When it comes to sneak attacking quest givers and charming merchants I usually have a "generic person" stat sheet and just use that for all NPCs that don't have their own stats.
That being said, *puts on fireproof vest* there's nothing wrong with a bit of railroading if you're up front about the game NOT being a sandbox to the players. If you want the quest giver to survive just say: "no you do not sneak attack the quest giver, stop disrupting the game because the alternative is that you kill the quest giver and then we all go home."
I know this forum it's popular to say that the DM should always go with whatever shenanigans the players are doing and the DM should just be good at improvising or stop being a DM but that's not realistic. It takes years of practice to have a chance at being good at improv, some DMs never get good at it. You are allowed to say no.You'll get no fire from me for this action. We've had multiple "DM Rules" threads on this site, and one common rule is "It's okay for the players to disrupt your plot. It's not okay for them to disrupt your game." Disrupting the plot is bypassing the guardhouse to sneak directly into the enemy HQ. Disrupting the game is stopping the adventure before it even gets started.
If a player says they will attack the quest giver, before resolving their action, ask them "Why?". If they can't come up with a reason that isn't essentially "for the lulz!" tell them that you as DM reserve the right to disallow disruptive actions. I think a few cases of players attacking quest givers have been blown out of proportion, as it's not been something I've ever encountered. If you've had a Session Zero, where you went over the type of campaign you're planning, and what type of party dynamics and player behavior is allowed, you're unlikely to run into this problem.
Attacking the quest giver not only affects the character that attacked, but the entire party, who now have to deal with the consequences. If you have a player who attempts any disruptive action (not just attacking the quest giver), always ask why before allowing them to resolve it. Find out their Out-of-Character as well as In-Character reasons. Maybe they have a legitimate grievance. If so, talk to them, and the group, and see if it can be resolved. Maybe it's time to revisit your social contract.
What's a social contract? It's the rules you all agree to abide by, like who brings Pizza, and how long before the session you need to give notice that you will not be available (with obvious exceptions for unplanned emergencies), what happens to PCs when their players are not present, use proper personal hygine, and don't be a jerk. Here's an example from one member of this forum:
Quick Summary:
1. We’re here to have fun.
2. Be constructive, not destructive, to other players (including the DM).
3. Communicate!
4. DM should be able to take constructive criticism.
5. DM should adjust the campaign based on actions of the PCs.
6. DM should not railroad the story.
7. Combat is most exciting when it’s dangerous.
8. DM should not deliberately try to kill PCs, but PCs will probably die occasionally.
9. It’s good to have places/things too powerful for the PCs to defeat.
10. DM needs to communicate when things are too powerful for the PCs to defeat.
11. NPCs should generally follow the same rules the PCs use. But only generally.
12. PCs should be able to attempt things not covered in the rules.
13. The DM runs the game; the dice do not.
14. DM is not required to roll dice in the open (but he can if he wants to).
15. Don’t interrupt the game with long rules arguments.
16. Retcons are to be avoided, but may be used in extreme circumstances.
17. DM shouldn’t try to “win” by beating the players.
18. Characters will occasionally die – permanently.
19. Players should learn the rules of the game.
20. Treat your host with respect, use good personal hygiene, and chip in for/provide your own food and drink (according to arrangements made by your group).
21. Alignment and paladin codes need to be clearly communicated to the players. If players do something “against code”, assume they forgot, and give them a refresher and a chance to change their action.
22. Don’t be a jerk IC unless it’s agreed on beforehand, or OoC.
23. DM can prohibit disruptive PC actions.
24. Players run the PCs, the DM does not.
*****
D&D Manifesto
Send comments to
[email protected]
Occasional bumps in play after adopting the 3rd Edition rules led me to realize that players are just not always operating on the same page as I am. What I say/mean and what they hear/understand are often quite different things. All DM’s face similar problems to one degree or another. Everyone has different ideas of what the approach of a DM or player should be to the game so they may have erroneous assumptions about what those approaches actually ARE. No matter how many years you’ve been discussing rules and little bits of "game philosophy" what you have specifically in mind and what your players understand to be the case are, too often, two very different beasts. Though it had always been a consistent issue before then, in 3rd Edition this produced highly undesirable arguments with players over in-game situations that I decided could and SHOULD have been avoided by communicating with my players as much as I did with people online about D&D. So, I decided to more formally set out some principles of what I think my job is as DM. It’s what I think is the job of every DM. It’s the "rights and responsibilities" of everyone including players. It’s the differences between what the DM can do, should try to do, and is obligated to do.
