What do you expect form a session

[Mordante]

Hello all,

last few months I've been DMing a DnD 3.5 side quest for my party. We play once every two to four weeks on a Wednesday evening. Now that the sidequest is coming to a close. I've done some thinking.

1) I think I rail roaded the party a bit too much, I wanted them to do something and I made sure it got done.
2) There was very little combat, maybe not enough.
a) As a player I don't really enjoy combat that much, there is very little roleplaying in combat
b) I know next to nothing about the rules of the game. The party is lvl16. Didn't want to kill them or make it too easy
3) I found it difficult to have something for all the players to do. We have pacifistic illusionist, an dusk blade with anxiety and some other characters all over the place stat and skill wise.
4) There are about 10 people in the party, me included some never show up, some are always there, some are there once every 6 sessions. Makes prepping hard
5) I found it hard to keep track of everything that has happened sometimes.

In the future it's most likely that I will do some more side quests.

So what you people here expect from a DM? Do you expect combat every session, or lots of rewards. Do you expect the DM to know all the rules. What about sandbox/rail road stuff.

No one in the party complained but also no one really gives tips on how to improve.

So tell me what does your ideal (side) quest look like.

[Silly Name]

Some commentary on your list:

1) Without the added context of what actually happened, it's hard to tell if you railroaded your party heavily or not at all. It also depends on your definition of railroad and how your players perceive it.

2b) This is very weird to me: if you don't feel that you have a good grasp of the game's rules, DMing an high-level party is not a good idea since it'll be hard to create good challenges for powerful characters.

4) That's a really large party, and I would be uncomfortable to be its DM or even a player. But the "red flag" for me is that it sounds like you have a group of actually dedicated players and a group of people who happen to show up every so often. I would suggest talking with the second group and communicate that if they don't want to be regulars, they are out of the campaign (you can still play all together, but when this group actually participates you could do side-quests and one-shots rather than progressing the campaign).

5) This is most likely a result of a large party. I find the sweet spot for ensuring everyone gets the chance to partecipate and be able to keep track is between 4 and 6 players, DM not included.

As for my expectations: obviously, the main objective of any session is for it to be fun. Thus I expect a DM to talk with the players beforehand and try to understand how to reach a balance between what the DM wants to run and what each player expects from the game. Usually, this means preparing diverse sessions where everyone has the chance to do something and contribute so that no character feels useless or detached.
As a result, combat is likely to happen at least once per session, but combat-less sessions are absolutely possible and can be great fun as long as you try to find a way for the combat-oriented characters to engage (either through roleplay or obstacles that can be overcome by applying their skills).

I do expect the DM to be familiar with the rules - not know them all by heart, but be confident enough in their understanding of the system that I can trust them to be able to create mechanically interesting challenges, and to be fair in their rulings.

[Gauntlet]

Some players will probably expect combat every session. Even if not, generally I'd say you should be aiming to have something challenging happen every session, whether it's combat, social encounters or something else like a stealth assignment or working past traps.

[Mordante]

Some commentary on your list:

1) Without the added context of what actually happened, it's hard to tell if you railroaded your party heavily or not at all. It also depends on your definition of railroad and how your players perceive it.

The group was teleported across the world where they are helping a group to overthrow the local "evil" goverment. It is set in a jungle. Think blood sacrifices and Aztek. To gain the trust of the group they had to take out a local supply station. Along the way they got manipulated by the unseely court/winter fey, killed a green dragon and almost got blown up

2b) This is very weird to me: if you don't feel that you have a good grasp of the game's rules, DMing an high-level party is not a good idea since it'll be hard to create good challenges for powerful characters.

I mostly challenge the party on safes, will,reflex and fortitude. Poisson gasses, hallucinogenics, buildings that are rigged to explode etc

4) That's a really large party, and I would be uncomfortable to be its DM or even a player. But the "red flag" for me is that it sounds like you have a group of actually dedicated players and a group of people who happen to show up every so often. I would suggest talking with the second group and communicate that if they don't want to be regulars, they are out of the campaign (you can still play all together, but when this group actually participates you could do side-quests and one-shots rather than progressing the campaign).

