Im scared by my new party, and not in a good way...

[Albions_Angel]

So I just had session zero. 5 veteran players. Never played 3.5 but lots of 4th and 5th. I knew it would be a stretch to convert them, but I felt I could do it.

Well first up, veteran to them is 2 campaigns between them and a couple of podcasts. So, lots of learning. Still, today was about character creation so I felt we could do good things. And they all came with fairly strong ideas about what they wanted to be. We got a barbarian (good), a druid (also good), a bard (well, useful but he may get bored) planning to go both into Wu Jen and Swashbuckler (um... ok?), a Warlock (who keeps begging me to let him play a pathfinder gunslinger, except not a pathfinder gunslinger, but a homebrew pathfinder gunslinger, but I think I have talked him down) and a no show (she was busy) who I am hoping to high heaven plays a cleric. I mean its a shame I read through so many books to open up more options that I am used to, but oh well.

Then we get to races. Lots of humans. Fine, humans are good. A pixie? Um. No. No pixies. But she wouldnt take no for an answer. I have ended up refluffing a halfling into a flightless pixie and told her she can get her flight back by "making a sacrifice of pretty stones and jems" of equal value to a ring of flight. The barbarian went for a neanderthal, solid there. Seriously, the Barb is the best player. Love him to bits for how much work he has put into prep.

My biggest thing is I gave them all the books to go over, told them it would be different from 5th, 2 weeks ago. Only the barbarian has bothered to look at anything. I have the Bard asking me what his proficiency bonus is and why it doesnt apply to spells, the pixie druid being amazed that her "pet" can be as big as a wolf and doesnt need to be a squirrel AND that it can attack, the warlock refusing to believe he doesnt run out of spells ("Yeah, but how many times can I do my invocations? No, seriously, I know you said At Will, but how often? Yeah, I know all day but when do they run out?"), its a mess.

Character creation was a task. You think at least they would have been familiar with Attributes, right? I mean, I set them a point buy and not a roll, but still. And then getting them to apply those stats to skills, ugh. SKILLS. You try telling a 5e player about skills! Turns out, you cant. They just dont get it.

I basically built 3 characters by myself today, while fielding thousands of questions about fluff and trying to teach them crunch. I couldnt do the 4th, ran out of time. My party has no healing, 2 characters are pacifists, I am worried the druid is actually going to be useless. In fact, from what they are all saying, this campaign is going to be the Barbarian being a Barbarian while carrying round a bard who has no sense of money and doesnt want to kill anything, a druid who wants a St Bernard, not a wolf, and a warlock who might forget he is powered by the forces of darkness and thus doesnt have to rest, and maybe, maybe if we are lucky, someone who can keep everyone alive.

Ive made a mistake. A horrible, horrible mistake. I cant play a pure RP campaign. I just cant do it. But I have 4/5 pure RP players. I am terrified. I really, really dont know what to do. I tried to lay out what the campaign would be about, that it would be combat heavy, but that doesnt seem to have clicked. I dont think any of them has ever rolled a dice in anger before. Ever.

Ive sent them away and told them, begged them, to read the PHB, both character creation and combat rules. I am gunna have to completely rewrite my first session just so I dont kill them all. I just dont know what to do.

[Grim Reader]

I don't know if it'll help, but when faced with players with pure RP leanings, I like to throw a little bit of horror scenarios their way. First make up a couple of NPCs for them to bond with, foils, fans and love interests etc.

Then the dead rise.

Basically threaten the NPCs they've gotten attached to with something like Zombies, skeletons etc that is malevolent to all living things and simply can't be communicated with. Nothing teaches you weapon proficiencies like being the only thing between your loved ones and an undead horde.

[Vizzerdrix]

I have no advice, but I wish you luck.

[Red Fel]

Ive sent them away and told them, begged them, to read the PHB, both character creation and combat rules. I am gunna have to completely rewrite my first session just so I dont kill them all. I just dont know what to do.

Kill them all.

Oh, was that a question? Well, there's my answer: Kill them all.

When a player reads the rules but doesn't understand them, and asks for clarification but none is given, the fault lies with the DM, as does the burden of consequence. When a player fails to read the rules altogether, the fault lies with the player, as does the burden of consequence. To paraphrase Sun Tzu.

If you insist on playing a character you don't know how to play, and refuse to learn, you have nobody to blame but yourself when you are gutted by a lone Kobold.

Look, from what you've said - and for all I know, I'm only getting one side of the story, but I work with what I'm given - you've done everything you could. Given them the resources they need, strongly urged them to learn their classes, even made certain concessions. (You're going to regret that flightless pixie thing, trust me.)

Okay, so the party has no healing. Hopefully, they'll learn to play conservatively. Keep in mind that there are lots of ways to heal (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2710.0); I'd suggest making some or many of these options readily available to the PCs.

Okay, so the players don't know how to use their class abilities. They'll learn. If they ask, tell them. If they forget, remind them. If they get killed, let them die.

Now, on the RP point, that's an entirely different ball of wax. You have 4/5 "pure RP" players? Do they know you're not running a pure RP campaign? If they don't, you need to disabuse them of that notion, pronto. That is on you. Players and DMs need to be on the same page with respect to overall campaign expectations, and RP vs. hack'n'slash is a big one. Fix that, make it clear. This is one area in which you must not cave. The flightless pixie thing was one thing, but if you cave on this - if you even suggest you can run a campaign for which you admit you are entirely unprepared - it will end badly for everyone. Fix that.

But the rest? Sink or swim. Do what you can for them, but it's not your job to play the PCs for them.

[Malimar]

I dunno what to tell you, other than that players who have trouble understanding can be annoying, but eventually can be transformed into good players.


a druid who wants a St Bernard, not a wolf

In all fairness, Riding Dog is widely considered an objectively more powerful animal companion than Wolf, so the druid may have accidentally hit upon an optimal choice.

[Albions_Angel]

I am very happy with her having a riding dog. I would love for her to have a riding dog. A riding dog is war trained. She wants a self propelled blanket. At least shes only a Pixie in name. Shes a halfling except I let her replace the skills bonuses with the pixie ones (to hide, spot and listen). After telling her several times I wasnt happy, I plan to make social stuff quite difficult for her. The people of my land dont like the Fey.