This document is based on discussions I have read and participated in for decades now on the internet - including before there was even a World Wide Web. Any number of personal conversations and game situations over decades of playing have also contributed, as have my own independent study of the issues. I haven’t personally experienced everything discussed below, but everybody will have seen some part of it in their games and faced resolving the issues created.
You may believe differently than I do on specific issues. This isn’t meant to be a full-blown set of house rules, but a general philosophy to be basing house rules upon. It’s a "same page" for all the participants to work from regardless of the specific rules a DM later applies. As such, when it is edited to fit YOUR ideas it should make a good companion to any collection of house rules you assemble. Discuss it with players. Get their input. Add, modify, delete. I'm not trying to dictate to you how to play - I'm just telling you that you need to have this discussion with your gaming group before you start playing so you can begin and maintain an open dialogue.
I realize that it is LONG. I've tried to keep it as concise as possible while still being clear, but I believe it's important to cover ALL these items. The ones you think don't need to be mentioned may just be the ones that turn out to be more important than the others. I will even suggest that you go so far as to read it aloud before beginning any campaign. If you're running an open game such as at a game store then read it at the beginning of every session and/or have print copies that can be handed out. Have players read along and take them home, and give them your email address so they can provide feedback. If a new player joins the campaign in progress then have THEM read it aloud so there can be no excuses. It will also provide a DM with the ability to say, "We will now re-read the Manifesto because somebody at the table needs to be reminded of what it says." Heck, just add a last line that reads:
"By signing this document, or even by simply agreeing to play in the game which is informed and governed by this document, I agree to abide by its precepts (even if I disagree with some of them) and accept that I will be asked to leave if I cannot or will not do so."
... and have them sign it.
1. The first job of everyone playing the game is to enjoy it. It is the whole point to the exercise. If you're not having fun why are you here?
2. Be constructive. If you're not having fun try to do something about it. Don’t be disruptive in the process. You are there to enjoy yourself, but not to be passively entertained, and not at the expense of others at the table. Active participation is a necessary component - as is your maturity and restraint.
3. Communicate DANG IT! If you aren't having fun as a player, even though you may think it's very obvious, it's quite possible the DM or other players aren't going to know unless you say something. If you’re not enjoying your experience as DM you don’t have to put up with it. Nobody can force you to run a game. Sometimes you become the DM just because everyone else wants to avoid the job more than you do, but remember that no one can take advantage of you without your permission. If you have a problem with ANYTHING in the game: rules, behavior of a player, etc. then SAY SO! ESP is not a standard human ability.
4. The day a DM can't deal with a helpful suggestion or even hard, sincere criticism from players about the campaign is the day the DM needs to give up the chair. The game does not revolve around stroking the DM's ego.
5. A campaign is not absolutely under a DM's control. When PCs take actions within the campaign the campaign needs to adjust to take those actions into account. Through their characters actions the players WILL make changes to the game, therefore the DM cannot and should not attempt to force the campaign to go ONLY in directions he planned for because the freedom that is necessary for player characters can and will foil prearranged plans.
6. Things do not always go as the DM plans (see #5). For this reason among others the DM should really not be seeking to dictate a story. The only way to get characters to play out the story the DM believes they should play out is to force them to. Campaigns are about the player characters. They weave stories created and heavily influenced by the characters actions. D&D wasn't intended to be a game where player characters were simply plugged into a story preordained by the DM and then required to go through the motions to fulfill it. You must provide opportunity for the characters to do things yet not constantly try to control what they do to fit what you wanted. DM's should keep their stinking noses out of EVERY decision that a player makes for a PC unless it's absolutely necessary to maintain order, or specific in-game rules suspend a players control over his characters actions.
7. Danger levels: The most satisfying combats are usually the ones that take characters right to the edge of death, with the very real danger of death being present, yet without actually crossing that threshold unnecessarily. But not only is the game designed to randomize events but even small differences in so many areas combine to make it impossible to plan perfectly. Combat encounters are never a sure thing regardless of how meticulously designed they are. So, while the edge of disaster is the most exciting place to be it is also is the most likely way for events to slip out of control. This is just something that needs to be kept in mind by everyone.