5) This is most likely a result of a large party. I find the sweet spot for ensuring everyone gets the chance to participate and be able to keep track is between 4 and 6 players, DM not included.

As for my expectations: obviously, the main objective of any session is for it to be fun. Thus I expect a DM to talk with the players beforehand and try to understand how to reach a balance between what the DM wants to run and what each player expects from the game. Usually, this means preparing diverse sessions where everyone has the chance to do something and contribute so that no character feels useless or detached.
As a result, combat is likely to happen at least once per session, but combat-less sessions are absolutely possible and can be great fun as long as you try to find a way for the combat-oriented characters to engage (either through roleplay or obstacles that can be overcome by applying their skills).

My own character is very combat orientated. He's a fighter/arch blade. But when I'm not the DM I prefer combat once every 4 sessions. The most fun sessions are when the party sit together in the guild house getting drunk and pulling pranks on each other, seducing a bar maid and failing hard. Embarrassing the local lords, losing all your gold in a gambling session, etc. One time the party got arrested when they lost a bet and had to run naked around the city block, they ran into the city guard.

I do expect the DM to be familiar with the rules - not know them all by heart, but be confident enough in their understanding of the system that I can trust them to be able to create mechanically interesting challenges, and to be fair in their rulings.

some people in this group have been in it for well over a decade and have never opened a 3.5 book outside of the times we play.




My reply see above in red. I write this becaise my reply was too short.

[Silly Name]

The group was teleported across the world where they are helping a group to overthrow the local "evil" goverment. It is set in a jungle. Think blood sacrifices and Aztek. To gain the trust of the group they had to take out a local supply station. Along the way they got manipulated by the unseely court/winter fey, killed a green dragon and almost got blown up


Nothing about this sounds railroady, except from the teleport at the start. If the players agreed to it and weren't coerced into helping the rebels, then I see no problem


I mostly challenge the party on safes, will,reflex and fortitude. Poisson gasses, hallucinogenics, buildings that are rigged to explode etc

Honestly, put this way it doesn't sound too exciting for level 16 characters, apart from the collapsing buildings.

The things with saves is that they are a binary challenge: you either pass it or you don't. You also can't really plan around it apart from boosting your saves, but getting bigger numbers isn't exactly an exercise in problem solving.

You may want to consider designing challenges that demand the characters use their abilities to achieve a specific result, or cooperate in some way, or challenges that force the party out of their comfort zone (do you have a wizard who favours fire spells? Make the battle take place in a room full of volatile explosives: the wizard now needs to be more careful where he shoots his fireballs, but could also take advantage of enemy placement by triggering explosives next to them). Puzzles and riddles are great non-mechanical ways to challenge players, as well as social encounters and ethical dilemmas. Timed missions ("reach the end of the maze before anyone else to claim your prize", "the princess will be sacrificed at midnight, so you must free her before the clock strikes twelve", etc) can also add tension since players don't get to dilly-dally and try to approach every encounter in the most convenient way possible.
Use decisions: make the players have to decide between two or more things, with pros and cons for every option: do you save the hostages from being eaten by the dragon, or take the chance to beat the evil wizard before she crosses the magical portal?


My own character is very combat orientated. He's a fighter/arch blade. But when I'm not the DM I prefer combat once every 4 sessions. The most fun sessions are when the party sit together in the guild house getting drunk and pulling pranks on each other, seducing a bar maid and failing hard. Embarrassing the local lords, losing all your gold in a gambling session, etc. One time the party got arrested when they lost a bet and had to run naked around the city block, they ran into the city guard.

