PDA

View Full Version : So I want to be a DM: A Journal



Raenir Salazar
2013-08-15, 05:06 PM
I would like to preface this by first saying even though its a "journal" I would very much like and appreciate any help, tips, points, aid, helping hands, hints, whisperings, advice, warnings, ideas, clues, reminders, hands with the laying on's thereof.

Essentially, about a week ago an acquaintance, lets call him Ron. Asked me to DM for him as he's bored and "just wants to play", I decided to take him up on this and began working on creating a campaign world (he asked for something pirate themed and while there's a geographical area where that's possible if the party goes there... No).

This will be full disclosure my first time trying to do "real DM'ing", I have the setting more or less roughed out with a rough idea on how things will "work" mechanically.

Using pathfinder as the system, the world will be divided up into regions and each region will be further subdivided into hex's each representing a 'zone' of the region and each sector will have "areas of interest", such as dungeons, quest givers, towns, roads, random encounters etc.

Verily I have constructed this to resemble the structure of a sandbox MMORPG so that I always have "content" for the users to explore and can easily plug in storyline information to.

The main "hook" for the campaign I have planned is kinda a mix of Attack on Titan and World War Zed, and MuvLuv; the gods were wiped out 100 years ago in an "Event" [Name to be Determined] and this weakened the fabric of reality such that the negative energy plane is spilling out onto the world plunging it into despair and darkness. The dead that had accumulated buried underground over the centuries, millennia even have all started to wake up and consume anything that lives.

A large amount of the world has succumbed and most of the rest is being encroached upon with few remaining beacons of civilization remaining unharmed and unthreatened, but how long will that last?

As such every zone has a percentage modifier determining the level of corruption by the negative energy plane; at 100% is the CR 20+ encounters while 0% is sunshine and dire rats, with besieged cities sometimes being in the 10-35% zones.

I'm intending for a proper and full experience, so everyone starts at level 1 and has to earn their super awesome characters and hopefully no one meets in an inn.

We're going to be playing in real time over skype using maptools or similar.


Now of my potential players who might not be able to play but is perfectly willing to help out has posited onto me some advice/questions to think about:



1) What is the overall campaign goal?
2) Each session should have a goal which may or may not be related to the campaign goal.
- Think like some of the better sci-fi series (Babylon 5, Buffy, Angel, some of the better anime like Cowboy Bebop)


(1) As I feel it comes down to, is 'long term' "figure out a way to close the breech(s) and restore the fabric of reality" but obviously the players are level 1 and that's not on their minds at the beginning right?

So the goal would be "Survive"?

(2) Thinking in terms of survival each session I think could be looked at in terms of "what supplies do we need?", "Are there people with certain skills we need to find?", "Is there equipment or materials we need?", especially if it gets to the point the party is actually defending and building up a fixed settlement. Or really just L4D style "Just get to the next f*'ing town in one piece".

Part of my design philosophy ties into what I feel about difficulty, I want the world to feel like it has depth and I want the PC"s to feel consequences for their mistakes or over ambitiousness; the zone system is one part of that. There are just regions were you just plain do not pass go at your level without needing invisible walls or railroads.

The nature of the setting and the malevolence of the forces involved should also make "safe" areas not so safe and to expect that. Like undead dragons swooping in or extra locked rooms that you probably shouldn't enter.... As long as there is an element of erratic unpredictability in the world around you it should make you more careful in your decisions, and only take risks when they are damn well worth it right?

I want the sense of danger to be under every corner, even though their in a 5% zone and the worst they'll likely run into is a bugbear wight.

House rules I'm consider:
(1) Removing automatic success on d20 20 roll. Instead it'll be +10 on a 20 and -10 on a 1.

(2) Save-or-die on PC's: At least for the first few levels when you fail a save on a save-or-die effect, enemy gets a crit, etc; I'll just do something else or make down a "strike 1" until strike 3 on my notes.

(3) The DM friend I have above suggested I use unhallowed/desecrated effects for zones instead of fiddling with things. Originally I was thinking of where to represent the weakening of the positive energy planes influence positive energy effects now face spell resistance from undead etc?


***************

For me, my challenge will be that of engagement, if every session is just the party level grinding I don't think that keeps up a weekly sense of excitement, not for long anyways.

On one hand they should "know" that the world is dying and seemingly no one can do anything about it. So maybe the party will take it upon themselves to start questing to figure something out.

If not, would it be sufficient if its undead hordes chasing after them, killing everyone in their path toppling town after town until they're sure enough there IS no hiding or surviving long term, and this forces them eventually onto trying to do something?

Notwithstanding quests such as "We need someone to find and stop the infiltrators sabotoging our walls."

"The food caravan is late, we need someone to find it!"

"The last time the Dead attacked they brought with them a dracolich, we need someone to get a message to [insert old wizard here] to come to our aid for the next time!"

