[DM Help] 4e DM learning to run 3.5

[metalman42]

Hello all!

Anybody have any tips for a 4e DM going back in time to 3.5? Needless expository below:

I ran a marginally successful 4e campaign for about 6 months that collapsed partly due to me. It's been a few years, and I've been trying to make a comeback in the DM chair for a while now. One of the things that made me resent 4e was the amount of prep work I'd do on encounters.

For me, fighting out the encounters was the least interesting part, but it got the most screen time. Despite that, I had very little time and energy to prepare interesting roleplaying situations, or they got glossed over on the way to the next combat. I'm not saying this is all 4e can do. It was pretty early in 4e's lifespan, and I was a new DM. Just putting it out there for context regarding my request.

Fast forward a few years with no gaming, a few years board gaming and Magic, and now I'm trying to DM again. I've been experimenting with rules lite games, Fate, RISUS, OSR games like Swords and Wizardry, and they don't seem to click with me and my players. After our pathetic attempt at old school D&D, one of my players suggested 3.5.

His group fizzled out a while ago, but they had lots of fun with 3.5, even after 4e and Pathfinder came out. He used to DM most of the time, since no one in his group used to do it. He knows the rules by heart, and can help the other players (none of whom put in the effort to crack a book) to create interesting and bizarre characters. He also has all the books already, which is nice on my wallet.

We agreed to a totally gonzo trial game, where everyone can just be whatever. We'll run through a published module and see what everyone thinks. I have this player to ask about rules questions, since he knows the rules backwards and forwards, so I don't have to worry too much about that. I can focus on coming up with interesting NPCs and roleplaying situations to put the PCs in. I think it's going to be a great environment to learn to DM a game I only played a little bit of, back in the day.

Pitfalls I'm anticipating:

-Zany character class/race combos possible with 3.5 tearing through anything I think of
-Insane prep time for NPCs (online programs might help?)
-Overpowered classes stealing all the spotlight time
-party of 4 wizards being completely unstoppable (wow that thread is scary)

And so I call on you, Giant in the Playground forum members, to assist me in this possibly grave but quite likely fun time. Thank you for reading so far!

[Red Fel]

Well, the first rule you have to know about running a 3.5 game is the diversity of material involved. I don't play 4e, but from what I've heard, a lot of streamlining was involved (which some like and some don't); this was likely in response to the sheer volume of stuff available in 3.5.

So, my first suggestion, until you get the hang of the material, is to impose limits. Let me be clear - I may have an issue with DMs banning material under the mistaken belief that it is overpowered, but I honestly believe that a DM should ban material that he doesn't understand. Until you get a firm grasp of the various systems at play in 3.5 (classic spellcasting, binding, incarnum, maneuvers, psionics, etc.) you should keep it as simple as possible.

So limit your systems. Also, limit character options. Just as there are many types of abilities and magic, there are innumerable races and templates, with questionable balancing issues. It will be very hard to balance an encounter when one person is playing a Lich-loved Tibbit Soul Manifester and another is playing a Dragonborn Proto-Water Orc Barbarian, for example. So make a list and keep that simple.

I get that you want your first game to be a "total gonzo" game where anything goes. It will overwhelm you. And while having a friend who knows all the rules is nice, it breaks the mood when you're constantly having to ask him how things work. Having some limits for your first time isn't a terrible thing.

Next, summoning spells. Few things can bog down an encounter like having too many characters to keep track of. Moreso when the players actually waste time shuffling through a list of creatures. I would advise you to limit summoning spells, or at least narrow the list of creatures involved. On a related note, I would strongly advise you to require that any player using a spell or ability should have the text, if not readily available, at least available by reference, so that they don't have to spend fifteen minutes looking it up. On another available note, I advise you as DM to have at least a general familiarity with the mechanics of any spell-type systems you do allow, so that you will be easily able to resolve any mechanics disputes.

