GM Tips, Tricks, & General Advice

[cailano]

I have to disagree with almost all of your points.

Raise Dead should be able to be used within a day or two, IF the characters can afford the cost. Just imagine if Koral (My Rogue) was fighting the Undead Prince, and got him to 1 HP, but then the prince ended her life and escaped to heal up and be good as new. That would turn an epic fight into something you would see at the end of a scooby doo episode.

Fair enough, but I would bring up that the entire Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign ceases to exist with the application of a single raise dead spell, and what king wouldn't have someone on hand to bring him back if he knew he was dying? Also, didn't scooby doo always end with the monster not really being a monster and they'd take the mask off and it would be the old janitor or something? And he would always say "... if it weren't for you meddlin' kids!"

[Garrett Bishop]

Fair enough, but I would bring up that the entire Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign ceases to exist with the application of a single raise dead spell, and what king wouldn't have someone on hand to bring him back if he knew he was dying? Also, didn't scooby doo always end with the monster not really being a monster and they'd take the mask off and it would be the old janitor or something? And he would always say "... if it weren't for you meddlin' kids!"

Maybe the king was overconfident, or his wife forbid the resurrection... Ok I see your point on the raise dead.

[Blackfox42]

I don't know much about the Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign, but if the king died via Old Age, No spell can bring him back, as you can't be resurrected from a natural death. Also, there are many ways that resurrection can be blocked, from spells, to special abilities of monsters.

However, I do agree that it seems to take away the thrill of the game, especially at higher levels when True Resurrection becomes available and at such high levels, even its 25,000 GP cost doesn't seem all that high to characters that routinely throw away 8 +1 longswords an encounter (Just an example, and probably an exaggeration, but you get my drift.).

As for flight and teleport, I've never really considered banning them. You make good points, though I still don't think I would, unless I was playing a specific style of game where they didn't exist. Flight is such a staple of most Wizards lists that I would feel I was detracting from their characters by banning it. And teleport only becomes a problem if people feel the need to use it, because the travelling from area to area becomes tedious. In my opinion, this whole thing simply goes back to your point about tailoring the Encounters to the Players, not the Players to the Encounters. If you know you have a wizard that can fly and teleport, you just have to plan accordingly. Sure, those fire giants charging the party with Greatswords aren't much of a problem to a Wizard that can fly...Until one of the Fire Giants quaffs a potion of Flight and chases him into the sky.

My general rule of thumb to the party is this. If you can find a way to do it, go right ahead. Just remember that if you can do it, so can the enemies.

[cailano]

I don't know much about the Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign, but if the king died via Old Age, No spell can bring him back, as you can't be resurrected from a natural death. Also, there are many ways that resurrection can be blocked, from spells, to special abilities of monsters.

However, I do agree that it seems to take away the thrill of the game, especially at higher levels when True Resurrection becomes available and at such high levels, even its 25,000 GP cost doesn't seem all that high to characters that routinely throw away 8 +1 longswords an encounter (Just an example, and probably an exaggeration, but you get my drift.).

As for flight and teleport, I've never really considered banning them. You make good points, though I still don't think I would, unless I was playing a specific style of game where they didn't exist. Flight is such a staple of most Wizards lists that I would feel I was detracting from their characters by banning it. And teleport only becomes a problem if people feel the need to use it, because the travelling from area to area becomes tedious. In my opinion, this whole thing simply goes back to your point about tailoring the Encounters to the Players, not the Players to the Encounters. If you know you have a wizard that can fly and teleport, you just have to plan accordingly. Sure, those fire giants charging the party with Greatswords aren't much of a problem to a Wizard that can fly...Until one of the Fire Giants quaffs a potion of Flight and chases him into the sky.

My general rule of thumb to the party is this. If you can find a way to do it, go right ahead. Just remember that if you can do it, so can the enemies.

Which is exactly why I ban it. If you have one character flying around like a superhero, others will need to follow him up and then you have a battle that is way outside genre.

I do however admit that this is completely based in opinion and I seem to have the minority opinion, but banning flight and teleport goes a long way to creating the type of adventures that I enjoy reading about or watching on screen.