Would that work I wonder, to keep up excitement on a session to session basis?

One last note, thinking back on Rich's comments on how "fantasy stories that don't tell us something about the real world is just petty escapism", I was thinking that the campaign to a degree could serve as a metaphor for climate change; something seemingly inescapable oncoming storm.

What else should I work on and keep in mind as I'm still working on drawing maps and world building?

If this gets off the ground I'll be making journal entries especially after each session as stuff progresses.

5a Violista
2013-08-15, 05:43 PM
I think you could also take into account specific NPCs who could help them out along the long story. In the first few episodes, they could just be random people that they save or run into - but, as they level up, the NPCs do more things for them.

For example, you could have one cleric/healer who gets lost in some dangerous zone, away from civilization. If they rescue her, then in a level or two, they'll find her in one of the cities they go to, and she provides free healing to them. A few levels later, she might have done some research and she'll tell them how best to counteract this corruption. A few levels later, the PCs will notice that she started up a tiny faction of clerics who go around, fighting undead, and she might even give missions for them.

Another NPC could be a rich trader that they sell their stuff to. Levels later, his entire caravan is destroyed, giving them a quest to find out what did this. Little by little, he rebuilds his wealth, as he continues to buy and sell the junk the PCs get. Soon, he comes across larger, magical items that will interest the PCs and sells it to them first, before any other customer has the chance to see it.


I guess what I'm saying is that you could easily come up with 5-10 diverse NPCs that the PCs meet in their first couple of levels. Write them all down on a single sheet of paper. Every time the PCs level up, write a new "location" and "action" by the NPCs names. That way, the world seems to keep on progressing as the PCs do stuff.

So, when the PCs are level 5, your sheet of paper will look like this:
Female Cleric 1. Lost in wilderness. PCs rescue her. 2. Newport City, Healing the sick. 3. Newport City, Researching undead. 4. Newport City, Training new clerics. 5. Wilderness, fighting undead.
Merchant 1. Sells stuff to PCs. 2. Sells stuff to PCs. 3. Goes bankrupt; caravan destroyed in Sunshine Valley. 4. Moves to Joan's Town, restarts business. 5. Joan's Town, trying to rebuild wealth.

((Did that make sense, or was I too unclear?))

Raenir Salazar
2013-08-15, 05:53 PM
It definitely made sense, I'll integrate that for sure :)

joca4christ
2013-08-15, 06:14 PM
Your whole idea sounds really interesting. A fairly complex world is building.

Here are some questions that came to mind as I was reading:

How long has the world been "dying"?
Would the PCs know the world is dying if they hailed from a relatively "safe" zone?
Are you giving them options of where they start from or will you say,"You are all from x region" which is a comparative safe zone?

The reasons these questions came to mind is that, starting at level one, they may not know the world is dying. Maybe they've lived in a safe zone all their lives, and it, maybe, is adjoining an area less safe and is degrading. Give them a chance at "getting to know ya" scenarios, hinting at the greater problem along the way. That way, it isn't all undead related, necessarily.

If they know the world is dying, they may not be as motivated to find out what is going on. Early levels should be finding out the world is dying, later levels should be attempting to fix it.

Just my two cps.

Raenir Salazar
2013-08-15, 06:31 PM
Here are some questions that came to mind as I was reading:

How long has the world been "dying"?



A hundred years, so long enough that most people (humans) who were alive are dead who would remember how it was before hand. Though the problem I see is Dwarves/Elves, who would all remember how it was back then. Maybe that's fine?



Would the PCs know the world is dying if they hailed from a relatively "safe" zone?


Yes in the sense that most of the civilizations on the Eastern side of the continent have been crushed, and waves of refugees came over the mountains bisecting the continent to the Western side, with undead chasing after them and so on; with now a good chunk of the Western side gone too.




Are you giving them options of where they start from or will you say,"You are all from x region" which is a comparative safe zone?


Options. They can choose to have come from the refugee waves or descended from them rather, or from the safer zones. For example we have a Paladin in the group so far, who is thinking of "being on assignment" on the border relatively safe town from somewhere safer.



The reasons these questions came to mind is that, starting at level one, they may not know the world is dying. Maybe they've lived in a safe zone all their lives, and it, maybe, is adjoining an area less safe and is degrading. Give them a chance at "getting to know ya" scenarios, hinting at the greater problem along the way. That way, it isn't all undead related, necessarily.


This is definitely good, though something I sorta already vaguely planned on doing. My initial plan was for them to "get to know" the town they are in which is likely going to be hit next. If you've seen Attack on Titan think of the Titan attack on Trost and what it did to Eren.



If they know the world is dying, they may not be as motivated to find out what is going on. Early levels should be finding out the world is dying, later levels should be attempting to fix it.

Just my two cps.