Now, with regard to your specific anticipated pitfalls:
- By limiting classes, systems, and races/templates, you can avoid many of the zany combinations you hear about.
- Prep time is a skill that grows with DMing experience. Given practice, you will learn to eyeball things. "Okay, this guy is an ordinary villager, so I'm thinking level 1 Commoner, these stats..." "What? You're attacking the high priest? Uh, okay, so let's say level 6 Cleric, Pelor's domains, so we'll say Sun and Healing, grab some spells quick..." A lot of DMs recommend having a few quick-reference cards handy for sample NPC builds you can shuffle around as-needed.
- OP classes don't steal the spotlight; players do. A Tier 1 class played by a good player can share the spotlight with the Monk if he's trying.
- Nature of the beast. Well-optimized Tier 1 or Tier 2 casters control the game. That said, it's also an aspect of optimization level and player skill; I've heard stories of exceptional players of Fighters and Monks who are able to dominate the game with smart tactics.

Basically, the best thing for you to do as DM is:
- Familiarize yourself with the setting and mechanics
- Limit the mechanics to those with which you are familiar
- Set up clear expectations and limits with your players

Everything else is just a matter of practice.

[BornValyrian]

Yes, a party of 4 wizards can totally break the game. A single well done wizard, cleric, spell-to-power erudite, or other tier one caster can also break the game. But if you lay down ground rules with your players beforehands to not be jerks and to have a fun time for everybody, it probably won't be a problem.

Also, class/race combos: many times, it isn't the race itself but the numerous templates that they put on it. If your getting things like a half-dragon half-ogre half-Minotaur barbarian, that deserves a looksee and a possible paring down. Same with things like an unseelie fey magic-blooded dragonwrought kobold sorcerer (though as a dm just getting into 3.5, I would suggest you treat dragon wrought kobolds carefully. They can be veery powerful)

[Buufreak]

Oh 4e, you little devil you. I ran it for about 2 years with an in and out group that combined the Scales of War AP, with the occasional dip int the ToH. Fun times, but as you said, there is little to no attempt at RP. I honestly think it was a dumbed down version made for people who like all the fight and none the talk, which they proceeded to drop the ball on because fights dragged on with 1000s of HP damage dealt. That being said, 4 was supposed to have all the options in the world for your characters to use, but they usually (at least for my group) ended up generic, being the hitter, the healer/hitter, the shooter/hitter, and the little wizard that couldn't.

Rewind to 3.5, and you will see ever more options, and these actually have flavor and variation! So there is that, and your players hopefully will notice this and go for something full of flavor and RP and not Omega God Wizard Man! (c). I personally think 3.x is all around a better choice, for the new and the experienced, because it is forgiving in places it needs to be, takes combat into consideration but doesn't make it center stage all day every day, but also has the very real threat of death.

For what you will need to be prepped... Eh. It depends. For my group (some seasoned, some new, some in between) I have a few things to always get ready for. If you can manage it, keeping total optimization to a happy medium helps, so no one guy wins all the time while others sit around bored. Also, sit around and talk out characters before they are made with each player individually. Its something I like to do, and it always has me ready for their characters, and helps to integrate them into a world.

Other things I always have ready:
Practiced different voices
List of 10000 random names
Random name generator for when I can't find the list
The ability to say "Yes, and..." (old theatre trick)
A psychotic twinge that usually makes me question my own NPCs (case in point, the party got split, when I suddenly asked if the escort mission would suddenly turn on the 2 left to watch him. He did, he won. Hard.)
At my digression, any and all shop and bar keeps are capable of being lvl 35 Dwarf barbarians with a +12 blunderbuss. (rob the entire town, shame on you. Do it another 12 times in other cities, shame on me.)

Generally, I don't use too much prep. Having all 5 MMs does most of it for me, just need a few tweaks here and there. Focus mostly on story and driving the campaign, and I think you will do great and have tons of fun.

[Red Fel]

The ability to say "Yes, and..." (old theatre trick)

This, so much. Many DMs express the sentiment of "I'm tired of only running combat encounters, I want there to be cool non-combat things for my players to do," and then get completely slammed when a player comes up with a totally-out-of-left-field idea. And it's not always the DM's fault - DMs are only human, and can only prepare for so many eventualities.

A player, incentivized to engage in encounters other than combat, will inevitably come up with wacky ideas. The best thing you, as a DM, can do is to roll with them (assuming they are at least practicable, if not always well thought out). "Yes, and" is a good instinct to develop.

[metalman42]

This, so much. Many DMs express the sentiment of "I'm tired of only running combat encounters, I want there to be cool non-combat things for my players to do," and then get completely slammed when a player comes up with a totally-out-of-left-field idea.