It's very interesting seeing how others deal with the issue, however.

[willvr]

I've DMed and played in some quite high-level games; and Flight has never been an issue. Teleport was only ever used to cut down on time back and forth from the dungeon. Wizards don't -want- to get exposed in the air.

Raise Dead - It's... tricky. I don't flat-out ban it; but I do take methods to stop it from being the revolving door...

Wish; just stick to the parameters given in the PHB. It's the one I've come closest to outright banning.

[cailano]

So am I to understand that I'm the only DM here that bans any spells at all? I feel so draconian.

[Hibernate_Paths]

Well I haven't DM'ed in a long time (not since 2nd edition) but I like your idea of limiting/eliminating some of the more powerful spells. It keeps the game more down to earth...get it? Really though I find it attractive, but I can see both sides as valid.

I DO have a DM question though. I want to run a game eventually, and I'm building a world. I have a map, a bunch of places semi-fleshed out, and some quests in mind.
My question is: how "complete" do you build your adventure/campaign before you start? Like, how much is prepared, and how much is improv? Do you get all the details down so you are confident on what comes next, or just build and outline and fill it in as you go?

Does the slower pace of PbP effect this?

[willvr]

Depends - you using modules; or making your own adventures? I tend to use modules; though I tweak them, sometimes lightly, sometimes heavily. The adventure, as has been commented before, needs to be crafted around your players. The campaign; well, I usually have my starting point fairly well fleshed out; and design the rest as I go. But I know people who insist on having every little bit fleshed out.

[Guest]

So am I to understand that I'm the only DM here that bans any spells at all? I feel so draconian.

Just my two cents, i also ban Raise Dead and all variations. i warn my players early on that death in my games is indeed permanent.

But the real lesson should be to play the game that you and your players are most comfortable with. If you do decide to include Raise Dead, here is an interesting article to consider.

http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/resurrection.htm

[cailano]

Well I haven't DM'ed in a long time (not since 2nd edition) but I like your idea of limiting/eliminating some of the more powerful spells. It keeps the game more down to earth...get it? Really though I find it attractive, but I can see both sides as valid.

I DO have a DM question though. I want to run a game eventually, and I'm building a world. I have a map, a bunch of places semi-fleshed out, and some quests in mind.
My question is: how "complete" do you build your adventure/campaign before you start? Like, how much is prepared, and how much is improv? Do you get all the details down so you are confident on what comes next, or just build and outline and fill it in as you go?

Does the slower pace of PbP effect this?

Actually my next set of posts is going to deal with world building so this is a great segue.

Quick answer for you though: It doesn't need to be complete on a large scale, but should be fairly detailed on a small scale. There is absolutely nothing wrong with detailing only a single city and perhaps the immediate area around it, or perhaps just a single duchy of a single kingdom, with only a handful of villages and environs.

My motto when designing a campaign world is "think small." This will have two effects: one, it will make designing your setting much less time consuming and two: it will make your world feel huge in comparison to the place your group is actually adventuring in.

I'll go into a lot more detail in upcoming posts.

[cailano]

Well I haven't DM'ed in a long time (not since 2nd edition) but I like your idea of limiting/eliminating some of the more powerful spells. It keeps the game more down to earth...get it? Really though I find it attractive, but I can see both sides as valid.

I DO have a DM question though. I want to run a game eventually, and I'm building a world. I have a map, a bunch of places semi-fleshed out, and some quests in mind.
My question is: how "complete" do you build your adventure/campaign before you start? Like, how much is prepared, and how much is improv? Do you get all the details down so you are confident on what comes next, or just build and outline and fill it in as you go?

Does the slower pace of PbP effect this?

If your question is less to do with setting than with actual adventure material, I would again say "think small." Start with a single adventure, divided into three acts. Have between one and three encounters in the first act, which should also involve the players in the main plot. Next a middle section of four to six encounters. This section should include one or more major new plot elements so that your adventure doesn't sag in the middle and lose your player's interest. Finally you should have a third act of three to five encounters, one of which is the final boss fight.

