PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Been a DM for 3 years, but I know so little... I have a LOT of questions



Dachimotsu
2014-12-13, 04:14 AM
Me and a small group of close friends (2-3) have been playing D&D 4e for 3 years now. For most of that time, I was the DM, though occasionally someone else would give it a shot. We started out knowing nothing, making up the rules as we went along. As we learned the actual rules, we would either implement them or house-rule them, and now, we have our own action-packed, fast-paced method of handling things, but I sometimes get the feeling that we're even doing that wrong.

I recently started reading articles written by one known as "The Angry DM", and they really speak to me. Concepts and philosophies I never could've learned on my own and especially not by reading WotC's official guides. He has helped me see the light, but alas, it is a dim one, for now that my way of DM'ing has been brought into question, more concerns have arisen. And that is what I registered here to ask about. This may not be the last topic I post asking for DM advice, so I figured I'd try to cram it all into one to save time and forum space.
(Warning: this post contains a lot of digression, including this warning)


Concern 1: One thing I'm struggling with right now is dungeon size. My group plays online, and since our digital maps can be as big as the whole dungeon floor, I don't have to worry about dividing it into smaller "encounter maps". And since no one in the group is fond of the idea of "taking turns exploring", I let them roam free until a monster/trap is encountered, at which point we roll initiative. Once there are no visible dangers, they can roam freely again.

Now, the problem isn't so much the size of the dungeon, so much as it is monster dispersement. If I assume the whole dungeon floor is one encounter, then there's either going to be too few strong monsters or a lot of extremely weak ones not even worth their time. Now, I know that in traditional D&D, a single dungeon floor is titanic, and could take more than one session to clear, if that. My group doesn't play often, and when we do, it's never for more than three hours average, so everyone is VERY impatient when it comes to encounters and dungeons. They want to move the story along because that's what they're interested in. I intend to start integrating story into encounters moreso in the future, but that's beside the point.

Back to the topic of monster dispersement. If I use the "XP Budget" to determine the levels and quantities of a single floor's monsters, no matter how many monsters I end up using, I'll come across some major problems. One is that a room with too few monsters will be easily dispatched if the party sticks together. If they ever get low on surges (which they burn through like dog treats), they might try to take an extended rest in the dungeon, and this is where I'd have one of the other monsters come get them as punishment, but... They would then get the idea to lure all of the monsters on the floor to their location one at a time by continuing to try resting. This will empty the floor of monsters very quickly and with little effort, while also making one barren dungeon. Alternately, I could spawn new monsters from nothing that attack them in their sleep, but if they repeat the previous tactic, they'd start power-leveling, and with such easy monsters, they could get away with it.

No matter how big or difficult the dungeon, my players have never, not once felt the need to leave the dungeon in order to recuperate. That's what I want to happen. Their party level is 18, so it's getting difficult to find things they can't handle. I want to make a dungeon that they'll have to flee from at least once, but that isn't so huge that it'll take more than two sessions.


Concern 2: Problem players. Some of my players, former and current, have caused me some trouble in the past. Two of my very first players were one of my friend's acquaintances and said acquaintance's girlfriend. We'll call them D and Am. Am is one of only two females to play in a session with us, and neither of them are around anymore. She was only playing because D wanted to include her in everything he did. The problem was that he was very violent and would threaten me because I didn't give Am special treatment, due to her being new. It wasn't fair to the other players that Am's character was impervious to monster attacks, and D's overprotectiveness of her made him unfun to be around. Eventually, we just stopped inviting them.

But that's in the past. Right now, I'm dealing with someone who we'll codename N. N is one of my closest friends, and has been such since we were both kids. He's been a perpetual part of our group since it's inception, but he just doesn't find it fun half the time. His character has developed a "brooding" personality, which N even admits is just an excuse not to have to "talk" as him, and if he just doesn't like the role-playing aspect, that's fine. What's not fine, is that RP is one side of a coin whose opposite is Combat, and N doesn't like that, either. If he's winning, he's bored. If he's losing, he gives up, stops trying, and becomes incredibly depressing, which brings down the other players. If he's faced with an even match, the fight takes too long and he tries to convince everyone to end the game early. I just don't know what to do about him. I even tried letting him DM a few adventures, but he didn't have fun with those, either. Just mental breakdowns. He also has a very bad habit of not paying attention to the game, instead opting to goof off on his phone or computer, which I have already expressed my concern about to him directly. I keep asking him what I can do to make the game more interesting for him, but he's never given me an answer that wasn't "there's nothing that can be done".