That is EXACTLY what always happens to me! I'm completely unprepared when people want to do weird things, or expect realistic reactions to things when I don't know what would happen.

[KorbeltheReader]

3.5 is a great game, despite all the complaining you see on the web. Most people play it for years and never even notice the weaknesses people here harp on. Not saying the naysayers are wrong, there are issues of balance and badly written rules and whatnot, but these are generally things that can be fixed in-game when (and if) they come up. If your players get along well and are reasonably conscientious, you'll be fine.

That being said, there's enough variety in class mechanics and complicated enough rules that Red Fel is probably right. You might be better off limiting everyone to core for your first game.

I've used this random monster generator (http://www.monsteradvancer.com/send/monster/randomCreatureSelection.ma) a couple of times in a pinch, but encounters with things you picked out ahead of time tend to go much better. I'd avoid random generators for monsters, treasure, or traps if I were you.

[Red Fel]

That is EXACTLY what always happens to me! I'm completely unprepared when people want to do weird things, or expect realistic reactions to things when I don't know what would happen.

The trick to which Buufreak was referring is one commonly employed in improvisational theater. If you've ever seen an improv performance where multiple actors play off one another, you may or may not have noticed that one of the most vital rules is "never say no."

For example, there's a style of improv sketch where one person is assuming a pose, and then another person comments on it, thus triggering the scenario. "Oh," says Bob, "Working on your golf swing indoors again?" "Yes," replies Jim, "I find the sound of shattering glass soothing." Jim must never say, "No, I'm shoveling a ditch, can't you tell?" Doing so ruins the sketch. The first step is always to acknowledge the proposal, and then expand on it.

That's a skill you, as a DM, need to develop. When you have a set up for a somber meeting with the octogenarian dowager queen, and one player suddenly decides to throw the guards to one side, march straight up to the elderly monarch, and whisper incredibly raunchy nothings into her ear, you don't just shake your head and say "You don't do that." You kind of stare in shock and horror for a moment, then either decide, "Yeah, you're going to jail now," or "The Queen hasn't been treated like an object of lust in several decades. Roll diplomacy to figure out how receptive she is to your, uh, advances."

That's the key. Be ready to roll with anything. Because anything will happen.

[metalman42]

But what if they do bad or dumb things? Or skip the entire adventure? I feel ridiculous, but that's my first thought.

Is there an online quiz or something to train your "Always say Yes" skill?

[Actana]

Honestly, if large amounts of prep work is not your thing, then 3.5 isn't likely going to be much better than 4e. In some ways, like if you want your NPCs to be rules-legal, 3.5 is far worse in prepping stuff than 4e. 3.5's way of handling NPCs does give the world a consistent sense though, which is nice.

To help with this, you may want to pregen a few very simple NPC templates with the bare basics of attacks, defenses and key skills, then modify them to fit individual NPCs as needed. A bit more work before the game can help a lot when actually running it.

[Red Fel]

But what if they do bad or dumb things? Or skip the entire adventure? I feel ridiculous, but that's my first thought.

This is a thing that's more peculiar to some DMs than others.

Some DMs will take a hard line when it comes to bypassing the adventure. There are innumerable threads about railroading, and when and if it is appropriate; this is not something exclusive to 3.5 or 4e, or even to D&D. It's up to you and your players to decide how much agency they get, but I advise you to err on the side of more freedom. So, yes; if they do "bad" or "dumb" things, you let them (perhaps offering them a warning first); if they want to skip an entire adventure, you adapt.

Some DMs don't allow this, and there's a style to it. Some say, for example, "You can play however you want, but you have to follow the adventure plot." Some say, "This is the pre-published module we're playing; I have no content other than that, so just stick to the materials." Others say, "I have this adventure planned out. If you don't want to follow it, here's the map, go nuts." And others just run the entire thing by the seat of their pants. It varies, and it's a matter of personal style and ability.


Is there an online quiz or something to train your "Always say Yes" skill?

Alas, there isn't, at least not exactly. The best thing to do is practice. Be extremely aware of your reactions. Try playing some sample one-shot sessions with a couple of friends, with instructions to be as explicitly off-the-wall as possible. Every time you catch yourself about to say, "No, you can't do that," "No, that goes against your character," or "No, that would be suicide," step back, take a breath, and say something along the lines of, "Are you sure you want to do that?" or "Are you sure that's a good idea?" Then if they insist, let them.