Sounds like you know what your group likes and enjoys. Design your sessions to have a focus on social interactions and getting to have fun and crack jokes. Combat is still a part of the game, obviously, but if everyone is ok with it being comparatively rare, then you have no reason to force yourself to insert combat encounters every session.
You're meeting to play a game and have fun, and that is what should be the primary factor to consider when you design sessions.

[Quertus]

a) As a player I don't really enjoy combat that much, there is very little roleplaying in combat
b) I know next to nothing about the rules of the game. The party is lvl16. Didn't want to kill them or make it too easy

So what you people here expect from a DM? Do you expect combat every session, or lots of rewards. Do you expect the DM to know all the rules. What about sandbox/rail road stuff.

No one in the party complained but also no one really gives tips on how to improve.

So tell me what does your ideal (side) quest look like.

Way too much here for me to properly reply to it all, tbh. But here's a first pass.

2a) There is only very little roleplaying in combat if you choose that to be the case. For me, roleplaying does not end just because the dice come out. When combat starts, Armus moves to protect a character with better defenses (in D&D terms, better AC & more HP) - why? Who do you choose to attack - the one who hurt whom, the one with bad fashion sense, the closest - and how? What do you say? You can absolutely characterize the character of your character in combat.

2b) Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, is based on player(s) who, after playing for years (or decades!) still had no clue about the game. So... I suppose I'm not completely baffled by a GM whose party has reached level 16, yet still doesn't know the rules.

So let's talk about what I expect. I expect the GM to be consistent. The best way to be consistent is to follow the rules. For a GM who does not know the rules, that means offloading "the rules" to the player(s) who do know the rules. And that has worked in many groups I've been in (some of which I was the GM for a system I didn't know very well, so I've seen it work from all sides).

I expect the GM to care more about their group than what some random (albeit, in this case, totally awesome) internet forum has to say. If your players aren't complaining, don't break things listening to us. However, "players not complaining" doesn't mean you can't improve. :smallwink: Wanting to improve is your good. :smallcool:

I expect... Hmmm... I expect lots of combat, because that's something everyone can participate in, in most groups I've been in. However, it sounds like your group is great at participating in random stuff, and sounds like they're having great fun doing so. So, in your group? I would expect lots of these random "run naked around the block", "GM isn't pushing 'the plot' at breakneck speeds" events, where all the players get to participate in having fun.

Make sense?

Also, from what I read, it didn't sound like you were forcing a particular outcome, mangling physics to negate player actions to keep your story on the rails, so... it didn't sound like railroading to my ears. Were you guilty of negating player actions to force the story to turn out the way you envisioned it?

[JNAProductions]

In a word? Fun.

My biggest advice to you is to just talk to your players. Ask them "Did you have fun? Was there anything you felt I did wrong, or could do better? Anything you'd like to see in future sessions?"

Your players are the ones you need to worry about having a good time-not random forum-goers' opinions. That being said, there's some good advice on this thread and this forum in general, so good on you for making sure you're providing a fun experience. :)

[DragonclawExia]

Just to note, it's been scientifically proven that the average human can only manage 4-6 people at the same time without getting stressed.


We just don't have the processing power to keep track of more than that.


You may wanna find who's the core players who are playing, and try to focus on accommodating them. Let them do the heavy campaign questing. The occasional guest players could have "Day in the Limelight" side quests where you try to mostly appease the quest players. But it does mean trying to give enough loot that the core players are satisfied.


Hopefully you don't have much more than 7 a group though...might be too much for normal humans to handle.

[Mordante]

Nothing about this sounds railroady, except from the teleport at the start. If the players agreed to it and weren't coerced into helping the rebels, then I see no problem



Honestly, put this way it doesn't sound too exciting for level 16 characters, apart from the collapsing buildings.

The things with saves is that they are a binary challenge: you either pass it or you don't. You also can't really plan around it apart from boosting your saves, but getting bigger numbers isn't exactly an exercise in problem solving.