Concern 3: Planning too much for a 10-second fight. I want to make future encounters more interesting, but that's not going to happen if the players ignore all the lore and personality stacked behind a single monster. I recently worked quite hard to make a powerful end boss for an adventure, one that had many powers that would force the players to make critical choices. What ended up happening was the Dwarven Battlerager stun-locked the boss so it couldn't take a single action for the entire fight. There was a lot of plot development that could've occurred if the villain had been able to speak, but the players didn't care. This is the irony I have to deal with when everyone is only interested in the story when the fighter isn't making everyone laugh.

Is it worth putting so much work into a monster that won't live long enough to see the eyes of its killer? Having a personality and a purpose is certainly an important supplement when the monster has to fight off intruders, but I can't help but feel as though it won't matter in the end since the players will never look back on that random monster to figure out why it was there or why it attacked them.


Concern 4: Improvising environmental flavor text. I've never been good with environments. Drawing them, describing them. For some reason, I'm only good at mapping them. And even if I personally have a clear image of the location in my head, putting that same image into the heads of my players has proven incredibly challenging. I never know how much to tell them, and I can't tell them everything without feeling like I'm reading The Lord of the Rings. Even if I describe all the things I think are important, one player might say, "I get out my torch and light it", afterwhich I'll have to tell them it's not necessary since there is already a candelabra on the nearby shelf for him to use. This is usually met with a snarky response like, "Wish you woulda told me that sooner!", which I would have done, if I'd thought for even a second that a candelabra was in the slightest bit important to him.

When it comes to describing environments on the spot, I tend to freeze up and hesitate. I never know what to say, and when I'm bombarded with questions about what the place looks like or what's in it, or even what it smells like, it makes me feel very unprofessional.


Well, those are all the concerns I can think of for now. I'll likely be going to bed after posting this, but I'll be back later.

Alberic Strein
2014-12-13, 05:24 AM
Hello and welcome, this is going to be a long ride.


Me and a small group of close friends (2-3) have been playing D&D 4e for 3 years now. For most of that time, I was the DM, though occasionally someone else would give it a shot. We started out knowing nothing, making up the rules as we went along. As we learned the actual rules, we would either implement them or house-rule them, and now, we have our own action-packed, fast-paced method of handling things, but I sometimes get the feeling that we're even doing that wrong.
Quite common, I have the same issue with my campaign under a different system.


I recently started reading articles written by one known as "The Angry DM", and they really speak to me. Concepts and philosophies I never could've learned on my own and especially not by reading WotC's official guides. He has helped me see the light, but alas, it is a dim one, for now that my way of DM'ing has been brought into question, more concerns have arisen. And that is what I registered here to ask about. This may not be the last topic I post asking for DM advice, so I figured I'd try to cram it all into one to save time and forum space.
(Warning: this post contains a lot of digression, including this warning)
Don't know the guy. If he made you thrive to better yourself then it's all good, but in the end it is you as the DM who can see what is important, what is necessary and what is applicable to your game.



Concern 1: One thing I'm struggling with right now is dungeon size. My group plays online, and since our digital maps can be as big as the whole dungeon floor, I don't have to worry about dividing it into smaller "encounter maps". And since no one in the group is fond of the idea of "taking turns exploring", I let them roam free until a monster/trap is encountered, at which point we roll initiative. Once there are no visible dangers, they can roam freely again.

