn't expect you to go there yet, i'll be ready for it next week."

I could, but if I was a player although I would understand and respect that it would still be a bummer to have to wait next to do something when the session is still going on. I'd rather not make my players feel like that if possible.

[buttcyst]

What if they burn it down though? Are the players just expected to go back to where they came from?

Any house rules you tend to use other than the bonus feat at level 1?

The example of derailing there is a very simple one though, they can either follow where I plan for to go. Or not, and if they don't they end up in a very bad mess. What if they just did something like, 'let's turn around' or 'let's cut through the forest, screw the road'?

generally, if players burn down a village, they are reacting rashly to something, most times they don't intend to go back, and if they do, well, it's burned down and there are some upset officials looking for who did it and are now asking the party for information.

house rules I implement: AoO on missed melee; any standard action can be made on 1 AoO; Tie goes to the defender in matters of AC ( I figure you need to actually exceed that one, not just meet it); feats that grant an extra attack (ie. twf, rapid shot, wwa) grant them as a standard action with exceptions for making sense... generally meaning a 45 degree angle or less for ranged; most special actions in combat are simplified to flow things along, tripping and sundering are an opposed roll to the initial attack type thing. a lot of house rulings for those are done on the fly and aren't written because they aren't common enough in my games to really worry about and all my PCs are familiar enough with the basic mechanics of what their characters can do it really isn't as much an issue as it used to be, always whipping out the book and having someone dictate while everyone else says "huh?" I try to keep them to a minimum because they always tend to bite me in the @#$ shortly after writing them down... like the one about severing limbs...; I will also include any class or PrC concepts in the house rules as well as any PC created spells and 1 made up feat... friendly casting... solved so many problems).


As for the party taking the path less taken (or not taken ever before), it doesn't always have to lead them into the face of sudden death. My current party did exactly what you said for your example, a month ago they decided to leave their horse and cart as well as 5 dead bodies at and around a town while they bolted through the woods. I wasn't able to do much for getting them lost or slowing them down with terrain because of the druid in the group negating any mystery in the woods. well, they did make it to their destination and are now in a dungeon with little information about it and no supplies for navigating it. The party being in the dungeon gave me the perfect opportunity for me to throw a curve ball right back at them that they had thrown at me. "a few days prior", the party monk, with the assistance of the former member bard/druid, persuaded a town to send for their "overlord", a treant that was a week away, they rolled a nat 20 on diplomacy 3 times in a row. well, now that they are 2 days into this dungeon, they just got an animal messenger letting them know that the treant was back at the town and was ready for the audience, but had to leave in the morning (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA).

If your PCs turn too far left for any of your notes to make sense anymore, have them make whatever checks at dc whatever while you secretly flip through the MM for an overnight random encounter (dire tigers are always fun)

[Gwazi Magnum]

generally, if players burn down a village, they are reacting rashly to something, most times they don't intend to go back, and if they do, well, it's burned down and there are some upset officials looking for who did it and are now asking the party for information.

house rules I implement: AoO on missed melee; any standard action can be made on 1 AoO; Tie goes to the defender in matters of AC ( I figure you need to actually exceed that one, not just meet it); feats that grant an extra attack (ie. twf, rapid shot, wwa) grant them as a standard action with exceptions for making sense... generally meaning a 45 degree angle or less for ranged; most special actions in combat are simplified to flow things along, tripping and sundering are an opposed roll to the initial attack type thing. a lot of house rulings for those are done on the fly and aren't written because they aren't common enough in my games to really worry about and all my PCs are familiar enough with the basic mechanics of what their characters can do it really isn't as much an issue as it used to be, always whipping out the book and having someone dictate while everyone else says "huh?" I try to keep them to a minimum because they always tend to bite me in the @#$ shortly after writing them down... like the one about severing limbs...; I will also include any class or PrC concepts in the house rules as well as any PC created spells and 1 made up feat... friendly casting... solved so many problems).


As for the party taking the path less taken (or not taken ever before), it doesn't always have to lead them into the face of sudden death. My current party did exactly what you said for your example, a month ago they decided to leave their horse and cart as well as 5 dead bodies at and around a town while they bolted through the woods. I wasn't able to do much for getting them lost or slowing them down with terrain because of the druid in the group negating any mystery in the woods. well, they did make it to their destination and are now in a dungeon with little information about it and no supplies for navigating it. The party being in the dungeon gave me the perfect opportunity for me to throw a curve ball right back at them that they had thrown at me. "a few days prior", the party monk, with the assistance of the former member bard/druid, persuaded a town to send for their "overlord", a treant that was a week away, they rolled a nat 20 on diplomacy 3 times in a row. well, now that they are 2 days into this dungeon, they just got an animal messenger letting them know that the treant was back at the town and was ready for the audience, but had to leave in the morning (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA).

If your PCs turn too far left for any of your notes to make sense anymore, have them make whatever checks at dc whatever while you secretly flip through the MM for an overnight random encounter (dire tigers are always fun)

Sorry but your house rules have me a bit lost, I'm not sure what you're trying to say with them.