8. A DM who truly sets out to deliberately kill the PCs has no business being a DM. The DM has at all times and in all ways the ability to kill the PCs whenever he bloody well feels like it, so if the DM's does intend to kill the characters what kind of fun is that for anybody? A DM who gets his jollies by thoughtlessly causing players to lose favorite characters and create new ones which they know will stand no better chance of long-term survival doesn't deserve the patience his players undoubtedly have to give him. If the DM is running combats at the edge of danger where the fun is (see #7) then PCs will occasionally die anyway. See also # 17.
9. Even given #’s 7 and 8 above it is still in everybody's interest for a campaign to have places, creatures, or encounters that the PCs are not actually able to defeat. It gives a campaign world a needed aura that it does not exist purely for the benefit of the PCs but has a life of its own. Without it the world becomes a place where the dangers within it always scale precisely - and therefore unrealistically - to the PCs’ capabilities. There is never anything like a real "Canyon of Doom" or legendarily undefeatable monster if its power is always adjusted to what the PCs can immediately handle.
10. Given #9 (that there are people and places that the PCs cannot and should not face) part of the DM's job is to make sure that the players and their characters are suitably warned about lethal dangers. That goes back to #8 – that it is never the DM's job to set out to kill the characters. It is the players’ responsibility to pay attention to those warnings without anyone needing to break character. But if the characters ignore warnings (for whatever reason) the DM is then justified in applying what he actually knows to be lethal force in an encounter. Still doesn't mean he should, just that it can’t really be held against him if he does. What this means for players is that the bull-headed notion of always fighting to the death, never retreating, and never surrendering will ultimately lead only to a TPK (total party kill) which is no fun for anyone.
11. Fair Play: It is generally in the interest of "fair play" for the DM to have the rest of his campaign world operating largely under the same rules that the PCs do. PCs and NPCs should have much the same limitations and open possibilities, but to get fanatical about "being fair" in this regard is not in anyone's interests either. It would mean that the DM is restricted in creating new and interesting challenges for the characters. While there are innumerable options within the existing rules, being allowed to create new rules, singular exceptions to rules, and even things that would not otherwise be possible under the known rules is a DM's prerogative. Only if the DM overuses or abuses this privilege are the players being cheated in any way. The "rules" never have, and never will, contain the absolute answers for everything in a campaign. It may also be that the DM needs to explain some changes up front. Fair play also applies between players. Characters are inherently unequal - in ANY version of the rules - and cannot be made equal; not by balancing feats, skills and abilities; not by everyone having identical ability scores; not even by everyone using completely identical characters because player skill and choice makes a difference too. Enjoyment of the game should not rely on NOBODY possibly having more fun than you at a given time. If it does then you're too immature for MY games. The DM needs only to try to make sure that the gap between one PC and another isn't TOO excessive.
12. As a corollary to #11, the players and their characters are not always bound by "the rules" in what they can do (or at least in what they can attempt.) There simply isn’t a rule for everything. One of a DM's biggest jobs is adjudication and adaptation of rules to the many situations that arise within a game. So by definition PCs can at least attempt to do things outside of the rules. In fact they generally get extra credit for such creativity (unless they make themselves a pest by constantly trying to do things not covered by the rules). To then deny the same privilege to the DM would be silly; to expect the DM to religiously follow rules when the players don’t.
13. The dice don’t run the game - the DM does. There are many charts, tables, formulae, etc for DMs to use in running the game. Naturally, using dice produces random results - at least as random as the tables and charts allow. The game, however, is not LIMITED to the dictates of charts and tables which is why there is the position of DM at all. I feel that not only is the DM free to expand or restrict the tables and formulae, but that he is free to alter dice rolls as well. At least those rolls that would negatively affect the PCs. A little of that (very little!) goes a long way and just because you can doesn’t mean that you should. To fudge things in the favor of the players is a useful tool to have as long as appropriate consequences of BAD decisions by the players or their characters are not being removed as a result. This is a DM's escape clause so it should be used only when as a DM you NEED (not just want) to alter results. To arbitrarily adjust results against the PCs is not a good idea at all. It often serves no purpose but to enforce a preconceived conclusion that the DM has – that the DM wants to force the PCs to conform to his personal vision, meaning that the players control of their own characters is rendered pointless. Remember that as DM it is your job to lose to the PCs - A LOT. I have found that slavish obedience to the dice and their results is too often just an attempt to dodge the responsibilities of the DM as primary instigator of a fun, interesting, and exciting game. The DM already has vast latitude; he can arbitrarily decide how many and how often dice rolls get made as well as many of the modifiers that would affect them. To then say that he must always, unwaveringly accept dice rolls only as-is or else be branded "unfair" or even a cheat is ludicrous. Similarly, there may be times when players should NOT have to roll to succeed regardless of what the rules say. See also # 18.
14. The DM is certainly not required to roll his dice in the open and should normally be discouraged from doing so. There may be factors at work behind the screen that the players should not, and need not be able to deduce by meta-game mathematics. Players and/or their characters will not always know every bonus and penalty that can and is being applied. Also, given #13, it prevents the DM from attempting to work things in the PCs’ favor without unnecessarily revealing that he’s doing so. Players on the other hand should always roll their dice openly. Nothing is kept secret from the DM because the DM needs, and still has adjudication and veto power - the precise details for which are not necessarily important for players to know. The only situation I can think of where a player can hide his rolls is as regards another player - but even then the DM still has authority to see all rolls, even if all the players don't.
15. Differences of Opinion About Rules: Conventional wisdom suggests that whenever it is at all feasible rules-lawyering should be kept to a minimum during the game. Players should concisely state the substance of objections, the DM should make a ruling after listening to all sides, and if players take exception to the ruling it should be noted - but then play should proceed. If a DM is not out to screw the players but to simply provide the best game possible there are very few problems whose minutia could not wait until later (even until after the session is over) to hash out. Also, the DM is not perfect and not everything he rules on in a game should be considered a new law graven in stone. If they make mistakes and change their minds later it doesn’t mean everything from earlier events needs to be "retconned." See #16 below.
16. Retconning or Retcon is short for Retroactive Continuity. It means to "turn back time" to the point where a mistake was made and begin playing again from that point. When bad rulings, oversights, meta-game complications, or bad/boring plots go REALLY bad this is one way to fix things, but it is never very satisfying. If things have not degenerated too far it may be best to handle things this way, but there comes a certain point where it is better to simply accept what has taken place - no matter how stupidly or badly it was done - take it in stride and move forward. The level of screw-up that leads to taking this route always seems to involve a character's death making resolution of the problem more emotionally charged for players than would normally be the case.
17. The DM is not there to formally oppose the players despite what you may read in comics. He is there to provide the world for the characters, things for them to do within it, and to adjudicate their actions. If the DM sees himself as the opponent for the players – he wins. The only question then is how tedious and humiliating an experience he makes it for the players. He gets to make up anything and everything that the characters encounter. There is no ability for the players to trump that, so there can be no purely antagonistic position between players and DM without the DM simply being a gigantic ass.
18. Characters die. They can – and should – occasionally die permanently. It is my firm belief that resurrection magic is in the game only because it is so easy for characters to die and playing on the edge of disaster is more fun and exciting (see #7), but unless permanent character death is more than just a theoretical possibility that never really occurs there is no fear of death and playing "on the edge" is meaningless. Players must accept the real possibility that a favorite character can and will die permanently and that the DM can’t predict when and who it will be. Very seldom will a character even be able to willingly go out in a cinematic blaze of glory. Such things are simply very hard to engineer because the game isn't designed to facilitate it without just throwing all rules to the wind and narrating a predetermined outcome.
19. Players must learn the rules. Nobody needs to pass a rules knowledge test or memorize it all - not even the DM - but it's more than reasonable to expect that players read the entire Players Handbook and be able to understand it. Anyone new to the game needs to accept that they will need to do a lot of reading and put some effort into learning the game, and there is a lot of information they need to absorb right from the start. The basics of the game can be taught in short order, perhaps an hour or at most one game session. After a few sessions of play they should NOT require having basics repeatedly explained. Only if the DM informs players up front that the rules DON'T MATTER, or the player actually has learning disabilities is anyone excused from achieving a general, functional knowledge of the game. Older editions in particular have elements that are confused or questions left unanswered. DMs are required to fill in those gaps in ways suitable to their game. Players should accept that not everything has a single, easy answer or definition.
20. Regarding "Table Rules": Wherever the game session is taking place respect the host and the hosts property. Don't make a mess. Clean it up if you do. Behave. You are a GUEST so act accordingly. Assist the host and/or DM in getting others to respect the Table Rules. Sadly, it is necessary to state that this includes being mindful of your own hygiene. Just because nobody tells you, "You stink!" doesn't mean that you don't. They may want to tell you so but are TOO polite to do so, they don't know how to do it tactfully, or rightly fear that it will be taken for an insult rather than an appropriate reaction to YOUR social offensiveness. This means bathe/shower before a game, wear clean clothes, and brush your teeth. Any simple request that you clean yourself up, stop interrupting, stop being an ass, pay attention to the game instead of the phone/computer/book/your navel lint/etc. must NOT be considered an insult. It will be considered a FAVOR to you; an opportunity to better yourself as a person if not as a player. A simple, direct apology and CORRECTION of the situation is all that should be necessary. Players are typically responsible for their own food, drinks, etc. unless arrangements are made ahead of time. It is BASIC manners to reciprocate other players hospitality if/when it comes to be your turn to host the game. If you so desire or cannot afford to do so then advise people well ahead of time so that other arrangements can be made.
21. There are some game rules which despite being rules are subject to wide interpretation. What alignment means to you and how it works is probably chief among these. Paladins and their obligations are related and a close second. How certain feats actually function, or maybe just what you will and won't allow players/PCs to do are variables. These things MUST be clarified at the start and perhaps even occasionally restated - even if you go by the book. Really, this should be assumed under #3 but communication (or lack thereof) is the single most common cause of ALL problems in D&D. The DM should not always assume the players know what he wants, how he interprets things, or runs things. These things must be TOLD to players early and often to eliminate misunderstandings and arguments. If players are not given this information then they should demand it - and if it isn't provided they must not be held to fault for implementing their own interpretations.
22. Players are obliged to be fair and reasonable to other players, as well as for their characters to act likewise towards other PCs. There is no excuse for either you or your character to be an ass. NONE. The only exception being if the ALL the players are mature enough for their characters to be openly antagonistic of each other, and that the DM has made it clear from the start that such behavior is to be allowed, as well as how it will be kept in line. This is NOT an unreasonable restriction upon roleplaying but is, in fact, a very basic supposition of the game: the PCs, an often radically diverse party of individuals, nonetheless DO adventure together for money, glory, and other mutually agreeable ends. This means that right from the start, as a player you are largely obliged to find reasons for your character to LIKE the other PCs, not openly antagonize them. It means that no player gets to dictate to the other players the circumstances of their participation in the game in general; no character gets to dictate to another character how they are to be treated in the adventuring party, nor may an exclusive collection of two or more players/characters exert such control over one or more others. The DM is obliged to maintain this atmosphere of civility and cooperation, or, if it has been agreed by all beforehand to allow crossing that line, he is obliged to keep in and out-of-character attitudes and behavior from becoming disruptive.
23. The DM is not required to allow a character to actually play out in the game anything that the player wants. What that means is that particularly if the player is about to do something the DM feels is either really stupid or openly disruptive he should stop the game and get clarification or correction before proceeding. For example, if a character is about to kill an NPC for no reason, then rather than allow it to happen the DM should stop the player and find out what's going on. Determine the player's/character's motive. If the players response is unsatisfactory he should DISALLOW the action from taking place at all and let play proceed from THAT point instead of proceeding from the point AFTER the disruptive act has been allowed to occur and trying to pick up the pieces. Communication flows both ways and the DM does not need to act as if players should be forbidden to ever knows what goes on in a DM's mind or behind the DM shield. When a DM makes rulings there is no reason not to freely explain why he rules as he does unless there is in-game information involved that PCs should not be privy to. DMs should be capable of providing explanations for their rulings beyond, "because I said so."
24. The players run their characters - the DM does NOT. Unless players are being disruptive just for the sake of being disruptive the DM should keep his stinking paws off controlling the PCs. The DM does not dictate what the PC's do except if some form of in-game magical control has removed it from the player (such as charm, or lycanthropy) - and then the DM needs to be VERY judicious about what he does with the character. The ONE THING players get to control in the game is the attempted actions of their characters. DM's should interfere with that control only in extremis and with great care and caution even then. This extends to not interfering with treasure distribution. Although the DM determines what treasure is found it must generally be left up to the players and their characters to determine how it is distributed - unless it is done so badly as to be disruptive or patently unfair to other players.