Now, the problem isn't so much the size of the dungeon, so much as it is monster dispersement. If I assume the whole dungeon floor is one encounter, then there's either going to be too few strong monsters or a lot of extremely weak ones not even worth their time. Now, I know that in traditional D&D, a single dungeon floor is titanic, and could take more than one session to clear, if that. My group doesn't play often, and when we do, it's never for more than three hours average, so everyone is VERY impatient when it comes to encounters and dungeons. They want to move the story along because that's what they're interested in. I intend to start integrating story into encounters moreso in the future, but that's beside the point.
Your description makes me feel like your dungeon only spans a single floor. Stairs going to the lower level are a very good way to make players stick together and allow you to plan a strong encounter since you are now sure that of where all your players will be at a given time.


Back to the topic of monster dispersement. If I use the "XP Budget" to determine the levels and quantities of a single floor's monsters, no matter how many monsters I end up using, I'll come across some major problems. One is that a room with too few monsters will be easily dispatched if the party sticks together. If they ever get low on surges (which they burn through like dog treats), they might try to take an extended rest in the dungeon, and this is where I'd have one of the other monsters come get them as punishment, but... They would then get the idea to lure all of the monsters on the floor to their location one at a time by continuing to try resting. This will empty the floor of monsters very quickly and with little effort, while also making one barren dungeon. Alternately, I could spawn new monsters from nothing that attack them in their sleep, but if they repeat the previous tactic, they'd start power-leveling, and with such easy monsters, they could get away with it.
That's the issue with filling dungeons full of mindless undeads. Because if you're not fielding undead you don't have to have those issues. Try fielding kobolds. Lots of kobolds. They have slings (slings, in real life, have awesome range) they see adventurers. Is that adventurer alone?

Yes > The dogpile him
No > They flee.

If they flee, they naturally rejoing their kobold colleagues as well as the bigger baddies in the other rooms, warn them, and make a monster force which will try to hunt the players with all their numbers. If your controller is not at the top of his game then they are going to be in trouble.



No matter how big or difficult the dungeon, my players have never, not once felt the need to leave the dungeon in order to recuperate. That's what I want to happen. Their party level is 18, so it's getting difficult to find things they can't handle. I want to make a dungeon that they'll have to flee from at least once, but that isn't so huge that it'll take more than two sessions.
Well, it's not something that you can make happen. It will happen if they want to as you create an opportunity for it to happen. Namely a tough dungeon.

Once again, Kobold harassment works well. Have your players kill a lot of kobold slingers mooks, eating into their surges and preventing them from resting.

Not an MM entry that I remember of, but monster ants, aka huge anthropomorphic ants (so able to wield weapons) should be able to have a link between each other, meaning you get to justify your players getting hounded.

You can also go and try to damage their weaponry and armor through acid or other caustic substances. Not outright destroying them, but making your players note that their weapons need repair.

Once they are weakened, make a strong encounter happen. If your dwarf can shutdown an absolute bad-ass forever, then make is two weaker bad-asses. With their cohorts.

Once they win that encounter, have your players immediately come upon a huge bronze door seemingly locked up since the beginning of time, with creepy cold air slithering from under the door, their torches getting dimmer as they come closer.

If they don't scram then as they come closer, have them roll a will save against against fear, a fortitude one against cold, and if they open the door...

"ROLL AGAINST TERROR AS THE LEGIONS OF DEATH SPILL OVER TOWARDS YOU"

Basically a lich/strong undead + a lot of skeletons encounter.


Concern 2: Problem players. Some of my players, former and current, have caused me some trouble in the past. Two of my very first players were one of my friend's acquaintances and said acquaintance's girlfriend. We'll call them D and Am. Am is one of only two females to play in a session with us, and neither of them are around anymore. She was only playing because D wanted to include her in everything he did. The problem was that he was very violent and would threaten me because I didn't give Am special treatment, due to her being new. It wasn't fair to the other players that Am's character was impervious to monster attacks, and D's overprotectiveness of her made him unfun to be around. Eventually, we just stopped inviting them.