I did think I made it clear that it was a combat focused game. I said that I like RP but that the main focus is the battles. My fluff talks about how prized combat is in my countries culture. I dont know how I could have spelled it out more.

You are right, Red Fel, it is only one side of the story. They all seemed to go away happy. Which is something. Hopefully they will learn. Maybe. Ugh, Im just not looking forward to the first session, which is not how this was supposed to go. Ive spent all summer building this world, making sure I could make all the resources available with plenty of time, houseruling weaker classes to be stronger, simplifying feat chains, reading books to give more options. I had to leave my old group because I moved cities. Now I am worried I wont ever find a group I like, let alone one that will be happy with me DMing 3.5e. Guess I will see what happens next sunday.

[Extra Anchovies]

a Warlock (who keeps begging me to let him play a pathfinder gunslinger, except not a pathfinder gunslinger, but a homebrew pathfinder gunslinger, but I think I have talked him down)

Might want to consider refluffing the Warlock as a semi-magical gunslinger. Eldritch Blast is shooting people (it's even a touch attack, like in Pathfinder). Baleful Utterance


A pixie? Um. No. No pixies. But she wouldnt take no for an answer. I have ended up refluffing a halfling into a flightless pixie and told her she can get her flight back by "making a sacrifice of pretty stones and jems" of equal value to a ring of flight.

You may want to look at the Petal, a 1-HD pixie-like fey in MM3. Here's its stats, courtesy of Thurbane's list:

Petal - tiny fey (MM3) 15 ft move, fly 60ft, -8 Str, +10 Dex, +4 Con, +4 Int, +8 Cha, Sleep Songs, DR 5/cold iron, LA +2

The LA is listed as (cohort), but that qualifier isn't actually explained anywhere (so could be just meant as a guideline) and the petal is definitely a reasonable player race. If you're starting at low level, though, a few tweaks might be in order. Some ideas:
Halve the ability modifiers to -4 Str, +5 Dex, +2 Con, +2 Int, +4 Cha
Set the DR to 1/2/3/4/5 at levels 1/5/9/13/17 or 1/3/5/7/9
Lower the flight speed to 30 ft
With those three changes (or even just the last two), I'd put them at a reasonable LA +1.


I have the Bard asking me what his proficiency bonus is and why it doesnt apply to spells

Explain to them that in 3.X, proficiency bonus is split into a few different numbers - base attack bonus, base save bonus, and (with Maximum Ranks, Limited Choices (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/alternativeSkillSystems.htm#maximumRanksLimitedCho ices) - see below) base skill bonus.

Also, proficiency bonus doesn't apply to spells in 5e unless the spell uses something else which in turn uses proficiency bonus, e.g. attack rolls or skill checks, so I don't know where the bard is coming from on that.


the pixie druid being amazed that her "pet" can be as big as a wolf and doesnt need to be a squirrel AND that it can attack

Yeah, animal companions aren't garbage in 3.5. If they're having trouble grasping that, try explaining that it acts like a friendly wolf would act in real life - it wouldn't just sit idly and wait for commands.


the warlock refusing to believe he doesnt run out of spells ("Yeah, but how many times can I do my invocations? No, seriously, I know you said At Will, but how often? Yeah, I know all day but when do they run out?"), its a mess.

They're just like 5e Warlock invocations, which are either continuous effects, modifiers to other abilities, or at-will spell-like effects, so you could make that comparison.


Character creation was a task. You think at least they would have been familiar with Attributes, right? I mean, I set them a point buy and not a roll, but still. And then getting them to apply those stats to skills, ugh. SKILLS. You try telling a 5e player about skills! Turns out, you cant. They just dont get it.

The 3.5 skill system is a bit of a hot mess at times, and I've found that it's when character creation really starts to bog down with newer players. Use the Maximum Ranks, Limited Choices (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/alternativeSkillSystems.htm#maximumRanksLimitedCho ices) alternate skill system. Lots of builds adhere to it anyways, and if a player wants to do something like take half-ranks in two skills you can help them figure it out as an exception to the norm.


My party has no healing

Not really a big issue. Give them a healing belt early on, and use enemies which don't present a serious HP-damage threat. Here's a few examples (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21098522&postcount=2) I gave someone else a while ago; they're tailored for a specific situation but should give a general sense of how to manage low-level combat.


a druid who wants a St Bernard, not a wolf

So a riding dog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dogRiding.htm)?

[Name1]

Not really a big issue. Give them a healing belt early on, and use enemies which don't present a serious HP-damage threat. Here's a few examples (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21098522&postcount=2) I gave someone else a while ago; they're tailored for a specific situation but should give a general sense of how to manage low-level combat.

I'd just like to point out that even if an Allip is no HP-damage threat, you should still not throw that at a low-level party as a boss encounter. It will result into...problems.

[Red Fel]

I did think I made it clear that it was a combat focused game. I said that I like RP but that the main focus is the battles. My fluff talks about how prized combat is in my countries culture. I dont know how I could have spelled it out more.

"This will be a primarily combat-focused game. If you're here for RP, you will be disappointed." That's how you could spell it out.

Saying "I like RP but . . . the main focus is the battles" suggests a mixed game. Further, the setting fluff is independent of the dialogue between DM and players on expectation; saying "combat is prized by the culture" does not necessarily mean that "the PCs will fight a lot" follows rationally. And clearly, if you said it but they didn't hear it, you didn't say it clearly enough. Again paraphrasing Sun Tzu, "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame." If you told them that there would be some RP and some combat, and they heard RP, then you are to blame, and it's on you to fix the misunderstanding.

That said, you say they all went away happy. If they come back happy still, then just focus on Rule 1: If everyone has fun, you're doing it right.

[elonin]

If you are open to other approaches these players might be presenting an easier issue than a number of table conflicts i've seen here. Much more often i'm seeing posts about problem player or resolving issues with power level. So the druid wants a riding dog rather than a wolf. Why not refluff it or let the druid know that he's making choices that aren't mechanically to his best advantage? I've heard more than once that i can't have natural spell cause of a dm that didn't trust me not to steal the stage. With this group it sounds as though they are happy with a lower level of optimization.