So that's already a lot of preparation! You only need to have the first act encounters completely designed before you start, but you should definitely have an outline of the rest and know where your adventure is going. You're thinking anywhere from 7 to 14 encounters, total. Remember to mix in a variety of them. Combat encounters will probably be the majority, but role playing encounters (which still need conflict and interactivity!) environmental encounters and maybe even some investigation or other types of encounters will add variety to your game. Remember to make each encounter challenging and interactive for the players. Get them making decisions and rolling dice as much as possible.

By the end of this single adventure you will probably have a half dozen ideas for a larger campaign, which may or may not be in line with what you've thought already. Think small and play big!

[RaistlinMC]

I like the idea of banning Raise Dead simply because my campaign features a lot of death. Death for NPCs and PCs alike. The story is brutal, visceral and downright nasty at times; I would hate to take away any of that suspense because of high level magic.

Perhaps, someday, if my PCs make it to the highest levels, I'll have to change my mind, but for now, there are no hero points, there are no re-rolls, and there is no DM fudging and/or intervention. If the dice say you die, you die. Most of my players have back-up PCs ready and raring to go, in fact!

[Vlad]

I just chanced upon this thread. Very interesting; nice work, Cai. I have no time to comment extensively right now, but perhaps I will return and start arguiing with you soon :-).

[cailano]

World Building

Building a game world is one of the most extensive tasks any game master can take on, yet it seems that more of them want to use their own settings than any published material. I'm not sure what it is about making a world, but it seems to be a near universal attraction for those who want to run these games.

There is so much to consider when creating a setting for your game. How many nations are there? How large are they? Do they get along? Are they at war? What gods to the people follow (if any?) what magic works there (if any?) what creatures besides humans call the world home? What dangers lurk there? Is the world for one epic campaign, or many?

My best advice I can give a new game master is to think small when world building. Start with a map of a limited region. Add in some mountains and / or rivers or other geographic features. Draw a couple of arrows that point off the map and indicate what is out there. Now draw a few dots to represent villages or cities. Try to place them logically. For instance, villages tend to be near water. Cities tend to form in resource rich areas, or along major ports or crossroads. Mining towns tend to be near mountains.

Now... if you were going to attack this new region of yours... how would you do it? How would you enter the area? Put a castle or fort down on some good choke points for that attack.

Who lives in the castle, or mans the fort? How to they maintain control of the area? How do they collect taxes to afford their fortifications and soldiers? How do they feed their garrison? How do they get the armor, weapons and cloth they need, or horses for their men?

What of the people they collect taxes from? How do they make their money? Are they farmers? Craftsmen? A mix? Are they serfs or is there a town dwelling middle class? How are artists treated?

What god or gods do they worship in this region? Is it different or the same as those worshiped by the ruling class? The same or different than surrounding regions? How do these religions get along? If there is only one religion, does it exist in perfect harmony or is there is possible schism?

What, besides humans, lives in this area? Dwarves? Elves? Something else? Do orcs dwell in the mountains? Are dragons ever seen in the skies? How do the common folk defend against such monstrous threats?

If there are only humans in your area - or primarily humans - are they all of the same ethnicity? Are their clans? Is the ruler of this land a king or queen, or is it someone who owes fealty to a higher power yet?

What is the government like? Monarchy? Despotism? A republic? Something else entirely like a magocracy?

Does the kingdom flourish or flounder? Are its people happy or on the verge of rebellion?

Get me a time line of the last 100 years in this region. 100 years is as far as living memory gets for humans. You only need to know vague details about what happened before that. The last 100 years is fresh though. Has the region been at peace that whole time or were there wars? Who won? Was the region occupied? By whom? what became of them?

Go through this process and answer most of those questions and you will have a well developed region, and the beginnings of a campaign world. You will be amazed at what comes out of your mind when you think small when it comes to your setting.

Remember, people don't live in the world, they live in their town. By thinking small, your world will feel very large indeed.

[RaistlinMC]

Ahhh, my first DM ever on this site, and the game's still going strong...good to see you, Vlad

And that is good world-building advice, Cai. All things I've had to learn on the fly in my own story.