But that's in the past. Right now, I'm dealing with someone who we'll codename N. N is one of my closest friends, and has been such since we were both kids. He's been a perpetual part of our group since it's inception, but he just doesn't find it fun half the time. His character has developed a "brooding" personality, which N even admits is just an excuse not to have to "talk" as him, and if he just doesn't like the role-playing aspect, that's fine. What's not fine, is that RP is one side of a coin whose opposite is Combat, and N doesn't like that, either. If he's winning, he's bored. If he's losing, he gives up, stops trying, and becomes incredibly depressing, which brings down the other players. If he's faced with an even match, the fight takes too long and he tries to convince everyone to end the game early. I just don't know what to do about him. I even tried letting him DM a few adventures, but he didn't have fun with those, either. Just mental breakdowns. He also has a very bad habit of not paying attention to the game, instead opting to goof off on his phone or computer, which I have already expressed my concern about to him directly. I keep asking him what I can do to make the game more interesting for him, but he's never given me an answer that wasn't "there's nothing that can be done".
If he doesn't want to play the game, then you can't make him. If you can't do anything for him, then get someone who can (the mood maker fighter?) and brace yourself for him leaving as he realizes he is turning into a toxic influence.


Concern 3: Planning too much for a 10-second fight. I want to make future encounters more interesting, but that's not going to happen if the players ignore all the lore and personality stacked behind a single monster. I recently worked quite hard to make a powerful end boss for an adventure, one that had many powers that would force the players to make critical choices. What ended up happening was the Dwarven Battlerager stun-locked the boss so it couldn't take a single action for the entire fight. There was a lot of plot development that could've occurred if the villain had been able to speak, but the players didn't care. This is the irony I have to deal with when everyone is only interested in the story when the fighter isn't making everyone laugh.

Is it worth putting so much work into a monster that won't live long enough to see the eyes of its killer? Having a personality and a purpose is certainly an important supplement when the monster has to fight off intruders, but I can't help but feel as though it won't matter in the end since the players will never look back on that random monster to figure out why it was there or why it attacked them.
Until they loot his body and find his diary, scrounging it for some useful intel they unravel the poor guy's story.

If you spend time making plot points, take time making different ways for your players to find said plot points, ways which can't be safely clubbed to death, and preferably ways that take advantage of their behaviour. If they spend their time killing and stealing, have them steal the plot points.


Concern 4: Improvising environmental flavor text. I've never been good with environments. Drawing them, describing them. For some reason, I'm only good at mapping them. And even if I personally have a clear image of the location in my head, putting that same image into the heads of my players has proven incredibly challenging. I never know how much to tell them, and I can't tell them everything without feeling like I'm reading The Lord of the Rings. Even if I describe all the things I think are important, one player might say, "I get out my torch and light it", afterwhich I'll have to tell them it's not necessary since there is already a candelabra on the nearby shelf for him to use. This is usually met with a snarky response like, "Wish you woulda told me that sooner!", which I would have done, if I'd thought for even a second that a candelabra was in the slightest bit important to him.

When it comes to describing environments on the spot, I tend to freeze up and hesitate. I never know what to say, and when I'm bombarded with questions about what the place looks like or what's in it, or even what it smells like, it makes me feel very unprofessional.
Most of the sensory information coming to the brain is visual. 80% or something. So have a cheat sheet with:

Strong imput first! Shiny things, strong smells, strong sounds
Interesting first! If your players can interact with something, they want to know it fast.
Closer first! Your players will assume that since they can see better next to them, what you describe in loving detail is close to them. Respect that.
Sight first! If there are equalities (strong sounds and shiny things) go sight>sound>smell[/QUOTE]

There, good luck to you, and I hope you'll give us feedback.

huttj509
2014-12-13, 05:35 AM
Concern 1:

From your description, it sounds like your group is short(ish) on time, and prefers the story aspects. If you feel this is accurate, you might try focusing on that.

Why put monsters in the dungeon? If they have a story purpose, fine. If it's just because "it's a dungeon, it should have monsters," you might want to consider having it deliberately light on monsters unless it's a punctuation point in the story.

Why have dungeon exploration be more than "I check the side passages as we walk along?" If all it's being is boring filler, try cutting assumptions of the need for "I go 10 feet west, anything happen? Ok, 10 more feet then."