I'm not suggesting in any way that the players shouldn't be encouraged to learn the rules of the game.

[Albions_Angel]

Ok, the wolf thing is getting people confused. She doesnt want a bitey bitey grrrr animal companion. She wants a soppy pretty pet that looks cute.

I dont care if she goes wolf or riding dog. I DO care if it sits around in combat and does nothing and then she yells at me if I try and kill it.

Anyway, I think I got them all sorted out now. We will just see when we have our first session. Everyone here is focusing on the "pixie" (halfling) which is understandable as my initial post does focus on her a lot. My main concern is actually the bard. He went NUTS on his back story before looking up what classes were available. And he wont back down on any of it. Turns out Rule 0 doesnt mean anything if your players dont observe it.

So I have a guy who THINKS he is playing a 5e, casting focused bard, when in reality he is playing a 3.5e combat focused bard. Like, thats his build. If you could build the best bard ever with core only and stat and equip them for combat, thats what he did. And before you ask, no, the game isnt core only, but they all stuck as close to core as they could, which worries me. But oh well.

Anyway, this bard. Picked up a rapier. Nice, solid weapon, right? Its for show and he will never draw it because he doesnt believe in hurting people...

Um, ok, so how about also carrying a Sap? Nope. That doesnt fit his background, so he cant use one. But he took good spells for first level didnt he? Well, no. We have dancing lights and know direction.

They seem impervious to help. Totally impervious. Drives me up the wall. They are happy though. They love chatting about their characters, cant wait to start the campaign, really excited to explore my world. Im just worried that they want to explore in an open topped bus, occasionally getting off to laugh at the locals and get into some high jinx over not understanding the currency, running away from the city guards to the benny hill theme, before getting back on the bus and driving to the next tourist attraction, when in reality they are supposed to be bounty hunters and the road is hard and death is real.

I will drop them all a line later today to clarify my stance on the game. Because if I dont, I am gunna be back building characters for them in 2 weeks time while they argue over backgrounds and try to figure out what their favorite foods are.

[Mordaedil]

If you want a bunch of people new to 3rd edition to play it, I recommend using one of the excellent video games out there and let them try to make a character in that. For vanilla stuff, there's Temple of Elemental Evil, which gives the best idea of picking feats, skills and picking spells for a specialist wizard, and NWN2 gives the best options outside of that with a lot of fluff races and some classes you can make with custom mods.

NWN is still my favorite, despite being mostly 3.0, because the Player's Resource Consortium mod adding like a million customizable things.

Playing these games will also allow the idea of how skills and such work and give them some idea of how critical hits and the like works. They don't have to play very far, just enough to see how the systems work.

I also notice you seem to worry a lot about your party of characters being very non-combatant. It seems like some of them don't actually want to engage in the usual things. This might be a time where it is worth seeing what your players want to do and let them guide the pace of the game. Have your plans take a bit of a backseat until it seems like they get bored and just go along with what they want to do without making them fight things unless they actively seek it out.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Some days, I think we need a 'trading spaces' but for gaming groups.

Any DMs out there that have a party full of combat nuts, that wants to swap with the OP?

[SangoProduction]

I also notice you seem to worry a lot about your party of characters being very non-combatant. It seems like some of them don't actually want to engage in the usual things. This might be a time where it is worth seeing what your players want to do and let them guide the pace of the game. Have your plans take a bit of a backseat until it seems like they get bored and just go along with what they want to do without making them fight things unless they actively seek it out.

While true a good sentiment, the DM is not there solely for the players. And the Players aren't solely there for the DM. The entire party is supposed to have fun.

With that said, the only thing that can help is further communication. There's no rule in a book that will help in this regard. You are looking for a combat-oriented game, and they are looking for an RP-focused game.

[Fizban]

Ok, the wolf thing is getting people confused. She doesnt want a bitey bitey grrrr animal companion. She wants a soppy pretty pet that looks cute.

I dont care if she goes wolf or riding dog. I DO care if it sits around in combat and does nothing and then she yells at me if I try and kill it.
Swap it to Urban Companion (Cityscape WE, basically a Familiar), give her a small dog, tell her it's a puppy.

So I have a guy who THINKS he is playing a 5e, casting focused bard, when in reality he is playing a 3.5e combat focused bard. Like, thats his build. If you could build the best bard ever with core only and stat and equip them for combat, thats what he did. And before you ask, no, the game isnt core only, but they all stuck as close to core as they could, which worries me. But oh well.

Anyway, this bard. Picked up a rapier. Nice, solid weapon, right? Its for show and he will never draw it because he doesnt believe in hurting people...

Um, ok, so how about also carrying a Sap? Nope. That doesnt fit his background, so he cant use one. But he took good spells for first level didnt he? Well, no. We have dancing lights and know direction.
Now that is the ultimate red flag. More so than poor spell choices, if someone refuses to wield a weapon because of their backstory, they do not understand combat. This one needs to be told point blank that this is a combat focused game, bards are not full spellcasters, and he will not be allowed to play a bard who refuses to make attack rolls. Put a shortbow in that man's hand and fire him if he doesn't fire it.

[TheBrassDuke]

I'd like to point out that people who haven't played 3.5 or earlier, and mostly know 4e or 5...are not "Veteran Players". They're still wet behind the ears.

[Grim Reader]

I stand by my earlier comment that for RP-heavy players, threatening those the character loves is the most effective leverage, and do it with something mindless and unreasoning, like a zombie horde.

[Mordaedil]

While true a good sentiment, the DM is not there solely for the players. And the Players aren't solely there for the DM. The entire party is supposed to have fun.

With that said, the only thing that can help is further communication. There's no rule in a book that will help in this regard. You are looking for a combat-oriented game, and they are looking for an RP-focused game.

Yeah, as you said, communication is going to be important. My point was that from what he described, the players were getting ready for a different kind of game than the DM was. And for everyone to have fun, it might be necessary to adjust ones expectations for what the party wants to do, including having a plan for a non-combatative experience. It's however, as you say, important to communicate with the players beforehand to clarify this.