As for the party running off, do you basically mean that if they blind-side me as a DM basically saying 'screw you' to the objective that I should just blind-side them back and them do something that might make them regret being so reckless that relates to their overall story/goal?

[buttcyst]

Sorry but your house rules have me a bit lost, I'm not sure what you're trying to say with them.

As for the party running off, do you basically mean that if they blind-side me as a DM basically saying 'screw you' to the objective that I should just blind-side them back and them do something that might make them regret being so reckless that relates to their overall story/goal?

it's more of a reminder of what they are up to in the world, part of it being alive. Most games I've played in have had pretty one sided and static worlds where nothing anybody did had any consequence whether good or bad. I had 1 DM that changed it for me, not sure how much planning ahead he actually did, but he handled things like us capturing a war party of orcs instead of killing them. I guess what I learned from him was that no matter what the players do in the world, some NPC saw it and told 2 friends. everywhere they go, there is something there, whether it be just a bunch of trees called the forest , or maybe there is a dragon's lair (DC stooped high frightful presence check... nobody goes near the place and they keep moving), or maybe they run into someone helpful or in need of help. the trick to the party turning left is to always have an extra random encounter or 2 on hand, and if they keep on track, make those over night and travel check encounters. when they cast that one spell deep inside their list that completely negates everything you had planned, turn it into a shock and awe session from a previously unseen spectator ("that was amazing! I must tell everyone I know what I saw here!"), doing that will actually relieve any of your frustration and will appeal to your players (funnier if you get the facts wrong) and could draw out the session long enough for you to work something else out, beside just another wave of bad guys.


As for the house rules, my wife is better at explaining them, I usually just try to stick as close to the book as possible, saves a lot of confusion

[Gwazi Magnum]

it's more of a reminder of what they are up to in the world, part of it being alive. Most games I've played in have had pretty one sided and static worlds where nothing anybody did had any consequence whether good or bad. I had 1 DM that changed it for me, not sure how much planning ahead he actually did, but he handled things like us capturing a war party of orcs instead of killing them. I guess what I learned from him was that no matter what the players do in the world, some NPC saw it and told 2 friends. everywhere they go, there is something there, whether it be just a bunch of trees called the forest , or maybe there is a dragon's lair (DC stooped high frightful presence check... nobody goes near the place and they keep moving), or maybe they run into someone helpful or in need of help. the trick to the party turning left is to always have an extra random encounter or 2 on hand, and if they keep on track, make those over night and travel check encounters. when they cast that one spell deep inside their list that completely negates everything you had planned, turn it into a shock and awe session from a previously unseen spectator ("that was amazing! I must tell everyone I know what I saw here!"), doing that will actually relieve any of your frustration and will appeal to your players (funnier if you get the facts wrong) and could draw out the session long enough for you to work something else out, beside just another wave of bad guys.


As for the house rules, my wife is better at explaining them, I usually just try to stick as close to the book as possible, saves a lot of confusion

I'm a bit lost again.
Are you trying to say basically have everything the group does become public news?
If some NPC is always noticing what they do, why do the players never notice these people watching them?

[buttcyst]

I guess the simplest I could put it is any deeds that are noteworthy of any kind shouldn't go unnoticed for too long, good or bad, though not necessarily witnessed directly. And no matter which way you party decides to travel, the bad guys in the area are indigenous, unless given a solitary specific location by you.

[Rhynn]

How to create a fantasy world (http://batintheattic.blogspot.fi/2009/08/how-to-make-fantasy-sandbox.html).

[Harlot]

There's no way in hell you'll EVER be able to predict player reactions, you might as well not even try. As a friend once said:

You can paint red arrows on the path.
Give them a map with an X on it.
Hang a banner across the street stating "Look no further: BBEG + loads of treasure here. Talk to village boss!!!"

- and the group will go: 'Nah, nothing here. Lets go north instead.'
DM goes: 'AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! not AGAIN?!???'


Here's a secret; players can, with minor coaching, cough up ideas for you. But it helps when you break out of the script mindset. Instead, build situations. "You need to sneak into this guarded keep and smuggle out the baroness's daughter without letting her see you." Let them have a few lucky breaks, but otherwise? It's fine if you have no freaking idea how they're going to pull that off. You know what's there; you're playing the obstacle against them while secretly hoping the obstacle loses. But you do not know their tactics. Don't even think you will know them.

Exactly! Make them solve it themselves. You just need to nudge them.

+ And then use the Sly Flourish D&D DM Cheat sheet to wing it. (http://slyflourish.com/lazy_dm_cheat_sheet.html)
I really recommend his 4E cheat sheet (http://slyflourish.com/master_dm_sheet.pdf) (which works just FINE in 3.X as well.) very good for improvising ANY DC on ANY action the group may EVER think up.

and IMO the DM is GOD and the DM always have the last say. That is, however, much easier to accept for the players if you know RAW and let players who know the rules better than you, have their say in discussions. As stated elsewhere in this thread, to houserule, you must know the RAW first, and know why you want to change it. Otherwise you'd rule at random, and that might upset the players.

DM: "you may not have teleport"
PC: "why not?"
DM: "beacuse I am GOD and I say so"
Very upset PC: "WTF?"