It's entirely possible (nay, probable), that in thinking about options along these lines you'll run into assumptions you didn't realize, gaming preferences among you and your group you hadn't really realized, etc. This is fine.

Learn what your group enjoys about the game. Hit those points often, and use the others for pacing and deliberate effect as opposed to "Well, DnD has to have XYZ." Especially in a group with limited time.

Douglas
2014-12-13, 05:41 AM
Back to the topic of monster dispersement. If I use the "XP Budget" to determine the levels and quantities of a single floor's monsters, no matter how many monsters I end up using, I'll come across some major problems. One is that a room with too few monsters will be easily dispatched if the party sticks together. If they ever get low on surges (which they burn through like dog treats), they might try to take an extended rest in the dungeon, and this is where I'd have one of the other monsters come get them as punishment, but... They would then get the idea to lure all of the monsters on the floor to their location one at a time by continuing to try resting. This will empty the floor of monsters very quickly and with little effort, while also making one barren dungeon. Alternately, I could spawn new monsters from nothing that attack them in their sleep, but if they repeat the previous tactic, they'd start power-leveling, and with such easy monsters, they could get away with it.
Are these monsters at all intelligent? Would they logically move about, be friends (or at least allies) with each other, etc.? Unless your monsters are all mindless or nearly so, the answer should usually be yes. Perhaps split into multiple factions that may be hostile to each other, but "every monster for himself" is the default only for animal-level non-pack monsters. If the players clear a significant portion of dungeon and then spend such a large amount of time as an extended rest in one spot still inside, the thing that would realistically happen is not monsters stumbling upon them one at a time at random. Rather, it would be more like Bob starts wondering where his buddy Bert (who the PCs killed 3 hours ago) went, goes looking in their usual places, maybe finds a dead monster or several, raises the alarm, and the entire dungeon floor (or multiple floors) gets together and goes on an organized mass hunt for the PCs. Do not limit yourself to randomness or playing fair, have supposedly intelligent opponents act in ways that real world intelligent opponents would.

If your dungeon is a set of rooms and monsters with no particular relation to each other that are just there to be fought one at a time, well, that's not a particularly interesting game in my opinion and is far short of the potential role playing games have.


No matter how big or difficult the dungeon, my players have never, not once felt the need to leave the dungeon in order to recuperate. That's what I want to happen. Their party level is 18, so it's getting difficult to find things they can't handle. I want to make a dungeon that they'll have to flee from at least once, but that isn't so huge that it'll take more than two sessions.
Make a dungeon that is designed as a fortress built and controlled by an organized cohesive force, that reacts as such a force realistically would in the real world. Decide on a level of resources this force has available, some goals they have besides defense, and then put yourself in their shoes, throw out your sense of fairness, and start designing their fortress and strategy to achieve those goals. Second to last panel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0512.html), and the following events, are entirely reasonable types of things to happen in D&D.

Oh, and don't forget logistics concerns such as sleeping quarters, guard shift rotations, food, etc.


But that's in the past. Right now, I'm dealing with someone who we'll codename N. N is one of my closest friends, and has been such since we were both kids. He's been a perpetual part of our group since it's inception, but he just doesn't find it fun half the time. His character has developed a "brooding" personality, which N even admits is just an excuse not to have to "talk" as him, and if he just doesn't like the role-playing aspect, that's fine. What's not fine, is that RP is one side of a coin whose opposite is Combat, and N doesn't like that, either. If he's winning, he's bored. If he's losing, he gives up, stops trying, and becomes incredibly depressing, which brings down the other players. If he's faced with an even match, the fight takes too long and he tries to convince everyone to end the game early. I just don't know what to do about him. I even tried letting him DM a few adventures, but he didn't have fun with those, either. Just mental breakdowns. He also has a very bad habit of not paying attention to the game, instead opting to goof off on his phone or computer, which I have already expressed my concern about to him directly. I keep asking him what I can do to make the game more interesting for him, but he's never given me an answer that wasn't "there's nothing that can be done".
This... I would seriously consider removing him from the group, telling him that he's clearly not interested and you don't want to bore him, and find something else you can do together with him instead. If he's being honest about "nothing can be done" and you can avoid having it feel like he's being fired from your group of friends, he might even be relieved by this.