Now that is the ultimate red flag. More so than poor spell choices, if someone refuses to wield a weapon because of their backstory, they do not understand combat. This one needs to be told point blank that this is a combat focused game, bards are not full spellcasters, and he will not be allowed to play a bard who refuses to make attack rolls. Put a shortbow in that man's hand a fire him if he doesn't fire it.

D&D is mostly about giving the tools provided for a combat experience, this is true, but it's not how you *have* to play it. I've had sessions go from something akin to shadowrun to evolve into corporate structure to the players running a business for 7 sessions until they started to get bored and decided to go adventuring again.

People playing the game suboptimally isn't really a dead-end like some people on these forums seem to think it being, but I come from a background where a fighter with 9 strength was still viable.

[Fizban]

People playing the game suboptimally isn't really a dead-end like some people on these forums seem to think it being, but I come from a background where a fighter with 9 strength was still viable.
There is playing suboptimally, and then there is refusing to fight in a campaign which is about fighting. Maybe the player has all sorts of other tricks ready to fill those actions when he doesn't have spells to cast, but this is highly unlikely given the description. Making a point of how your character carries a weapon but will never use it does not send the message that you are prepared for combat. Instead it sends the message that this character is contemptuous of combat and is unlikely to be useful in the main focus of the campaign. The only other player who has demonstrated similar problems is the druid, but druids simply have more juice than bards to begin with, which makes the bard the most problamatic if he doesn't get the message. Of course, if you have a combat focused campaign where the PCs are expected to fight to the death, and two players are trying to play pacifists, uh what? Unless you want to change that into a pacifist campaign they need to be disabused of that notion.

Ignoring that, I'm gonna take a guess and say you're starting at 1st level. I will also further suppose that if he's refusing to use a sap, he'll refuse to use a shortbow with blunt arrows. The next thing you can do to arm him for combat is drop some wands in. With low will save foes a wand of Daze is cheap and less problematic than a wand of Sleep might be. Just write off the "extra" wealth until they have enough spells to actually get through the day.

But once you've made it clear that this is not a pacifist game and they will be expected to fight well or die regardless of how much they like their established characters, then continue on as Red Fel said. For some people the only way to learn is to fail. I'm all for revolving doors of resurrection and being attache dto your character, but that character has to be worth keeping around or the whole rest of the game falls apart. It's pretty painful reading campaign journals with a dead weight dragging the others down.

[Red Fel]

Ok, the wolf thing is getting people confused. She doesnt want a bitey bitey grrrr animal companion. She wants a soppy pretty pet that looks cute.

I dont care if she goes wolf or riding dog. I DO care if it sits around in combat and does nothing and then she yells at me if I try and kill it.

My big focus on the pixie is that, if she survives to a certain level, you're going to give her (Ex) flight for the cost of a magic item of flight. Which, unlike the magic item, will not be suppressable or dispellable.

And you really shouldn't care if she yells at you for killing her class feature. Obviously, you don't need to specifically target it just to upset her, but take the line from Ivan Drago:

http://i.imgflip.com/6qtrr.gif

And if she gets upset? Tough.


Anyway, I think I got them all sorted out now. We will just see when we have our first session. Everyone here is focusing on the "pixie" (halfling) which is understandable as my initial post does focus on her a lot. My main concern is actually the bard. He went NUTS on his back story before looking up what classes were available. And he wont back down on any of it. Turns out Rule 0 doesnt mean anything if your players dont observe it.

Correction: Rule 0 means nothing if your DM doesn't enforce it.

The Bard's player can't actually make his character without your approval. Don't put this on him. You have the right to say, "No, you can't have that." Don't say, "My player is being unreasonable and refuses to listen to me." Instead, say, "I've told my player what I want, and he has said no, so I've backed down."

You're showing a pattern. Your player demands a pixie, you give her one. Your player demands a wolf, you give her one. Your player demands a crazy backstory, so you give him one. All of which is fine. I had a DM who was super flexible, and it was great. But you lose the right to complain about it. If you can't handle what your players do, the burden is on you to step in and say no, not to whine about how they won't listen to you. You are the DM. Without you, they must find another game. That's where Rule 0 comes from. It's where the DM says, "These are my preconditions. If they are not met, I don't run the game."


So I have a guy who THINKS he is playing a 5e, casting focused bard, when in reality he is playing a 3.5e combat focused bard. Like, thats his build. If you could build the best bard ever with core only and stat and equip them for combat, thats what he did. And before you ask, no, the game isnt core only, but they all stuck as close to core as they could, which worries me. But oh well.

Anyway, this bard. Picked up a rapier. Nice, solid weapon, right? Its for show and he will never draw it because he doesnt believe in hurting people...

Um, ok, so how about also carrying a Sap? Nope. That doesnt fit his background, so he cant use one. But he took good spells for first level didnt he? Well, no. We have dancing lights and know direction.

His call.


They seem impervious to help. Totally impervious. Drives me up the wall.

Their call. Once gameplay starts, it's not your place to tell them the "right way" to play. You can offer advice, but you have no expectation that they'll take it. You can lead a horse to water, as the saying goes, but you need several friends to help you drown it, because seriously, horses are tough.


They are happy though. They love chatting about their characters, cant wait to start the campaign, really excited to explore my world. Im just worried that they want to explore in an open topped bus, occasionally getting off to laugh at the locals and get into some high jinx over not understanding the currency, running away from the city guards to the benny hill theme, before getting back on the bus and driving to the next tourist attraction, when in reality they are supposed to be bounty hunters and the road is hard and death is real.

See this? This is a clear illustration of differing expectations. You know they expect something other than what you're providing. You just said so. They expect X, you're giving them Y. I hope, when you clarify your stance with them, you are extremely explicit. Do not mince words. Don't try to be nice, and say, "You guys really ought to do this, it might be important." Straight-up tell them, "This is not a railroad, it is a sandbox. It is not happy fun times with locals, it is a dark, lethal bounty hunting campaign." Be as clear as you possibly can.