My thinking is that its unavoidable in "knowing" at least that something has been seriously wrong with the world for some time now; at least if we're being realistic about it.

My thinking on this is the general thought should be "if we just build big enough walls, we're safe" among the NPC's and maybe let the PC's think that too for a while; until its clear that it isn't and once they see the city they hopefully had an attachment too get destroyed motivate them to action.

Like I mean, I got attached to Neverwinter after saving the dang place twice in a row seeing it getting borked in Neverwinter Book I kinda angered me.

Like they're level 1 right? So obviously the big End Game end content quest to save the world shouldn't immediately be on their minds; I'ld prefer "Stay safe, survive, survive, survive, run, run, run, run some more, survive" to last a while before finally "F%&#. IT. F&@%." and then they start doing their thing.

kyoryu
2013-08-15, 06:55 PM
Okay, so here's my input. Feel free to ignore.

First of all, as a new GM, it's really easy to get caught up in the high-scope awesomeness of the overall campaign. But the most important thing to start is running the actual game - building the basic skills of running encounters both in and out of combat, pacing, listening to your players, keeping the game moving, and all of those little things. If you've got those down, the game will work even if the high-level campaign stuff sucks, and conversely, if you can't do those things, the campaign level stuff doesn't matter that much. The game really is mostly about the moment-to-moment stuff you do. The things that string it all together and give it structure are important, sure, but they rely on that base level clicking.

Interesting idea for a setting. I wouldn't worry quite so much about the percentages and the exact mechanics about the hexes and corruption, instead about what that'll impact, and how the players can interact with it - specifically, can they modify it?

Unless you're dead-set on PF, I'd also consider other options as 3.x isn't the newbie-GM-friendliest RPG around. One option that's I think is calling out specifically is Dungeon World, as it has great advice for new GMs. I could give other alternatives, based on what you want the game to be like, if you're open to those suggestions.

You need antagonists. These don't need to be typical "BBEG" type world-shakers, but they need to be forces that are opposed to the players in some fashion. Think Walking Dead - the zombies *aren't* the biggest problem. Good antagonists with agendas is a great way to set up a campaign - if you look at the game as being the interactions between the players and the antagonists, rather than "a series of events", it's more likely you'll keep more player freedom. Antagonists can respond and create their own actions, requiring player reaction, and are much more flexible than a prepped "plot". Having more than one antagonist is a good idea, to allow interactions between them and apply pressure on multiple fronts.

One thing that Fate does well in setting creation is suggesting that you create both a long-term or impending issue (the corruption) as well as an immediate issue. Okay, the setting's great - but what sucks *right now*? If you've got an antagonist, what is it that he could do *right now* to make life suck? An immediate issue like that is a great way to pull players in - the slow burn doesn't usually work. You mention "most NPCs think building walls will work." That's actually a great place to start - with the walls where the PCs are *failing*.

Figure out what the "focus" of the game is. If it's really a combat focus, go with that. If it's about the choices the players make, go with that. It doesn't matter what the focus is, so long as you've got an idea of it. That doesn't mean that the focus can't change over time, either. A combat-focused game doesn't need a lot of backstory, exposition, or player choices/dilemmas. It needs a way to get to the next combat. On the other hand, a game that's really about people in difficult situations making hard choices shouldn't be 90% combat, and the combat should *generally* in some way be tied to one of those hard choices.

At the same time, figure out just how much player freedom you're going to allow. The key to player freedom is to present problems *without* solutions. The less you know or anticipate the solution, the better. I think of them as hand grenades - they get the players moving, but you can't predict where they'll go. The more you predict or plan the solution, the easier it becomes to insist on *only* that solution.

I'd avoid rule modifications for a while, really. If SoD effects bug you that much, just get rid of them. Turning them into a three-strikes kind of thing seems like kind of a weird point in the middle where they only exist if they don't do anything.

Player excitement, in my experience, comes from two things: Meaningful choices, and player investment. Listen to your players. Find out what interests them, and what they want to achieve. Use "yes, but" to turn those into mini-adventures. "Can I start a settlement?" "Yes, but to do so you'll need to get some resources, clear the enemies out of an area, and manage to build walls somehow." You're not just giving them what they want, but you're telling them what they must do to earn it. Something that's earned and was the result of a player-initiated goal will almost always be more engaging to the players than anything you can think up. Then, put the things that they've invested in at risk. Let them make choices, and make sure they see the consequences, good and bad. Put them in dilemmas where they can't have *everything* but must make choices. Real choices and real stakes will make for fun, memorable gaming.

Raenir Salazar
2013-08-28, 07:24 PM
Quick Update: I've begun serious work on the art/world map as just in case this is something I can actually publish so unfortunately I'm not particularly able to post my WiP on it.


Okay, so here's my input. Feel free to ignore.