Concern 3: Planning too much for a 10-second fight. I want to make future encounters more interesting, but that's not going to happen if the players ignore all the lore and personality stacked behind a single monster. I recently worked quite hard to make a powerful end boss for an adventure, one that had many powers that would force the players to make critical choices. What ended up happening was the Dwarven Battlerager stun-locked the boss so it couldn't take a single action for the entire fight. There was a lot of plot development that could've occurred if the villain had been able to speak, but the players didn't care. This is the irony I have to deal with when everyone is only interested in the story when the fighter isn't making everyone laugh.

Is it worth putting so much work into a monster that won't live long enough to see the eyes of its killer? Having a personality and a purpose is certainly an important supplement when the monster has to fight off intruders, but I can't help but feel as though it won't matter in the end since the players will never look back on that random monster to figure out why it was there or why it attacked them.
Think about the story behind the monster, and think about ways that story would logically have relevant consequences whether or not the players know the story. Do it right, and your players may find reason to care. Then think about ways that story would influence things visible to the players other than the monster's prepared speech - clues that the players can find without needing the boss to talk.

You may have to be rather blatant at first about forcing "this happened because of such-and-such earlier thing, remember that?" into the players' attention at first, so they get the idea that this stuff can happen and paying attention might give them advantage, rather than being yet more unnoticed background behind apparently unrelated random monsters.


Concern 4: Improvising environmental flavor text. I've never been good with environments. Drawing them, describing them. For some reason, I'm only good at mapping them. And even if I personally have a clear image of the location in my head, putting that same image into the heads of my players has proven incredibly challenging. I never know how much to tell them, and I can't tell them everything without feeling like I'm reading The Lord of the Rings. Even if I describe all the things I think are important, one player might say, "I get out my torch and light it", afterwhich I'll have to tell them it's not necessary since there is already a candelabra on the nearby shelf for him to use. This is usually met with a snarky response like, "Wish you woulda told me that sooner!", which I would have done, if I'd thought for even a second that a candelabra was in the slightest bit important to him.

When it comes to describing environments on the spot, I tend to freeze up and hesitate. I never know what to say, and when I'm bombarded with questions about what the place looks like or what's in it, or even what it smells like, it makes me feel very unprofessional.
I suggest coming up with a general list of environment characteristics that you can go through in order when needed. For example, if you have "lighting conditions" as something you habitually list first or second, that will prevent pointless "I light my torch" actions in well lit areas. Every time you get a "should have told us sooner" response, take a note, think about why that particular thing was important to the party so you can come up with a good category for it, and think about where that category would go best in your list.

Dachimotsu
2014-12-14, 04:16 AM
Thank you very much for all of your responses, everyone! Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. Let's see...


Until they loot his body and find his diary, scrounging it for some useful intel they unravel the poor guy's story.

If you spend time making plot points, take time making different ways for your players to find said plot points, ways which can't be safely clubbed to death, and preferably ways that take advantage of their behaviour. If they spend their time killing and stealing, have them steal the plot points.

I never thought to use the diary fallback. My players would be much more inclined to read a book if they found one.


Most of the sensory information coming to the brain is visual. 80% or something. So have a cheat sheet with:

Strong imput first! Shiny things, strong smells, strong sounds
Interesting first! If your players can interact with something, they want to know it fast.
Closer first! Your players will assume that since they can see better next to them, what you describe in loving detail is close to them. Respect that.
Sight first! If there are equalities (strong sounds and shiny things) go sight>sound>smell

I like this list a lot. A prioritized checklist is just my kind of methodology. Thanks a ton for this.


Do not limit yourself to randomness or playing fair, have supposedly intelligent opponents act in ways that real world intelligent opponents would.