I will drop them all a line later today to clarify my stance on the game. Because if I dont, I am gunna be back building characters for them in 2 weeks time while they argue over backgrounds and try to figure out what their favorite foods are.

Honestly, if they get a TPK, don't rebuild. At least, not immediately. Have a sit-down with them and talk about what led up to the TPK. Ask what they liked/disliked, what they could have done differently.

Because here's the thing. If running this game frustrates you or makes you unhappy, you shouldn't be running this game. When the DM is unhappy, ain't nobody happy. A frustrated DM is a DM on the verge of burnout, and nobody should have to deal with that. Yes, DMing is a big responsibility, but it's also supposed to be fun; when it isn't anymore, it's time to tag out, at least for awhile.

[kenjigoku]

As a slight aside. If the bard plans on going sublime chord, he could still be a full caster. That being said he still had to swing a sword first.

[gtwucla]

Some days, I think we need a 'trading spaces' but for gaming groups.

Any DMs out there that have a party full of combat nuts, that wants to swap with the OP?

I have two groups I'd gladly trade. On a second note, if combat is your focus then use mindless enemies, then graduate to sadistic characters that your players can really get behind beating the hell out of. Even pacifists will defend themselves against zombies.

[Fizban]

Hmm. Indeed, you could instigate operation "break the pacifists." The problem with the Book of Exalted Deeds is that the Book of Vile Darkness is backed by the DM, which means it wins. If you have a dark-ish campaign planned all you need to do is turn up the darkness and their pacifists are forced to face the fact that pacifism doesn't win in DnD land.

Of course that's a very unpleasant game if you didn't expect it. Players who really want some drama to fuel their roleplay might enjoy playing a pacifist tested against the real world, but it's not the kind of thing you throw out there suddenly. But if they insist on playing pacifists in the combat-focused game you can tell them this is how it's going to go, and maybe they'll enjoy the ride.

And of course it's still a compromise rather than the game you originally wanted to play.

[jedipilot24]

Tell them before the game starts: this is a combat game.
Then drop them quickly into a combat encounter. If they don't fight, kill 'em. If they TPK, then they TPK. If they complain, remind them of your warning.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Total agreement with Red Fel, here.


When I DM, I basically let the players take, have, or pursue any options or choices they want. I weave the story around them, their choices, and actions. I tell them it's their story, where they go, that's where things happen.

That being said, I also tell them 'you have to live with your choices, and the world is not full of milquetoast, moronic NPCs, who do your every whim because you're player characters.' So if they commit crimes, unless they cover their tracks very well, the law WILL come for them. If they murder or cross the wrong people, THEY will come for them.

There's always someone who complains, either because they think they're 'the Hero' (something I frequently try to disabuse them of, if they start robbing and murdering people in cold blood) or because they don't understand why a mob boss would be a little choked that they shot up his club, robbed it, killed his men, and threw his son out of a fifteenth-story window.

"In his position, would YOU just shrug and get on with your life?"

A) "Oh... Uh... Oooooh."

B) "Yeah." 'Then you're either a liar, an idiot, or both if you think I'm buying that.'

The smart players learn, and enjoy the game more, knowing that they're making an impact on the world. The dumb ones have a tantrum, and walk out in the middle of the game. They also don't get invited back to that campaign.

If your players are smart, they're either shape up, or explain to you that this isn't what they're looking for in a campaign, and you'll politely agree and go your separate ways.

If they're not smart, get ready to deal with some yelling, some whining, and maybe even some tears. That's NOT ON YOU. That's on them. You explain plainly, clearly, honestly, just what your game is. After you're satisfied you've explained to the best of your ability, whatever woes they have are on them... And, y'know, any natural 1s they roll.

The dice, they be a fickle mistress. :smallannoyed:

[Mehangel]

Maybe I am unique, but I dont actually see a problem with the players making the choices they did. I dont have a problem with characters being complete or partial pacifists. I also do not see a problem with the bard choosing the spells he chose.

I like a good combat myself, but in one of the games I am currently playing in, the rest of the party are not particularly optimized and thus my character "alone" handles the fight. By alone, I mean the other characters may drop a darkness spell or illusion, but otherwise dont participate (not even using their crossbows). This is fine. The GM had already planned out encounters accordingly. This is not to say that the other player's dont get attacked or targeted, but they make use of cover, concealment and the total defense action. Of-course the game we are playing is mostly whimsical and RP.

What I am saying is that a TPK might not be necessary. You could still run a combat campaign and build all the encounters as if it were just two PC's instead of five. But FORCING a TPK because the ENTIRE party is more RP-focused isn't a good call in my book. Also, as others have mentioned, they are NOT veterans. I would never rate 4th or 5th edition as being 'Gritty' or 'Rules-intensive'.

For your first session, what I would recommend is starting off with something like the following:

"The party awakens on the desert sand, storm clouds obscure the red sun slowly rising over the horizon. The first thing that you all notice is that the caravan that you were escorting is gone. The tracks of wagons and people disappearing in the wind before your very eyes."
GM: Everyone make a Knowledge (geography) DC 5; or Knowledge (local) DC 10 skill check. (Assuming someone in the party makes the check, the party learns that caravan was heading north to the oasis.)
GM: Everyone make a Survival DC 10 skill check (to determine which direction is north; Players who assume that the sun rises in the East may be corrected and state that there are storm clouds blocking clear sight of the sun which make reading direction in that way difficult; If nobody makes the survival check, remind the bard that it has the spell 'Know Direction'; Players who exceed the the DC by 5 or higher also learn that a storm is coming their way and should arrive at their current location within 8 hours)
GM: Encourage everyone to read aloud their equipment list (so that you could find out how has trail rations and a waterskin)
GM: (Assuming the players head north) 1d4 hours later the combined heat and humidity from the approaching storm is starting to weigh on the party. Everyone make a Fortitude save DC 12 (Those that fail become fatigued).
GM: Not So-random Encounter: Tiny Monstrous Scorpions (4)
GM: (Assuming the players managed to survive the encounter) 1d4 hours later the storm is fast approaching, and the heat is getting worse. Everyone make a Fortitude save DC 14 (Those that fail become fatigued, while those that were already fatigued become exhausted instead).
GM: Everyone make a Survival DC 15 skill check (If the players succeed, they learn that the party may be able to outpace the storm if they continue on).
GM: Everyone make a Perception DC 15 skill check (If the players succeed, read the following aloud: "Despite the blinding sun and and sand, to the east-north-east you see a towering rocky mound protruding from the sandy dunes." Everyone make a Knowledge (geography) DC 10 skill check (If the players succeed, they recognize that the mound is actually Harrow's Mesa, and overlooks the oasis and should allow for signaling the caravan with an appropriate light display (remind the bard of its "Dancing Lights" spell).
GM: (assuming the party continued north or toward Harrow's Mesa) 1d4 hours later the worst of the combined heat and humidity is over. Everyone make a Fortitude save DC 12 (Those that fail become fatigued, those that were already fatigued become exhausted, those that were exhausted fall unconscious);
GM:
- (If the party continued north) They made it to the oasis, but the caravan had already begun to move on , although still within sight. At the oasis are supplies which the caravan left behind for the party (healing potions, rations, etc), just in-case they should arrive. The oasis is also maintains a merchant who can buy or sell goods (mostly related to desert travel).
- (If the party continued to Harrow's Mesa) They manage the climb and with a little effort are able to signal the caravan to halt. The party receives medical attention for any wounds they may have acquired.