You may want to consider designing challenges that demand the characters use their abilities to achieve a specific result, or cooperate in some way, or challenges that force the party out of their comfort zone (do you have a wizard who favours fire spells? Make the battle take place in a room full of volatile explosives: the wizard now needs to be more careful where he shoots his fireballs, but could also take advantage of enemy placement by triggering explosives next to them). Puzzles and riddles are great non-mechanical ways to challenge players, as well as social encounters and ethical dilemmas. Timed missions ("reach the end of the maze before anyone else to claim your prize", "the princess will be sacrificed at midnight, so you must free her before the clock strikes twelve", etc) can also add tension since players don't get to dilly-dally and try to approach every encounter in the most convenient way possible.
Use decisions: make the players have to decide between two or more things, with pros and cons for every option: do you save the hostages from being eaten by the dragon, or take the chance to beat the evil wizard before she crosses the magical portal?

Sounds like you know what your group likes and enjoys. Design your sessions to have a focus on social interactions and getting to have fun and crack jokes. Combat is still a part of the game, obviously, but if everyone is ok with it being comparatively rare, then you have no reason to force yourself to insert combat encounters every session.
You're meeting to play a game and have fun, and that is what should be the primary factor to consider when you design sessions.

Concerning the saves I had a large field of toxic fumes, coming from multiple sources, magical and not magical. There are two alchemists in the party. The solution for the problem was indeed alchemy. It took them a while to figure it out.

I try to (and often fail) make puzzles that are not easily solved by just throwing magic at it. But I mainly try to make it social challenges, where dice rolls might not be involved at all.

But I do like the idea of timed quests/goals. That is a great idea.

[Mordante]

Way too much here for me to properly reply to it all, tbh. But here's a first pass.

2a) There is only very little roleplaying in combat if you choose that to be the case. For me, roleplaying does not end just because the dice come out. When combat starts, Armus moves to protect a character with better defenses (in D&D terms, better AC & more HP) - why? Who do you choose to attack - the one who hurt whom, the one with bad fashion sense, the closest - and how? What do you say? You can absolutely characterize the character of your character in combat.

2b) Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, is based on player(s) who, after playing for years (or decades!) still had no clue about the game. So... I suppose I'm not completely baffled by a GM whose party has reached level 16, yet still doesn't know the rules.

So let's talk about what I expect. I expect the GM to be consistent. The best way to be consistent is to follow the rules. For a GM who does not know the rules, that means offloading "the rules" to the player(s) who do know the rules. And that has worked in many groups I've been in (some of which I was the GM for a system I didn't know very well, so I've seen it work from all sides).

I expect the GM to care more about their group than what some random (albeit, in this case, totally awesome) internet forum has to say. If your players aren't complaining, don't break things listening to us. However, "players not complaining" doesn't mean you can't improve. :smallwink: Wanting to improve is your good. :smallcool:

I expect... Hmmm... I expect lots of combat, because that's something everyone can participate in, in most groups I've been in. However, it sounds like your group is great at participating in random stuff, and sounds like they're having great fun doing so. So, in your group? I would expect lots of these random "run naked around the block", "GM isn't pushing 'the plot' at breakneck speeds" events, where all the players get to participate in having fun.

Make sense?

Also, from what I read, it didn't sound like you were forcing a particular outcome, mangling physics to negate player actions to keep your story on the rails, so... it didn't sound like railroading to my ears. Were you guilty of negating player actions to force the story to turn out the way you envisioned it?

2aa True, but combat in 3.5 takes a long time. The players get bored when 1 round takes too long and the just want to end it.

2bb I joined the party at lvl15. But some people in the party have never opened a rule book. Others have explored many books and use obscure rules. I cant know them all.

Lots of combat because everyone can participate. Now that is funny. Our mage is an illusionist who only uses offensive magic when really pushed hard. Most of the time she hides. next we have a divine oracle who really cant do anything in combat. The character I play is pure close combat but when I DM he's elsewhere. We also have a dusk mage with anxiety, he like to sit and listen but don't expect him to really do anything. Next is a Drow, she useful in combat but not greatly so. There is a elven lord of some kind that hasn't leveled his character in ages. The healer never shows up.