I ran a practice session with a friend earlier using this advice. I kept the minds and intelligence of every monster, including those not immediately present, in constant check. The dungeon ended up being far more interesting. It was, however, a single-player practice session, so we'll see how it goes once the party reaches a dungeon.


With that all out of the way, another question comes to mind:

Concern 5: Prioritizing dungeon design over encounter design. Let's say I'm building a crypt. When the crypt was built by in-game architects, they had no intention of it being used as a monster's den, so they would build it like a regular crypt and not a randomly-generated dungeon with built-in traps. When turning such a place into a dungeon where monsters will be fought, should I sacrifice practical crypt design to make a more interesting dungeon, or sacrifice exciting dungeon design for in-game architectural accuracy?

Douglas
2014-12-14, 05:04 AM
I ran a practice session with a friend earlier using this advice. I kept the minds and intelligence of every monster, including those not immediately present, in constant check. The dungeon ended up being far more interesting. It was, however, a single-player practice session, so we'll see how it goes once the party reaches a dungeon.
Good, and I hope it works well for you when you expand it to the full group's game. One potential pitfall to watch out for, try to keep in mind what information each monster has access to; a highly organized and disciplined military force can work wonders of incredibly unfair tactics*, but even that extreme level of opposition shouldn't be omniscient, so you may have to intentionally ignore some things that you as the DM know when you decide monster actions. Also, not every action should be in response to new information; have some things that monsters just randomly do on their own, without needing a reason any better than "it was bored".

* Seriously, modern military training, particularly officer and command training, is to a large extent an extended course on specifically how to not fight fair. The more unfair it is in your favor, the better.

With that all out of the way, another question comes to mind:

Concern 5: Prioritizing dungeon design over encounter design. Let's say I'm building a crypt. When the crypt was built by in-game architects, they had no intention of it being used as a monster's den, so they would build it like a regular crypt and not a randomly-generated dungeon with built-in traps. When turning such a place into a dungeon where monsters will be fought, should I sacrifice practical crypt design to make a more interesting dungeon, or sacrifice exciting dungeon design for in-game architectural accuracy?
A combination. The original builders designed it as a crypt. Then monsters came along, made it their home, and did some remodeling. I find things most interesting when it all hangs together as a cohesive whole that makes sense. Do it well enough, and it can give really good players the tools to add a whole extra level of gameplay by trying to figure out why things are the way they are, and from that what the parts they haven't gotten to are probably like.

Lanaya
2014-12-14, 05:15 AM
Concern 5: Prioritizing dungeon design over encounter design. Let's say I'm building a crypt. When the crypt was built by in-game architects, they had no intention of it being used as a monster's den, so they would build it like a regular crypt and not a randomly-generated dungeon with built-in traps. When turning such a place into a dungeon where monsters will be fought, should I sacrifice practical crypt design to make a more interesting dungeon, or sacrifice exciting dungeon design for in-game architectural accuracy?

Ideally you could do both. I'm not sure what you look for in dungeon design, but if we just pay attention to traps for now, there are things you could put into a crypt that don't stretch disbelief. Not all traps have to be deliberately designed, so you could have an old, unstable pillar that falls over right on top of the PCs if they don't notice and prop it up in some way. There could be a swarm of rats or bats hiding somewhere (not necessarily realistic but very much in the spooky crypt theme) that burst out of their hiding spot if disturbed. They don't hang around long enough to be a combat encounter, but the person who spooked them might be bitten by some nasty infected teeth as the swarm races past them. You could have brown mould or some similar nasty plant, fungus or whatever else infesting an area and bringing harm to anyone who stumbles into it. Perhaps there are some old webs spun by giant spiders who lived here in the past, and anyone who walks into them will be entangled in the web while the local monsters eat them. There should usually be interesting environmental features you can throw into any area that perform the same role as intentionally built traps.

