DM Basics

[about50heavies]

I am considering dming a pathfinder campaign for the first time. I need guidelines on how to set up encounters and how to keep player interest

[Flickerdart]

Use monsters with high HP and attack bonuses, but low AC and damage. Nothing is more boring than going round after round with everybody missing, and people tend to sour when a random encounter offs them in a single blow. Don't be afraid to fiat changes to these values if you want to use monsters that don't otherwise fit this profile, as long as the values correspond to what a monster of that level should have.

Resist the urge to use singular high-power monsters against the party. It's tough to strike a balance between "so powerful that it floors people in a single hit" and "can't deal with the action economy disadvantage and dies". A monster slightly more powerful with the party, backed up by a couple of minions, summons, or flunkies, can be a much more exciting challenge without nearly as many problems.

[CaladanMoonblad]

Make liberal use of Donjon random generators (http://donjon.bin.sh/)... everything from an inn to a magic shop to quests : )

[about50heavies]

I am also trying to think up of what to use as a hook for the players to be interested in the plot.

[Sylthia]

Use the CR calculations as a guideline for making encounters. They often tend to run low, where CR=EPL is usually a pushover. As a DM, I keep several NPC/monsters statted up on index cards, that way I can design encounters on the fly, for if the party ventures in a direction I hadn't anticipated.

As mentioned before, avoid single monster encounters. You can have 2, but at least 3 is better. Most of my encounters have 3-12 enemies. If you have closer to a dozen enemies, make them more glass-cannony, than following the CR calculations straight, unless you intend it to be a boss encounter. As mentioned before, have high attack bonuses, otherwise the enemies will never hit.

[about50heavies]

Should I lie about die rolls

[Sylthia]

I am also trying to think up of what to use as a hook for the players to be interested in the plot.

I good old fashioned call to arms with a promise of gold works as a starting point.



Should I lie about die rolls

Never lie about dice rolls. The one exception, is if a player role-plays well, you can give them a "stunt bonus" of +1, +2, etc, but let them know that you might reward good RPing in such a manner, so that's not really lying per se. Never lie about dice rolls in a way that would penalize the players.

[Flickerdart]

Amateurs fudge rolls. Experts use "circumstance bonuses". :smallwink:

[Darth Stabber]

Should I lie about die rolls

The question is should you ever tell the truth about die rolls, and the answer is no. You can control narrative pace much better by keeping that to yourself. My advice is to just roll dice and see how you feel about them, but that tends to work out better for more experienced GMs. As far as keeping players interested, I would recommend throwing out lots of plot hooks, and seeing what they bite, they could all lead to the same adventure, but if it seems like they had some choice in where the story was going they will be more invested. As was stated before, good single monster encounters are hard to make interesting, they tend to either be killers or get annihilated by the action economy. Strike teams, guard patrols, and other groups tend to make more interesting encounters.

I'm not sure how much more real newby advice I can give, I long ago gave up on all but the most high level of planning and run everything by the seat of my pants, and that only works because I know the numbers of most things well enough to fudge everything on the spot (this improved my GMing significantly, but it only really works if you know the system inside-out). Also keep in mind that this methodology leads to a more relaxed, less serious session, if you want a more serious game, it will not work quite so well.

[nedz]

Should I lie about die rolls

Never get caught lying about dice rolls — it's bad for trust, never admit it afterwards and never do it unless you are sure it's the correct thing to do — which it usually isn't.

I'm not even sure when it is the correct thing to do.

There are instances where you roll a dice where the result is meaningless — but that's not quite the same thing. So called 'random encounters' for instance — these should occur when the rules of drama, not plot, call for them.

[CRtwenty]

Never get caught lying about dice rolls — it's bad for trust, never admit it afterwards and never do it unless you are sure it's the correct thing to do — which it usually isn't.

I'm not even sure when it is the correct thing to do.

Generally the only acceptable time to do it is to avoid cheesing a player out (that random hobgoblin that rolls max damage on a crit three times in a row in the first encounter of the game). You can get away with doing it other times, but it's not usually necessary.

If you do it too much it will definitely cause your players to mistrust you and usually leads to cheating since they'll believe you violated the all important Gentleman's agreement. When in doubt, don't fudge rolls. Find other ways to make things happen without overtly cheating (you're the DM you have all the power, you don't need to do something as cheap as changing rolls).

As for plot hooks, just throw out a bunch of random plots and see what sticks. If your players are halfway competent they'll write most of your plot for you.

[Darth Stabber]

I guess that is the difference between "normal" GMing, and the "roll dice and see how you feel about them" school. I have a much more cavelier attitude than everyone else seems to, which makes sense given everyone else has number on paper (or a screen), where as I have numbers in my head. I do utilize hard numbers on climactic boss fights, where a player death would not be thematically inappropriate, but for most fights everything is vague ranges in my head, if something has been stabbed a few times, it just dies. I make sure it looks like everything is on the up and up, and so far no one can tell when i'm making it up, and when i'm going by the book.

[Sylthia]

I guess that is the difference between "normal" GMing, and the "roll dice and see how you feel about them" school. I have a much more cavelier attitude than everyone else seems to, which makes sense given everyone else has number on paper (or a screen), where as I have numbers in my head. I do utilize hard numbers on climactic boss fights, where a player death would not be thematically inappropriate, but for most fights everything is vague ranges in my head, if something has been stabbed a few times, it just dies. I make sure it looks like everything is on the up and up, and so far no one can tell when i'm making it up, and when i'm going by the book.