The adventure can then continue as the GM likes, Perhaps the caravan ends up attacked by bandits who are after the caravan's water or trade goods. Maybe one of the wagon's break a wheel, and new parts are required. Maybe the caravan's water supply has unknowingly sprung a leak (Druid can use her create water and mending spell).

Eventually the party would've escorted the caravan out of the desert, and into more hospitable terrain where the GM could run whatever was originally planned.

NOTE: This sort of adventure is mostly to teach specific rules, and allow for players to learn each other's strengths and weaknesses. It is NOT meant to actually provide a significant amount of XP or Equipment.

[Recurver]

Nothing to add as far as telling them what to expect (that's been covered extensively). I do, however, have a possible in game solution that would let you introduce combat through role play.
It seems to me the biggest hurdle to fighting is the pacifist bard. I recommend an in game role playing solution to this. Give the bard (via loot) a cursed Rapier, have it bind on pick up when he grabs it. Make the item intelligent with a decent ego rating, Just have it take him over for combat. Then the player can keep his pacifist role playing and blame any fighting on his "psychotic sword". It gives them something to role play about the combat itself. A lot of people forget that there can be a good amount of role playing in combat. Try it out for a little while, but if push comes to shove, some people just can't play together.

[Deophaun]

Again paraphrasing Sun Tzu, "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame."
Am now wondering how many concubines haven't survived Red Fel's gaming sessions...

[Name1]

Nothing to add as far as telling them what to expect (that's been covered extensively). I do, however, have a possible in game solution that would let you introduce combat through role play.
It seems to me the biggest hurdle to fighting is the pacifist bard. I recommend an in game role playing solution to this. Give the bard (via loot) a cursed Rapier, have it bind on pick up when he grabs it. Make the item intelligent with a decent ego rating, Just have it take him over for combat. Then the player can keep his pacifist role playing and blame any fighting on his "psychotic sword". It gives them something to role play about the combat itself. A lot of people forget that there can be a good amount of role playing in combat. Try it out for a little while, but if push comes to shove, some people just can't play together.

What, like a Rapier of Kas?
...
I'm kinda just imagining a scenario where a blue mage made a curse that would transform everything intelligent into the opposite gender and the Sword of Kas getting caught in it, turning into the Rapier of Kas. I don't know why, but I find that hilarious.

So yeah, I second that.

[Geddy2112]

Second "be clear what you are running, and then don't pull punches"

Throw em into combat-something easy, as they are new to the system and not optimized. Let the dice fall where they will. If they hard TPK in the first combat, you can deus ex and let it be a clear warning-if only to force them not to re roll new characters and save the headache. After that, kill em.

[Yogibear41]

Kill them all.

Oh, was that a question? Well, there's my answer: Kill them all.


Agree kill them all, but do it fairly. Throw level appropriate challenges their way hopefully when the barbarian isn't around to carry them. I've seen cr 1/3 skeletons almost kill a group of 4th level characters because they didn't have bludgeoning weapons. I actually feel empathetic with the barbarian because 80% of the games I have played it usually my other party members are useless or morons and I have to carry us all, and then listen to them whine and complain and come up with idiotic plans like trying to kill the baron of the country at level 2. As far as healing goes bards can heal at level 2. If he takes cure light wounds at least he won't feel completely useless. Also you could use the un see lie fey template for the person who wants to be a faerie. It's la +0 Although it is still pretty awesome.

[Red Fel]

Am now wondering how many concubines haven't survived Red Fel's gaming sessions...

Just the two, Deophaun. Just the two.

The rest learned quickly after that.

[Albions_Angel]

Ok, I have contacted them with this:

"Just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page. The game will be heavily combat based. There will be opportunities for roll play, but its unlikely you will be given the chance to overcome encounters without fighting or similar, and there will be a lot of encounters. I thought that was obvious from everything I sent you but thinking about it, I dont think I ever said it directly before, and wanted to make it clear."

I then went on to give each of them tips. The bard is taking a whip, the druid is looking at the riding dog (she told me she was interested in a rat...) and the barbarian is totally happy with my suggestion of a two handed weapon now that he has power attack.

I have also decided that when the "pixie" gets enough gold together to make the donation, her wings wont be repaired, so must as patched up with magic. She will gain Su flight, not Ex.

[Deophaun]

N/M. Forgot.

Edit again:

There are grafts in the fiend folio you can look at to give EX flight. As long as you're making custom magic items, might as well consider that.

And I hate when I get my threads confused. I was fine the first time around.

[Morcleon]

N/M. Forgot.

Edit again:

There are grafts in the fiend folio you can look at to give EX flight. As long as you're making custom magic items, might as well consider that.

And I hate when I get my threads confused. I was fine the first time around.