First of all, as a new GM, it's really easy to get caught up in the high-scope awesomeness of the overall campaign. But the most important thing to start is running the actual game - building the basic skills of running encounters both in and out of combat, pacing, listening to your players, keeping the game moving, and all of those little things. If you've got those down, the game will work even if the high-level campaign stuff sucks, and conversely, if you can't do those things, the campaign level stuff doesn't matter that much. The game really is mostly about the moment-to-moment stuff you do. The things that string it all together and give it structure are important, sure, but they rely on that base level clicking.

Completely agreed, I was annoyed as the previous DM I had kept shoving higher level stuff down our throat and made it difficult to plan out my character story arc as a result. Partly because the DM was also bad at world building too.



Interesting idea for a setting. I wouldn't worry quite so much about the percentages and the exact mechanics about the hexes and corruption, instead about what that'll impact, and how the players can interact with it - specifically, can they modify it?


I think in theory it should be possible to drive back the corruption but it would be difficult and impractical, considering the scale. They win one battle but what about several other towns that just got destroyed? Eventually the inertia should fall on them to make the decision to go in hard and fast and strike at the "source" if there is one.



Unless you're dead-set on PF, I'd also consider other options as 3.x isn't the newbie-GM-friendliest RPG around. One option that's I think is calling out specifically is Dungeon World, as it has great advice for new GMs. I could give other alternatives, based on what you want the game to be like, if you're open to those suggestions.


Eh, I like 3.X and my friends who are considering playing are used to that from Neverwinter Nights 2.



You need antagonists. These don't need to be typical "BBEG" type world-shakers, but they need to be forces that are opposed to the players in some fashion. Think Walking Dead - the zombies *aren't* the biggest problem. Good antagonists with agendas is a great way to set up a campaign - if you look at the game as being the interactions between the players and the antagonists, rather than "a series of events", it's more likely you'll keep more player freedom. Antagonists can respond and create their own actions, requiring player reaction, and are much more flexible than a prepped "plot". Having more than one antagonist is a good idea, to allow interactions between them and apply pressure on multiple fronts.


Indeed, MuvLuv comes to mind in the way you have the different factions or refugee nationalities huddled together fighting each other for resources as often as they fight the Dead. So its a source of tension and enemies may not just be Undead.





One thing that Fate does well in setting creation is suggesting that you create both a long-term or impending issue (the corruption) as well as an immediate issue. Okay, the setting's great - but what sucks *right now*? If you've got an antagonist, what is it that he could do *right now* to make life suck? An immediate issue like that is a great way to pull players in - the slow burn doesn't usually work. You mention "most NPCs think building walls will work." That's actually a great place to start - with the walls where the PCs are *failing*.


Indeed, while they are safe in the town/city, I'm thinking the focus should be like in an MMO, bunch of NPC's want your help, mostly focused on reinforcing the wall is a good idea.




Figure out what the "focus" of the game is. If it's really a combat focus, go with that. If it's about the choices the players make, go with that. It doesn't matter what the focus is, so long as you've got an idea of it. That doesn't mean that the focus can't change over time, either. A combat-focused game doesn't need a lot of backstory, exposition, or player choices/dilemmas. It needs a way to get to the next combat. On the other hand, a game that's really about people in difficult situations making hard choices shouldn't be 90% combat, and the combat should *generally* in some way be tied to one of those hard choices.


I'm thinking Survivalism, so combat focused but combat isn't always the best solution, sometimes running is.



At the same time, figure out just how much player freedom you're going to allow. The key to player freedom is to present problems *without* solutions. The less you know or anticipate the solution, the better. I think of them as hand grenades - they get the players moving, but you can't predict where they'll go. The more you predict or plan the solution, the easier it becomes to insist on *only* that solution.


Agreed, I think I want to allow a lot of freedom, if most of my players are relatively new than percieved railroading I imagine would seem unfun. So there's plot, but multiple easily grasped threads.



I'd avoid rule modifications for a while, really. If SoD effects bug you that much, just get rid of them. Turning them into a three-strikes kind of thing seems like kind of a weird point in the middle where they only exist if they don't do anything.


Alrighty, I'll keep this in mind.



Player excitement, in my experience, comes from two things: Meaningful choices, and player investment. Listen to your players. Find out what interests them, and what they want to achieve. Use "yes, but" to turn those into mini-adventures. "Can I start a settlement?" "Yes, but to do so you'll need to get some resources, clear the enemies out of an area, and manage to build walls somehow." You're not just giving them what they want, but you're telling them what they must do to earn it. Something that's earned and was the result of a player-initiated goal will almost always be more engaging to the players than anything you can think up. Then, put the things that they've invested in at risk. Let them make choices, and make sure they see the consequences, good and bad. Put them in dilemmas where they can't have *everything* but must make choices. Real choices and real stakes will make for fun, memorable gaming.

Completely agreed.