If your players intent to bypass your adventure hooks, or deliberately take an action they know to be suicidal, let them. In-game conduct merits in-game consequences, not plot armor or DM fiat.

[KorbeltheReader]

But what if they do bad or dumb things? Or skip the entire adventure? I feel ridiculous, but that's my first thought.


This terrifies me as a GM, too, but I've found that this threat of players skipping your whole adventure is more imagined than real. The players are at the table because they want an adventure; give them an objective and a promised reward and off they go, just about every time.

As far as them doing bad or dumb things, just play it out. It could be that you're not describing the situation well enough that they "get" it, but sometimes characters do dumb things, and that's fine. If it kills them, well, death should be a possibility in this game!

[Gemini476]

For example, there's a style of improv sketch where one person is assuming a pose, and then another person comments on it, thus triggering the scenario. "Oh," says Bob, "Working on your golf swing indoors again?" "Yes," replies Jim, "I find the sound of shattering glass soothing." Jim must never say, "No, I'm shoveling a ditch, can't you tell?" Doing so ruins the sketch. The first step is always to acknowledge the proposal, and then expand on it.

To be fair, that specific case is somewhat easy to recover from.
Mostly because many people can directly equate "playing golf" with "shoveling a ditch".



Do remember that Core is probably the most unbalanced part of the game, short of the FR splat Serpent Kingdoms, and that you could find a decent replacement for pretty much any core class outside it. Or, well, decent-ish. I'm still not entirely sure how to do a Cleric justice, and the Druid is best replaced by a Ranger with an Alternate Class Feature.

Oh, and since you disliked the combat I'd actually advice against running a pre-built module - they tend to just be a bunch of encounters, perhaps with some traps in-between, since that's what most of the rules actually focus on. There are some outliers, like parts of Paizo's Kingmaker series, but generally if you want more roleplaying than combat then you shouldn't go after pre-built adventures that can't really handle the first because if the PCs go off the rails the book loses the ability to predict future encounters.

...Then again, I'm told that on-the-fly DMing is easier in 4E than in 3.X, so who knows. Maybe you're best off with a module.

[Pan151]

Railroading doesn't have to be obvious. You can always give your players the illusion of choice. Did they just disregard an adventure hook you gave them? Then have the next adventure hook point to the exact same adventure, maybe with a few names changed and a few locations reskinned. Your players will have the impression that their choices matter, you will not have to create an entire new adventure and you'll all not have to suffer through whatever you manage to come up with on a fly.

[Buufreak]

Is there an online quiz or something to train your "Always say Yes" skill?

There is no way to do this with a quiz format. However, we can try something like the following:

1) Come up with many ideas, like encounters, adventures, plots, etc.
2) Let us tear them apart with stupid ideas.
3) Come up with the quickest answers that don't involve the words No, Don't, Can't, or anything negative. Try to roll with it. Be creative with it.

That is honestly the best I can come up with online. It works much better in person though. Same process would apply.

[Darrin]

-Zany character class/race combos possible with 3.5 tearing through anything I think of


The sheer number of options available in 3.5 means you may get lots of zany, but not much of it is effectively optimized. And there are a lot of pitfalls out there that look SQWEEE! to the typical player but are terrible traps for experienced optimizers (Level Adjustment, Racial HD, etc.). The really borked stuff you can usually spot quickly from perusing these forums or looking through some of the high-op handbooks. But I'd say this isn't really a concern until you know you have a player that is deliberately trying to break the game. This is best resolved in the usual way: players who try this are generally incapable of being subtle about it, and you can usually shame them into knocking it off or toning it down for a while. The vast majority of players throw together a character concept that gives most of the heavy optimizers on these boards a very strong urge to staple their character sheet to their eyelids and then light it on fire.



-Insane prep time for NPCs (online programs might help?)


I'm not sure there's an easy way around this one. NPCs in D&D require way too much crunch to be functional. You can cut down on the prep a bit by sorting out some of them into rough categories:

Mooks: Stable hands, serving wenches, farmers, common townfolk. Give them 4 HP, a pitchfork/fryng pan, roll an unmodified d20 for whatever might come up, and occasionally give them a +2 circumstance bonus for something they might be good at.