Yep. (Ex) flight can be obtained for the cost of 10kgp (Feathered Wings graft) and the most significant drawbacks can be removed with one of the following:
-An evil alignment
-A Novice Ring of Diamond Mind (moment of perfect mind) and a Concentration check of +14 or higher
-An Orb of Mental Renewal

[Lorddenorstrus]

I was at work on break when I first read this thread.. finally home and able to respond.. I agree with all the "Kill them" votes. But I suggest doing it in a different manner. Session 1, have them all wake up in an arena or something and just force endless combat until they die. Then when they all die, make the point of how they could've lasted longer if they'd actually correctly played their characters possibly even with minor attached explanations. Then simply inform them that wasn't actually the campaigns start, just a test to see if they could actually handle 3.X combat because you'd had serious doubts. Start the actual campaign if time allows or next session same characters. Hopefully brutally forced endless combat until death will teach a lesson...

[Mordaedil]

I have a feeling none of you guys like having fun and aren't very open to interpretations that differ from you set preconceptions.

It's fine, but jeez.

Just saying, as a DM I was taught to always work with my players and try to find the best grounds for us to have fun, not make the game all about how I want it to be like. That's the path for the killer DM.

[Hogsy]

If the Bard is the main problem, just give him some tips to optimize his Inspire Courage, then he can sing and dance during an encounter and still be useful. Turning that +2 into a +8 can be pretty big. Add some extra fluff to the feats that reinforce his pacificist position, but also require him to pick up arms in the outmost need. For example, have Words of Creation translate to a pacifist ideology or something, but then have it say something along the lines "The purest of angels, those who would not even wage war as to not corrupt themselves with it, would be the ones most feared by devils and demons and all beings of darkness and evil. When their home was under attack, they would purge the entire world of evil. Soon, nobody attacked the White Cities." It's not hard, but it sounds to me like you're extremely resistant to the idea of turning the combat into the result of roleplay. As Red Fel has already mentioned, you also sound as if you have sent the most possibly mixed message to your players. Before anything, I personally disagree that the Bard must be forced to fight. You can simply tailor the encounters so that he doesn't need to fight, and then he can carry the party in social situations due to his skillmonkeyness. It doesn't sound like you're looking for a combat-heavy campaign to me, but a survival campaign. If they love RP, don't throw in combat just for the sake of combat, make combat have consequences. If you're not willing to compromise on your part, why should they do on theirs? D&D is not the DM's game nor the player's game. It's the party's game, and that includes the DM. Being flexible is one thing, caving in to every player's desires is another. You just need to become more creative with how you introduce combat to these people. Don't force a TPK just to "teach them a lesson", that's just mean. At the end of the day, if they had fun, you had fun (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHUCi6ZbVxU).

[Elkad]

I am gunna have to completely rewrite my first session just so I dont kill them all. I just dont know what to do.

To steal an encounter from my first 3.5 GM. Several of the other players were completely new to D&D at all, and we were all new to skill checks.

Party walking down a road, which is paralleling a river. They hear screams. It's an out-of-control raft from the ferry upstream, with a family on it, but no ferryman (he fell off). It's moving about 40'/round. Ropes trail behind it.
Now you get to cover movement (including double and run) to get in front of it. And a whole pile of skill checks. Swim checks, grab ropes (Strength checks), tie ropes to trees (use rope), save the other guy in the party who is drowning (more swim/strength, even first aid if it goes poorly), etc. At the end you can even throw in a bit of potential combat, as the party and raft crash into some fishing bears, or alligators, or a couple low-int water creatures mad because a rampaging raft smashed into their fishing gear. They can try to diplo (or speak with animals) their way out of it, but push it towards combat.

At any time it's easy to throw in the ferryman running down the road to help, or even the highway patrol. Or just let them all drown and their soggy corpses be eaten by gators.



Some days, I think we need a 'trading spaces' but for gaming groups.

Any DMs out there that have a party full of combat nuts, that wants to swap with the OP?

Slight incompatibility is good. It expands the game for everyone. Big incompatibility NEEDS this.

[Necroticplague]

Having incompetent players is an easy issue to fix: be fair, but unyeilding in the application of the rules, and play the world as a world. Enemies don't pull punches, and they'll ultimately live by a combination of a little bit of luck, and a good chunk of skill. Yes, this means their first few characters will be lambs to the slaughter. This is to be expected when you're bad at a game. However, after a bit, one of two things will happen:
1. They decide they don't care when their character dies. They continue making crap characters, not improving their skills, but are ultimately still having fun Somewhat annoying to play with*, but at least they're having fun.
2. They decide they care when their character dies. They learn from their mistakes when they die (as long as you were fair), and get better, in order to avoid this fate. This means you can eventually move on to real challenges and actually interesting plots.
Either way, it's a net win overall.
*=on account of how often they'll need to be reminded of basic things

[Quertus]

I think I would love this group. :smallwink:

I would suggest starting with training wheels, and including an NPC venerable priest with Close Wounds. Let them see how badly they would have died, and learn from it. Maybe the priest has asked them to escort him on one last pilgrimage, and he can be trying to indoctrinate these youths in the world's values.

Really loving people's ideas about running training adventures, from the desert caravan to teach specific rules, to the zombie apocalypse to teach them the feel of the game you're going for. And if the bard never draws his sword, and instead focuses on getting his beloved townsfolk out of harm's way? Well, if everybody had fun, what's the problem?

Speaking of "what's the problem", what's the problem with pixies? Why reskin the halfling? Why not just let them play a pixie? Pixie druid sounds really cool from an RP perspective, and sounds like a better story than, "this one time, I played... well, it wasn't really a pixie, it was a halfling that was reskinned to be kinda like a pixie..."

Ok, admittedly, "pixie druid" may seem potentially suboptimal, getting a weaker animal companion and losing casting levels, but it still sounds playable, IMO.


I am worried the druid is actually going to be useless

And, lo, the fated words were spoken. Or something.

Seriously? If you're concerned that arguably the strongest tier 1 base class is going to be useless, I think most playgrounders would love to have your problems. :smalltongue:


who I am hoping to high heaven plays a cleric

Druid can heal. Rogue can UMD heal. Crusader would probably be the optimal choice for your 5th player, for infinite heals, plus improved combat ability. Not that your party is lacking in combat ability, or anything.