It's okay to add "circumstance" bonus, but I like to have the possibility of death still ever present. A few sessions ago, my DM dice were blessed by the RNG gods and actually killed a PC. I never subtract levels for rezzing, though. 5000g is enough of a price, but if the PCs knew they were invincible except on boss fights, it would hurt the experience. I don't design most encounters to be overly deadly, but if the RNG gods deem it fit, so be it.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I can't give much advice in terms on strategies.

But I can say a DM's focus and reason for DM'ing is always the player.
It is not the DM's game with the players as the pawns.

It is the players adventure with the DM as the guide and story teller.
A DM's job is to make a game fun and enjoyable for the players, not so the DM can punish players or treat it as they're play ground.

Being the DM you do have the most responsibility and work, so in that sense you do deserve respect for DM'ing and you are the only controlling most of the game.

But I've had to deal with (and quit) groups where the DM couldn't wrap their head around the fact that the campaign and group doesn't revolve around them.

tldr: Focus on the players and their enjoyment, it's their adventure and their game to play.


Should I lie about die rolls

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zNjQecyjE8

This should never happen.

If players ever learn that the DM is doing this they not only lose trust in the DM but have some justified ground to cheat and lie about rolls themselves. They're already up against a DM who can summon anything and do anything, now the DM is rigging dice as well? Why can't the players?

It would cause nothing but bad environment for the players. If you're using dice, follow what the dice says.

Then there's the fact that the DM who lies like that just broke the Gentlemens agreement and honor of a DM following the rules. And that should also be noted here, if a DM is changing the rules and/or adding house rules the players should be aware of all the changes ahead of time.

That way they don't build their character into a nerfed trap, or you somehow get a roll with following effects that from a players perspective (without the house rule knowledge) would look like lying/cheating.

[about50heavies]

I just do not want what happened when i played last campaign where the DM got crap rolls for the monsters and made everything as a cakewalk

[Sylthia]

I just do not want what happened when i played last campaign where the DM got crap rolls for the monsters and made everything as a cakewalk

Perhaps he should switch out his dice? :smallamused:

There will be days where DMs roll well and some where they roll poorly. In the long run it evens out. It's nice to have an easy battle every once in a while. It's nice to feel powerful as a player, not every encounter needs to be on the verge of TPK.

[ArcturusV]

As for plot hooks:

One of the things I tend to do for groups, particularly as I always use my own settings, is create a Primer on the setting.

So I have some short, like 14 page little booklet that I print off or e-mail to them which covers basic information about the setting. The various races, empires, religions, gods, monsters, short recaps of the history, any kitbashed or homebrewed stuff in the setting, etc. I hand this out to players before we make characters.

And that helps out with plot hooks. I find when I do that that players start incorporating some of that into their characters. You know, I have a Paladin of the goddess Faris, instead of a generic Paladin. I have someone who escaped from the Imperial prison camps. Or someone who was a slave who escaped from the Nethrin Enclave, etc.

They don't always do something like that... but if you give them the information, it's almost guaranteed that at least one person will. And it's a lot easier to create plot hooks that way. You jut look at them and you go "Oh, so and so escaped from a prison camp. How? Why was he there originally?" and you start having the sort of questions that lead to plot hooks.

Generally people would tell you not to focus on just one character like that. You don't want one guy to be the lead guitarist of the band, and other people being the fuzzy out of focus background people.

... then again, the more people flesh out their characters, the easier it is for you to come up with relevant plot hooks. The information was out there. It falls under the DMing category of rewarding stuff I want to see happen. Always a good idea.

[Novawurmson]

For every major NPC (and every minor NPC you have time to plan) consider the following:

Appearance - What does this character look like? What does s/he wear/not wear? What do these things say about the character?

Background - What has this character done (active)? What has happened to this character (passive)?

Motivation - What does this character want? How badly do they want it? For major NPCs, consider, short-, medium- and long- term goals.

Connections - What allies and enemies does this person have? Supporters? Minions?

More as I think about it.

[GameSpawn]

I just do not want what happened when i played last campaign where the DM got crap rolls for the monsters and made everything as a cakewalk

I wouldn't worry too much about this. Generally speaking, the DM has a lot of tools for making things harder, and at low levels, PCs are very fragile; even combat classes can't take many hits. As far as fudging/ignoring die rolls, I'd only consider doing it if the alternative is a PC becoming completely unable to do anything for an extended period of time, especially if it happens early in the game. Also, know your players. Don't share the decision with them, but do try to gauge where they fall on the "betrayal of trust"-"DM does what DM wants" spectrum.

The best advice I think I can give, though, is this: let your PC's shine. There are two key aspects to this. The first is that if the players put something on their character sheet, whether it be game mechanics (skills, spells, class features, etc.) or non-mechanic (backstory, personality), give them a chance to bring it into play, especially if they go out of their way to do so. Not every player will care if they can use all their abilities, but it's best to err on the side of giving them the chance.

The second aspect is that the PC's actions should make a difference. If the players come up with a scheme that didn't occur to you, let them try it out, and at least give it a chance to succeed. Further, they shouldn't be relying on the kindness and/or incompetence of npc's (unless they actively choose to do so).

TL;DR, let your players do stuff, let what they do determine what happens.