None of them is closed to being optimized. Some are pure RP characters that take feats and skills because they sound great.

What I do, is I push and nudge the group in a certain direction. Otherwise they can spend 5 sessions on where or not they will accept an invite to a friendly drink with a the local nobility. (this is has not happened so exact but you get my drift)

[Mordante]

Just to note, it's been scientifically proven that the average human can only manage 4-6 people at the same time without getting stressed.


We just don't have the processing power to keep track of more than that.


You may wanna find who's the core players who are playing, and try to focus on accommodating them. Let them do the heavy campaign questing. The occasional guest players could have "Day in the Limelight" side quests where you try to mostly appease the quest players. But it does mean trying to give enough loot that the core players are satisfied.


Hopefully you don't have much more than 7 a group though...might be too much for normal humans to handle.


I never happens that the whole group is there.

But they are relatively easy to DM. Give them a blue dress and they will spend the next 10 sessions debating whether or not it;s a blue or gold dress. :p

[Quertus]

Regarding role-playing even in combat: in the kids' Supers game that I'm running, one of the characters gives first priority to targets who attack a particular NPC; one makes every excuse to take snack breaks (which has been bloody awesome, and I need to interact with those actions more); one likes to chase butterflies (actually came up: one NPCs scrying effect (the original Psylock) appears as a butterfly) and take naps (yes, even in the middle of combat). So it's not inherent to stop role-playing and become the Determinator just because the dice come out. I'm quite proud of these kids for their continued role-playing in combat (even if the characters are a bit "over the top" at times).


But they are relatively easy to DM. Give them a blue dress and they will spend the next 10 sessions debating whether or not it;s a blue or gold dress. :p

As long as they're having fun.


2bb I joined the party at lvl15. But some people in the party have never opened a rule book. Others have explored many books and use obscure rules. I cant know them all.

Can't? Maybe. Shouldn't be expected to? I'll buy that.


Lots of combat because everyone can participate. Now that is funny. Our mage is an illusionist who only uses offensive magic when really pushed hard. Most of the time she hides. next we have a divine oracle who really cant do anything in combat. The character I play is pure close combat but when I DM he's elsewhere. We also have a dusk mage with anxiety, he like to sit and listen but don't expect him to really do anything. Next is a Drow, she useful in combat but not greatly so. There is a elven lord of some kind that hasn't leveled his character in ages. The healer never shows up.

Understand, my bar for "participate" is really low. Like, one of my characters will roll initiative, and dive for cover (he's decidedly *not* a combatant). But he could still make perception checks, yell things to other people, etc - he was still participating. I was still having fun. He had the *potential* to impact the fight (even if, in most fights, his contribution was somewhere between "0" and "I guess we need to remember that that one exists". Compare that to optimized 4e skill challenges (or skill "challenges" in most systems, tbh - I just like to pick on 4e), where only the best candidate should be doing anything, while everyone else sits there bored, and their existence really doesn't matter.

Like, it matters whether your combat-oriented character is there. And it *could* matter if my "duck and cover" noncom were present. But, if he were… hacking a computer, say… it wouldn't matter whether your entire D&D party showed up or not - they cannot participate in hacking (OK, fine, they probably have skill-boosting spells or something).


None of them is closed to being optimized. Some are pure RP characters that take feats and skills because they sound great.

I wouldn't call "unoptimized" and "RP" synonyms. In fact, I would go so far as to describe the act of optimizing a character "for RP reasons" to still be optimizing. I think I would describe most of your players as "casual". And not caring about optimization (of any stripe).


What I do, is I push and nudge the group in a certain direction. Otherwise they can spend 5 sessions on where or not they will accept an invite to a friendly drink with a the local nobility. (this is has not happened so exact but you get my drift)

Shrug. Sounds fine. Feel free to describe some of those "nudges" if you're worried.