Dachimotsu
2014-12-14, 05:27 AM
Not all traps have to be deliberately designed, so you could have an old, unstable pillar that falls over right on top of the PCs if they don't notice and prop it up in some way. There could be a swarm of rats or bats hiding somewhere (not necessarily realistic but very much in the spooky crypt theme) that burst out of their hiding spot if disturbed. They don't hang around long enough to be a combat encounter, but the person who spooked them might be bitten by some nasty infected teeth as the swarm races past them. You could have brown mould or some similar nasty plant, fungus or whatever else infesting an area and bringing harm to anyone who stumbles into it. Perhaps there are some old webs spun by giant spiders who lived here in the past, and anyone who walks into them will be entangled in the web while the local monsters eat them. There should usually be interesting environmental features you can throw into any area that perform the same role as intentionally built traps.

You basically just described 4e Hazards, which, I'll admit, I completely forgot about. Although, you did suggest many hazards I never would've thought of, so thanks for those.

Sartharina
2014-12-14, 04:36 PM
Alright... I can help with this first part.


Now, the problem isn't so much the size of the dungeon, so much as it is monster dispersement. If I assume the whole dungeon floor is one encounter, then there's either going to be too few strong monsters or a lot of extremely weak ones not even worth their time. Now, I know that in traditional D&D, a single dungeon floor is titanic, and could take more than one session to clear, if that. My group doesn't play often, and when we do, it's never for more than three hours average, so everyone is VERY impatient when it comes to encounters and dungeons. They want to move the story along because that's what they're interested in. I intend to start integrating story into encounters moreso in the future, but that's beside the point.

Back to the topic of monster dispersement. If I use the "XP Budget" to determine the levels and quantities of a single floor's monsters, no matter how many monsters I end up using, I'll come across some major problems. One is that a room with too few monsters will be easily dispatched if the party sticks together. If they ever get low on surges (which they burn through like dog treats), they might try to take an extended rest in the dungeon, and this is where I'd have one of the other monsters come get them as punishment, but... They would then get the idea to lure all of the monsters on the floor to their location one at a time by continuing to try resting. This will empty the floor of monsters very quickly and with little effort, while also making one barren dungeon. Alternately, I could spawn new monsters from nothing that attack them in their sleep, but if they repeat the previous tactic, they'd start power-leveling, and with such easy monsters, they could get away with it.First off - an encounter should be a geographic area of a dungeon, not necessarily an entire floor. Not all rooms need monsters - generally, I think it might be a good idea to put 2 or 3 'half-'encounters in an area that has a reasonable chance of one encounter overflowing into another... or disperse monsters in groups of half-encounters that can respond to each other so there's a chance of any fight being between half and one-and-a-half encounters before they've cleared enough room to short rest. As far as the extended rest thing... put a few dedicated 'wandering monsters' that have lairs that they wander from.. and each Extended Rest should have a chance, not guarantee, of drawing a wandering monster, depending on what precautions the party takes prior to rest. That way, a party can only partially-deplete a floor of its monsters, and it takes longer than they'd expect and it's unreliable.



No matter how big or difficult the dungeon, my players have never, not once felt the need to leave the dungeon in order to recuperate. That's what I want to happen. Their party level is 18, so it's getting difficult to find things they can't handle. I want to make a dungeon that they'll have to flee from at least once, but that isn't so huge that it'll take more than two sessions.High-power encounters are pretty key here, I think. Threaten them with a TPK. But give them a chance or two to retreat first before really dropping the hammer.

Douglas
2014-12-14, 09:45 PM
High-power encounters are pretty key here, I think. Threaten them with a TPK. But give them a chance or two to retreat first before really dropping the hammer.
Combining this with some of what I've said, maybe have a roving high-power encounter that will start specifically searching for the PCs if and when the dungeon in general is alerted to their presence. This encounter normally stays in one deep section of the dungeon, maybe even split into several more normal encounters, but groups up and comes out when it knows it's needed.

If the PCs successfully prevent the alarm from being raised, or retreat and come back after the alarm dies down, they may be able to take this super encounter in its split up version. If they press on in an alerted dungeon, they may instead get ambushed by the entire thing all at once. There should be indications in monster behavior, and possibly in things like a loud signal bell if appropriate, that such an alert is active or that the current encounter is trying to activate it.