VS.:

DM: "You may not have teleport"
PC: "Why not?"
DM:" Well, I have studied the subject carefully in several gaming fora and there's a general agreement among seasoned players that spellcasters are overpowered and that this problem can be somewhat countered by disallowing teleport and scrying. I will however give you a boon instead."
PC:"Oh? OKay then. Can I have xxx as a boon?"

See? :-)

[Gwazi Magnum]

I guess the simplest I could put it is any deeds that are noteworthy of any kind shouldn't go unnoticed for too long, good or bad, though not necessarily witnessed directly. And no matter which way you party decides to travel, the bad guys in the area are indigenous, unless given a solitary specific location by you.

Ah I see, that should be easy enough to do.


How to create a fantasy world (http://batintheattic.blogspot.fi/2009/08/how-to-make-fantasy-sandbox.html).

Thanks, should give me a few ideas.


There's no way in hell you'll EVER be able to predict player reactions, you might as well not even try. As a friend once said:

You can paint red arrows on the path.
Give them a map with an X on it.
Hang a banner across the street stating "Look no further: BBEG + loads of treasure here. Talk to village boss!!!"

- and the group will go: 'Nah, nothing here. Lets go north instead.'
DM goes: 'AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! not AGAIN?!???'



Exactly! Make them solve it themselves. You just need to nudge them.

+ And then use the Sly Flourish D&D DM Cheat sheet to wing it. (http://slyflourish.com/lazy_dm_cheat_sheet.html)
I really recommend his 4E cheat sheet (http://slyflourish.com/master_dm_sheet.pdf) (which works just FINE in 3.X as well.) very good for improvising ANY DC on ANY action the group may EVER think up.

and IMO the DM is GOD and the DM always have the last say. That is, however, much easier to accept for the players if you know RAW and let players who know the rules better than you, have their say in discussions. As stated elsewhere in this thread, to houserule, you must know the RAW first, and know why you want to change it. Otherwise you'd rule at random, and that might upset the players.

DM: "you may not have teleport"
PC: "why not?"
DM: "beacuse I am GOD and I say so"
Very upset PC: "WTF?"

VS.:

DM: "You may not have teleport"
PC: "Why not?"
DM:" Well, I have studied the subject carefully in several gaming fora and there's a general agreement among seasoned players that spellcasters are overpowered and that this problem can be somewhat countered by disallowing teleport and scrying. I will however give you a boon instead."
PC:"Oh? OKay then. Can I have xxx as a boon?"

See? :-)

That Table would be a life saver! XD
Though, the DC seems to scale a little slow since they expect you to reach level 30.
You think the chart should be altered a bit for 3.5?

@Trading Teleport for Boon: Something one of my DM's could learn to do better. He does it sometimes, but other times he'll approve characters and then learn that they're more capable than he thought they were (and this is a guy who see's 40 feet per turn in heavy armor as OP... even though a Monk can get more speed and AC. And note he means it's on-par with magic OP, not it's kind of a good OP) and then starts to limit or ban abilities for it.

[Harlot]

That Table would be a life saver! XD
Though, the DC seems to scale a little slow since they expect you to reach level 30.
You think the chart should be altered a bit for 3.5?

Absolutely is! I've laminated mine and it's simply my most important tool as a DM. Well except for the dices. And the coffee.

On adjusting the sheet for 3.5? Nah, I guess its up to lvl. 30 because it includes EPIC levels. I'm using it for 3.5 and it seems to fit quite well. We're still lower levels though.
But you know, if at level 12 a high DC (28) or average AC (27) seems too low, just go down one or two lines in the chart and use level 14 for a party at level 12.

Really, that chart has saved my scrawny butt many, many times.

Glad to help :-)

Oh: and you should read this: My own private newbie DM screwups (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=286736) - regarding spellcasters. Don't start DM'ing without it. Really. Don't.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Absolutely is! I've laminated mine and it's simply my most important tool as a DM. Well except for the dices. And the coffee.

On adjusting the sheet for 3.5? Nah, I guess its up to lvl. 30 because it includes EPIC levels. I'm using it for 3.5 and it seems to fit quite well. We're still lower levels though.
But you know, if at level 12 a high DC (28) or average AC (27) seems too low, just go down one or two lines in the chart and use level 14 for a party at level 12.

Really, that chart has saved my scrawny butt many, many times.

Glad to help :-)

Oh: and you should read this: My own private newbie DM screwups (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=286736) - regarding spellcasters. Don't start DM'ing without it. Really. Don't.

Level 21-30 is called epic, but it's in their PHB, not the DMG so a typical campaign expects them to get that high where for d&d the expected is 20.

But the table is defelently helpful.
As for the help thread, I'd rather not reduce myself to DM fiat to handle a certain player.

[Wings of Peace]

Don't mentally masturbate to you campaign. I don't see it a lot but I've seen a few campaigns where the DM falls in love with their own ideas so much that the players mainly seem to be there to ruin their baby.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Don't mentally masturbate to you campaign. I don't see it a lot but I've seen a few campaigns where the DM falls in love with their own ideas so much that the players mainly seem to be there to ruin their baby.

That describes one of my DM's atm so well :smallbiggrin: