Am I right to be concerned?

[WinterSolstice]

A colleague of mine recently attracted a group of about 4 people who have never played DnD before, but were curious as to the content of it. At first I was thrilled, the hobby growing is always a good thing.

My excitement began to wither when he began going into detail about the campaign.

He plans on running an evil-PC campaign, in an 18th century-steampunk fantasy London setting. He plans on having 6 PC's 5 of which are completely new to DnD and one of which has played less than 5 games.

I attempted to point out to him the enormous amount of potential pitfalls in such a situation. He countered by saying that he would be bringing in a second DM to co-write the story and help manage combat.

Now, If this were a group of people who had some experience with DnD, I wouldn't care one way or another, but by my line of thinking....these poor people aren't going to have any idea what's going on, and are very likely to take away the wrong impression of DnD.

It's fine to deviate from established fantasy tropes when they get boring....but you've gotta ESTABLISH them first before drawing away from them!


Am I over-reacting? Did anyone else start off their experiences with DnD with an Unconventional campaign concept/table layout?

If anyone shares my sentiments, please suggest ways that I could convince this DM to reconsider his campaign.

[Totally Guy]

You aren't a player in this group?

Apart from knowing the people involved what business of this is yours?

[WinterSolstice]

You aren't a player in this group?

Apart from knowing the people involved what business of this is yours?

I was invited. I abstained from answering until I had time to consider it.

[JeenLeen]

I wouldn't be as concerned about running a nonstandard setting as running the evil campaign. D&D has a bad reputation among a lot of groups. If I were introducing people to the game, I would start with a standard fantasy setting with good (or at least neutral) characters.

I know it's benefitted me to be able to honestly use examples from my games to combat family or friends who say ill things about the game.

Some of this might be waved depending on the age of the group and what other types of games they've played, but it sounds like they're inexperienced with tabletop RPGs at least. Console RPGs could give a basis in story-telling and even morality choices.

With the setting: If I were learning a new tabletop or especially learning tabletop for the first time, I would like to learn it standard before learning it modified or with a lot of houserules (which a setting shift might require.)

[Halaster]

I think there's absolutely no compelling reason to start people out on standard fantasy fare. It is not inherently easier to play or understand than other genres.

It mostly depends on medial socialization. If your fellow players have all soaked up LotR and similar stuff, they might be well served with classical D&D. If they are WoW buffs, 4e might be better. And so on.

I've started out new players with just about anything from classical D&D to Warhammer, to Deadlands and Adventure!, and I haven't found a reason to prefer any setting or genre to others, so long as everyone knows what you're talking about. So for your game, make sure people have an idea what the setting is about and don't suddenly ask the GM where the airships come from, and you'll be fine.

The poster above me has a point though: hose rules might make many things confusing, so perhaps D&D isn't the best ruleset for what you're doing. Think about using GURPS or Savage Worlds instead.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Are the players new to RPGs or just to D&D? If the latter, advise the DM to have a pre-game "alignment talk" so that everyone knows exactly what an "evil" campaign means. Forewarned is forearmed.

If the former, then I would be far more cautious about starting them off with an Evil campaign. Playing people with normal morality is hard enough for novices - playing sociopaths is going to be terribly off-putting. That said, a pre-game alignment talk with a Q&A (and taking things slowly in-game) and he should be fine.

[Woodsman]

Honestly, I've found playing an Evil character to be rather easy.

Of course, playing someone Evil lets you do the things you've always wanted to try but know aren't right. And being Evil is always fun, IMO.

But yeah, starting off-the-bat evil isn't much of a good idea with those new to D&D. Especially since a lot of people envision D&D as playing a hero with others and defeating the BBEG.

[kemmotar]

I'd say it depends on the kind of people the DM has attracted. When I first started I played an LE rogue. I did have quite a lot of background in non tabletop RPGs and what I enjoy in D&D is the ability to actually do whatever you want and be whatever you wanna be within the game.

I enjoy playing LE characters though it's usually the out for myself kind of LE, which is similar to CN and didn't find it hard to start with an evil character. If the DM wants to play an evil campaign not taking the new player's preference into account then they may walk away with the wrong impression and not enjoy what they might otherwise have loved.

My suggestion is ask the players if they want to play an evil campaign, if not perhaps an alignment neutral campaign would be good where the players can choose any workable alignment without worrying about too many details. If they wanna play an evil campaign and think they will enjoy it there's no reason why they shouldn't try.

Also, on the setting, it might be better if you gather the new players and explain the general rules of D&D as applied in the particular setting. Don't start with this is normal D&D, these are the houserules, these are the setting changes. Start with this is what we will be playing. If they like it and want to continue playing, once the campaign is over, in a normal D&D setting or a different one explain the differences once they have grasped the general feel of the game.

It all depends on how the DM, and you if you decide to join, explain the game and let it play out. The DM obviously can control circumstances and you as a senior player can point out a few things in game. Also, a good idea would be to not overdo the alignment rules in the first few sessions as senior players still argue alignment issues...

[Pie Guy]

I wouldn't be worried about the aloignment, as long as it's what the players want.

I'd actually be more concerned with starting at high level, when the sheer amount of choices would be kind of hard to comprehend, and the players might be completely outclassed by the DM. But if the DM can handle a party of Fighters and Evokers, then it'll be fine.

[Jarawara]

It's fine to deviate from established fantasy tropes when they get boring....but you've gotta ESTABLISH them first before drawing away from them!

I used to think the same way, until a particular exchange occurred in my game that gave me new insight.

I was running a game with lots of undead for my three regular players, and we had just added in a fourth, Flanagan, who was new to D&D. He was having a bit of trouble adjusting, not knowing some of the basic realities of the game. Like, for example, he went toe to toe with the Wraith, without any magical weaponry. He just wasn't getting the clue that his axe was passing right through the wraith doing no damage.

So while I tried to explain it all to Flanagan, and was thinking on how I could adjust the game to make it easier on him, Steve brought up the point about how we should always establish 'The Standard' before deviating from it. Steve argued we should be doing standard battles with tribes of Orcs, not dealing with unusual creatures like wraiths.

Katy interrupts. "No, not Orcs. That's just as odd as battles with wraiths. We should be playing standard D&D, not mass battles. We should be doing dungeon crawls, fighting monstrosities, singularly, and collecting their loot afterwards. Traps, puzzles, the occasional monster fight, but no mass battles and no 'themes' of enemies with evil overlords. Stick to the standard."

So David chimes in. "But that's not standard D&D either. D&D is a story based game. Dungeon crawls are secondary, something to fill the time between stories. We need more in-town adventures, roleplays, and yes to the evil overlords, as there is always someone behind the troubles we are facing."

And that's when I saw it so clearly. There is no standard. Some were brought up on roleplay. Some on mass battles. Some on dungeoncrawls. And some on 'themed' enemies (like my transylvania/undead based game).

And some... were raised on Steampunk, and some were taught early that D&D is a player vs player game. Someday, they will find it interesting to play 'an alternate style' wherein you cooperate with the other players and go spelunking in a dungeon, looking for lost treasure, but they will always see 'standard' D&D as what they started out with.

Myself, I don't get how so many people think that D&D standard is a party of four characters, each some variation of the classic four classes. I know from my own early experience that the standard D&D group has 8-12 players, each character with henchmen and hirelings, and when we set our 'marching order', we organize the nearly sixty miniatures on the battleboard into combat formations to react to all possible enemy threats. That's my standard D&D.

[Calinero]

I've never understood the appeal of Evil campaigns...but I would just make sure that the players know that evil campaigns are not the norm, and that they don't judge all D&D games by the one they play here. For good, or bad--some D&D games are probably better than this one, and some are probably worse.

[lsfreak]

I'd be concerned about the evil. It takes a lot more to play an evil campaign well, especially with new players who are generally more likely to fall into lawful stupid/chaotic stupid roleplaying. If he plays this out, he's going to have to make it very, very clear that they can't go on rampages or attack other party members without consequences; that they are playing masterminds and not mass murderers.

[Roderick_BR]

I'd be a bit concerned, if they end up thinking D&D is those darkness-based games like World of Darkness settings. It would really be better to do something Lord of the Rings-ish, that more people may have seen. Try to talk to him about it. A more simple game would be better for a one-shot, just so they learn the basics. After that, you guys could start showing new stuff.
And yeah, avoid starting at high level. It makes new players get used to poweful starting characters.

[Olo Demonsbane]

Is he building these characters, or is he expecting newbies to build 15th level characters?

Plus, I just have to ask this...Why?

[Satyr]

If "evil" campaigns are a good thing or a bad one depends largely on how this is conceptualised An EVIL "let's burn the orphanage and have a baby seal slaughter challenge" campaign is stupid (and hilarious) and generally not very interesting (apart from the comedy value).
A moral ambigious campaign with several layered plots and no party which is clearly morally superior and the player characters are likewise ambigious and no perfect messianic figures can also be conscidered to be an evil campaign by someone. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Especially for new players such a campaign would be greatly preferable, since they don't have to cope with all the black and white moral nonsense in addition to the rules, which enforces a certain degree of suspension of disbelief and that is a skill a new player has to learn beforehand.

Original, self-created settings are often more interesting than officially published ones, because they are often stronger connected to the GM's interest, pace and plot elements. There is also no reason to reproduce the same old standard fantasy clichés yet again. If the " 18th century-steampunk fantasy London setting" sounds like a good idea to everyone, it is probably a good idea for this group.
Apart from laziness and the lack of originality, there is no reason whatsoever to use the standard clichés instead of a unique setting with a more innovative design and connotations.