Shopkeepers: This also covers city guards, local royalty, guildmasters, or anyone that might have an exclamation point above their head in an MMO. The PCs *should* be smart enough not to attack these guys, but every player tries it at least once to give the DM a hard time or just to see what happens. If you need stats, just grab something from Deities & Demigods or Cthulhu d20 (pull out the book in front of the players so the poor bastidges know better next time) and multiply the damage by 100.

Ted the heiney-kicking enabler (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17031241&postcount=31): This is a Factotum 11/Chameleon 9 build originally designed as a "I can do anything" NPC. If the PCs need any kind of spellcasting, magic item crafting, corpse retrieval/raising, etc. Ted can warp into a wizard one day, next day he's a cleric, then the day after that he can forge arrows of vampire-cow-slaying. This can literally be the same person who just tells the PCs to "Come back tomorrow, and I'll have the spells/feats you need", or he tells them to "I can't do that, you need to see my identical twin cousin Tod over on market street", and he's always got a relative who specializes in whatever. Or you just change the name and don't tell the PCs that this "new" NPC is a Ted clone.

Wing It: Some DMs are naturally good at this, but most of us need to practice this skill to get beyond the point of blinding, paralyzing panic. If you need to roll something, use your gut to come up with a modifier, or just use 16-20 always succeeds, 11-15 succeeds on moderately easy stuff, 6-10 succeeds on really easy stuff, 1-5 fails. If things go completely pear-shaped, then kill off the NPC quickly, and roll 1d4: 1 = "It was an illusion", 2 = "It was a ghost", 3 = "It was a simulacrum", 4 = "It was a doppelganger".

The rest you can fill in with old PC sheets, sample characters from the books, Wannabe-DMPCs, etc.



-Overpowered classes stealing all the spotlight time


Generally not a problem until the Tier 1 casters reach level 7. Even then, most players don't play wizards/clerics/druids in an optimized way, and are quite happy to blast away with hold person and fireball or whatever. Even assuming you've got a player that's read all the handbooks and decides to do this, it still requires a lot of preparation, memorization, and bookkeeping. Most players don't put in that level of effort.

If things do get out of hand, then you have several options. You can talk to the player and tell them to knock it off/tone it down. You can carefully construct an intricate patchwork of house rules, soft/hard bans, nerfs, and buffs for melee to try and bring everything back into balance. Or you can play the "Time of Troubles" card, declare that magic has become unstable, the gods walk the earth, and toss around a bunch of dead magic/wild magic zones (in the Forgotten Realms, this is known as "Third-Day").



-party of 4 wizards being completely unstoppable (wow that thread is scary)


You don't have this problem yet. The odds you get four players that want to play this way is very low. If you do get this problem, then generally a post from Tippy or Biffoniacus Furiou will explain how to cook their wagon from a 5th level spell slot.

[metalman42]

I might have been off about the prep work issue. When I was running my 4e campaign, I loved writing about NPCs. Each one would get half a page of background and personality each. I didn't work up stats for them, because I had strict walls between "to be fought" NPCs and "to be talked with" ones. With the hazy link between stats and creatures that 4e had, I always had relevant stats for the enemies I'd use, because it was the same formula that built everyone.

I like building characters for D&D, so I think I'll have lots of fun coming up with interesting builds for NPCs who need it. For the rest, I'll build/steal a stable of reusable stat blocks. Also, LOL @ using Cthulu d20 for whoever they decide to attack!

For improvisation, I will keep practicing, and I'd like to take you up on the offer for help Buufreak. I don't have a ton of time to post now, but I'll come up with a few scenarios I've had problems with in the past. My efforts will mainly go towards not becoming invested in a specific outcome, so that rolling with unexpected actions doesn't ruin my careful planning. (or even my idle speculation!)

I think a large problem I have is that I don't give out enough detail. Players don't have any direction for their choices and there's hurt feelings all around. Saw a good bit of advice in a recent Roleplaying Tips where Johnn lists the senses and gives details based on them. I'm not a terribly detail-oriented person, so I tend to skip over things would be great for players to know.

Good to know that I don't have to worry about the characters as much. The experienced friend might build powerful or interesting characters, but he doesn't like breaking games. he's been the DM before, too, so I hope he has a little sympathy.

I also want to thank you guys so much. It's great to get this much help so quickly. Keep it coming!