Ive made a mistake. A horrible, horrible mistake. I cant play a pure RP campaign. I just cant do it. But I have 4/5 pure RP players.

More words explaining exactly what you mean here, please. In what way, exactly, do you believe that you and the party are incomparable? Do you believe that you lack the skill, the desire, or the... what, exactly, to run the kind of game you think they want? Then flip that question around for the game you want.

For length, I'm spoiling a few of the more creative ideas other people have put forth, that I'd like to second (if I haven't already).




I don't know if it'll help, but when faced with players with pure RP leanings, I like to throw a little bit of horror scenarios their way. First make up a couple of NPCs for them to bond with, foils, fans and love interests etc.

Then the dead rise.

Basically threaten the NPCs they've gotten attached to with something like Zombies, skeletons etc that is malevolent to all living things and simply can't be communicated with. Nothing teaches you weapon proficiencies like being the only thing between your loved ones and an undead horde.


I stand by my earlier comment that for RP-heavy players, threatening those the character loves is the most effective leverage, and do it with something mindless and unreasoning, like a zombie horde.


The next thing you can do to arm him for combat is drop some wands in. With low will save foes a wand of Daze is cheap and less problematic than a wand of Sleep might be. Just write off the "extra" wealth until they have enough spells to actually get through the day.


Maybe I am unique, but I dont actually see a problem with the players making the choices they did. I dont have a problem with characters being complete or partial pacifists.

What I am saying is that a TPK might not be necessary. You could still run a combat campaign and build all the encounters as if it were just two PC's instead of five. But FORCING a TPK because the ENTIRE party is more RP-focused isn't a good call in my book. Also, as others have mentioned, they are NOT veterans. I would never rate 4th or 5th edition as being 'Gritty' or 'Rules-intensive'.

For your first session, what I would recommend is starting off with something like the following:

"The party awakens on the desert sand, storm clouds obscure the red sun slowly rising over the horizon. The first thing that you all notice is that the caravan that you were escorting is gone. The tracks of wagons and people disappearing in the wind before your very eyes."
GM: Everyone make a Knowledge (geography) DC 5; or Knowledge (local) DC 10 skill check. (Assuming someone in the party makes the check, the party learns that caravan was heading north to the oasis.)
GM: Everyone make a Survival DC 10 skill check (to determine which direction is north; Players who assume that the sun rises in the East may be corrected and state that there are storm clouds blocking clear sight of the sun which make reading direction in that way difficult; If nobody makes the survival check, remind the bard that it has the spell 'Know Direction'; Players who exceed the the DC by 5 or higher also learn that a storm is coming their way and should arrive at their current location within 8 hours)
GM: Encourage everyone to read aloud their equipment list (so that you could find out how has trail rations and a waterskin)
GM: (Assuming the players head north) 1d4 hours later the combined heat and humidity from the approaching storm is starting to weigh on the party. Everyone make a Fortitude save DC 12 (Those that fail become fatigued).
GM: Not So-random Encounter: Tiny Monstrous Scorpions (4)
GM: (Assuming the players managed to survive the encounter) 1d4 hours later the storm is fast approaching, and the heat is getting worse. Everyone make a Fortitude save DC 14 (Those that fail become fatigued, while those that were already fatigued become exhausted instead).
GM: Everyone make a Survival DC 15 skill check (If the players succeed, they learn that the party may be able to outpace the storm if they continue on).
GM: Everyone make a Perception DC 15 skill check (If the players succeed, read the following aloud: "Despite the blinding sun and and sand, to the east-north-east you see a towering rocky mound protruding from the sandy dunes." Everyone make a Knowledge (geography) DC 10 skill check (If the players succeed, they recognize that the mound is actually Harrow's Mesa, and overlooks the oasis and should allow for signaling the caravan with an appropriate light display (remind the bard of its "Dancing Lights" spell).
GM: (assuming the party continued north or toward Harrow's Mesa) 1d4 hours later the worst of the combined heat and humidity is over. Everyone make a Fortitude save DC 12 (Those that fail become fatigued, those that were already fatigued become exhausted, those that were exhausted fall unconscious);
GM:
- (If the party continued north) They made it to the oasis, but the caravan had already begun to move on , although still within sight. At the oasis are supplies which the caravan left behind for the party (healing potions, rations, etc), just in-case they should arrive. The oasis is also maintains a merchant who can buy or sell goods (mostly related to desert travel).
- (If the party continued to Harrow's Mesa) They manage the climb and with a little effort are able to signal the caravan to halt. The party receives medical attention for any wounds they may have acquired.

The adventure can then continue as the GM likes, Perhaps the caravan ends up attacked by bandits who are after the caravan's water or trade goods. Maybe one of the wagon's break a wheel, and new parts are required. Maybe the caravan's water supply has unknowingly sprung a leak (Druid can use her create water and mending spell).

Eventually the party would've escorted the caravan out of the desert, and into more hospitable terrain where the GM could run whatever was originally planned.

NOTE: This sort of adventure is mostly to teach specific rules, and allow for players to learn each other's strengths and weaknesses. It is NOT meant to actually provide a significant amount of XP or Equipment.


Nothing to add as far as telling them what to expect (that's been covered extensively). I do, however, have a possible in game solution that would let you introduce combat through role play.
It seems to me the biggest hurdle to fighting is the pacifist bard. I recommend an in game role playing solution to this. Give the bard (via loot) a cursed Rapier, have it bind on pick up when he grabs it. Make the item intelligent with a decent ego rating, Just have it take him over for combat. Then the player can keep his pacifist role playing and blame any fighting on his "psychotic sword". It gives them something to role play about the combat itself. A lot of people forget that there can be a good amount of role playing in combat. Try it out for a little while, but if push comes to shove, some people just can't play together.




I have a feeling none of you guys like having fun and aren't very open to interpretations that differ from you set preconceptions.

It's fine, but jeez.

Just saying, as a DM I was taught to always work with my players and try to find the best grounds for us to have fun, not make the game all about how I want it to be like. That's the path for the killer DM.

This seems to be a common problem.