Now, I would say that for completely new players D&D is a terrible system to begin with, as the limits for the personal input in the character is extraordinarily limited and people are forced easily into playing stereotypes instead of round, multidimensional characters, but it is likely that these are just personal preferences.

[magellan]

While i agree with your DM and also think that this years christmas special of doctor who was better than the easter special, I also agree with your asessment that you should cover the basics first.
The problem with evil characters for new players is that one of them might try to win.

[Xuincherguixe]

I have come to the conclusion that while I generally feel it is inappropriate for PCs to play as villains, it is entirely appropriate for them to play antiheroes.

A villain is someone repulsive, and unredeemable. They are things to be overcome.

An anti hero is someone who can still be imagined as a protagonist. They may have flaws. They might even be entirely unsympathetic, but they are still capable of solving problems.

The line is blurry, but in order for a roleplaying game to work you need to have characters who are capable of working together to overcome challenges. Even if you're a bunch of serial killers.


Playing a team of sociopaths in Shadowrun makes more sense than playing a group in a typical fantasy setting, because it's a much more complex world. In which the existence of good and evil is reasonably debatable. There does seem to be an assumption you're playing a gang of robin hood like anarchists. But it does acknowledge that some might want to be a cold blooded hitman. In Tolkien like fantasy, good and evil are physical forces. Go down the road of using questionable methods in the name of effectiveness and you'll eventually end up a monster. It tends not to support dark protagonists.

This is not to say that it can't be done, but I think that before people start rolling up serial killers they should try being heroes first. Even if they do use questionable tactics. It can be fun to be a smart hero too. Shoot people during transformation sequences. Set the haunted house on fire instead of venturing inside to destroy the evil book. Shoot the villain when he's mocking you. Offer to join the villain in his evil quest, then stab him the moment his back is turned.


Not sure how well D&D handles steam punk, but it's hardly unreasonable. I understand Eberron is kind of like that.

[ondonaflash]

For new players I find that the most simple introduction is to have them play through an adventure they're already familiar, Lord of the Rings, one of the Drizzt Do'Urden books? the Wizard of Oz is a personal favorite, adjusted for D&D of course.

The biggest problem with roleplaying evil with first timers is that they tend to roleplay the path of least resistance, that is, psychopaths. its evil to the extreme, and when they think that this is the type of game where there won't be a response of any variety, it seems like the easiest choice.

[Riffington]

I'm not sure where the "high level" thing is coming from (maybe I'm poorly reading OP?), but high level is a bad idea with new players. Just too many things to think about.

Antiheroes are cool, and there's nothing wrong with playing them. They can even be villains. Psychopaths would be less fun for many groups - though I wouldn't assume that new players would necessarily gravitate towards them.

I don't think anyone should play D&D without first playing Keep on the Borderlands. Steampunk, however, is great, and I think that would be an outstanding first game to play. Props to your DM.

[monty]

If "evil" campaigns are a good thing or a bad one depends largely on how this is conceptualised An EVIL "let's burn the orphanage and have a baby seal slaughter challenge" campaign is stupid (and hilarious) and generally not very interesting (apart from the comedy value).
A moral ambigious campaign with several layered plots and no party which is clearly morally superior and the player characters are likewise ambigious and no perfect messianic figures can also be conscidered to be an evil campaign by someone. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Especially for new players such a campaign would be greatly preferable, since they don't have to cope with all the black and white moral nonsense in addition to the rules, which enforces a certain degree of suspension of disbelief and that is a skill a new player has to learn beforehand.

This, very much. It's one thing to play a character who has few moral compulsions and is willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done. It's another thing entirely to play a character who sets villages on fire out of boredom and attacks everyone they run into.

Unfortunately, new players are probably more likely to play the latter, since they're probably not experienced with creating complex character personalities.

[grautry]

There's nothing wrong with a steampunk setting.

But I'd also be concerned about the evil alignment idea. There's nothing wrong with it in your standard group, where everyone is at least a bit experienced but it might come of badly in a new group.

It probably wouldn't be that much of a bad idea if it was a general cartoony-evil, the sort that laughs maniacally while twirling his moustache. But going into a campaign where you are expected to be seriously evil can push the comfort zones of certain players in the wrong way.

I think that the DM simply needs to ask the players whether they are comfortable in playing a game like that. Especially if you're going to be tackling issues that are very emotional - like say, rape.

Also, I haven't seen you writing anything about high-level play but someone else commented on it, so just let me say that if it's the truth that's a BAD idea. Just bad. For someone inexperienced with RPG's, D&D is going to be complex enough to learn without introducing 15 levels of items, spells and new mechanics.

[Satyr]

Unfortunately, new players are probably more likely to play the latter, since they're probably not experienced with creating complex character personalities.

That depends a lot less on how long the people play and much more on how old the new players are and what kind of expectations and prior experiences the new players bring with them - and the style of the first group. Which is why I think it is obligatory to make sessions and campaigns with new players as awesome and diversified as possible, not only to keep their interest intact, but also to give a direction for the new players.