This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Greenhorn

Ok, so I will soon be running D&D 4th edition with a friend, for an indeterminate number of players, all of whom have never played before. I haven't played any RPG before, and neither have my friends. I've done research, and I understand that D&D is incredibly similar to videogames, and the contents of the box I've reviewed so far have convinced me that the rules are easy and combat-oriented, which, is ideal. I know all of you have some nerdy hate boner for D&D, which is cool, just don't touch me with it. I have Burning Wheel. I bought it. It is in my future already. What I'm going to ask now is: what do I do? What should I do to introduce the rules to players; and what should I do to make our real campaign? How feasible is creating a campaign from scratch? Do I need to buy the other supplemental materials? I know little. There is fan crafted content that people have posted- How difficult is it to do what they are doing? I may have more specific questions at a later date, possibly tonight.
I own the red box that comes with dice and has the manual that works like a choose your own adventure- and it does emphasize that it's an adventure and NOT an instruction guide.
«1

Comments

  • As a warning in the beginning. I don't actually know anything about D&D especially 4th ed and everything I'm going to say is based on things I've heard in my days in the Internet.

    D&D is not "incredibly similar to videogames", but if you think games like Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age: Origins there is some little similarities. In my understanding the new Red Box should have been designed to be easy starting point for new players so you should have all the tools you need to run a game of D&D with you. Only additional thing you need is imagination and lot's of skills that come with some training and just playing and running games.

    As I see it a traditional D&D campaign might be something like this: A group of people (player characters) run around the world and for some reason stop to help people in their troubles, usually involving some kind of dungeons and lots of monsters to kill and maybe advancing some greater plot while doing this adventuring.

    Also as a extra candy on top, free of charge an idea for a adventure. There is a small village called Albera while passing though there, maybe stopping by it's great, although smallish inn, the adventuring party hear about the village's troubles. In the depths of close by woods there stands a menacing tower and in that tower lives immortal elf Remulus de Perez and every now and then, always on full moons Remulus sends some of his minions to capture some of the children of the townfolk. The party is asked to go to the tower, find the missing children and put a stop to the elf's evil.
    In the tower there is traps, monsters and combat encounters, have fun.
  • edited March 2012
    My judgements are probably somewhat clouded because I "began" running games at the age of five, independantly of any other GM to show me the ropes. A game was bought for me, and I played it with my friends. But here's some very general advice:

    In the case of D&D 4e, they have a weekly encounters program on their website. You can search for a local game, and go participate in a session. I don't think these really qualify as a full-on roleplaying game (it's more of a tactical skirmish miniatures game), but a single session with a more experienced group should let you quickly grok the core combat mechanics of the game. It will take approximately four hours of your time to play, once you've found out where and contacted the GM. Even if the game is terrible, you will probably get more rules knowledge faster this way to start.

    There are an overwhelming number of different core components for any individual to take on immediately. I would recommend only taking on one or two core components in any single session till you start to feel confident.

    Generally I think most groups start one of two ways...

    Character Construction:
    In the first session, have the players construct characters. They will likely learn a lot about the mechanics just from making the choices (and asking questions) about the process. You should prepare ahead of time by learning how to create characters yourself from the books and get acquainted with it all. By doing this together and in a group, people should learn from each other. The biggest problem with this is having all of the information at hand so it's a shared process and not everyone having to pass around a book. You can maybe work your way around this by taking them through the steps simultaneously.

    Follow this up with a simple pre-defined combat encounter. "Orc and Pie" is a silly concept, but it would be applicable here. A baker's pie has been taken by orcs. The players track the orcs down, and if they can kill them all they get to keep the pie for themselves. (Possibly fun with real pie.) Just pick any four 1st level standard enemies to make up the thiefs group and let the players figure out how to kill them...
    Pre-Gens & Combat
    So the alternative to creating characters is to use pre-made ones. This is generally how most games introduce players now, because making characters is a lot of work and doesn't get to the exciting parts of the game particularly fast. When I run one-shot games or test new systems, this is what I do personally.

    In the case of 4e dungeons and dragons, combat takes quite a while usually. For this reason, your first adventure would likely only need to string together two or three encounters in some way, so don't worry about getting too detailed. A classic start is to have the party be traveling together already (established in their backstories you created with the pre-gens) and open up with a combat (ambush on the road or something similar). Give the party a breadcrumb from there to hint at another problem, and see what motivates your players to follow-up on it, eventually leading into the second (or third) encounter.

    This would be a good way to also find out if your players are likely to be the kind that follow any clue down any rabbit hole or if they need alternative motivations (gold usually in D&D). You could also solve that question in advance of course by just talking with your players and asking them what kind of game they want to play. Actually... start there nomatter what.
    The big meta question after you have basic rules understanding is to figure out "why are we playing", and from there solve what people want the game to be. This varies from group to group, and while I think it's the most important question to answer, it's also complicated as hell and you really don't need to dwell on it until you've played a little. Asking your players about what they liked and disliked and what they wanted more of will give you a whole lot more information than asking them what they think they want beforehand.
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
  • I'd also reccomend you seek out the Major Spoilers Critical hit podcast.

    Also, Hit up the wizards website, and if you don't have it already, somehow acquire a copy of the DM's guide. Both have some pretty good advice on the topic.
  • edited March 2012
    Roleplaying is about story telling. The best sessions I have had are those where the GM managed to get us involved in the story. With complete newbies it is therefore important that you choose an "obvious" narrative like the "adventurers going around helping people" mentioned here already. If you don't want to be so stereotypical you can also choose from pop culture, e.g., a movie that you all have seen and like. Start out with a setting and theme similar to it.

    It is impossible to underestimate the ability of players to act upon clues, don't rely on the plot moving forward at the players action.

    Watch this for some grade A GM:ing. Note the obviousness of the plot, and how the plot advances.

    Post edited by Dr. Timo on
  • If you have no love for you DM then read this and take notes. ^_^ You can actually learn some good things from this too but I would take the advice already given by others here for newcomers.
  • I know it may seem odd, but 4chan's /tg/ board is a pretty good resource for a DM. Ask of them specific questions and you'll get pretty good answers.
  • edited March 2012
    He'll also get answers he didn't ask questions for. He'll also find several fetishes that will haunt him for the rest of his life.

    EDIT: These are good things.
    Post edited by Not nine on
  • edited March 2012
    Roleplaying is about story telling.
    Sometimes. For some groups. To varying different degrees. That's why I think the real question ends up being "why are you playing?" because answering that question will answer the rest of your questions most of the time.

    Personally, I "want" to play and run games that are heavily about story telling and creative excercise, but I'm versatile and can enjoy a pretty wide variety of other focuses. And the biggest thing to me is getting the whole group to buy in to a compromise that satisfies the group.

    I'm just trying to cut off any of the sort of elitism, "Bad wrong fun", and "you're doing it wrong" thoughts about gaming in general.
    It is impossible to underestimate the ability of players to act upon clues, don't rely on the plot moving forward at the players action..
    And on this, you're right for most cases and most types of games. I think it's also important to note that there are absolutely types of games that depend intrinsically on the players moving the plot forward. Right now I'm running a fairly open sandbox campaign, which is very-much a hybrid of site based, event based, and player based mechanisms.

    Also it can swing both ways. I've had players intuit huge amounts of plot (not necessarily the one I had in mind either) from small hooks, details, and nuances. If I were trying to teach an actual GMing class, a whole section of it would be devoted to listening to my players interests and allowing the game to be shaped by their expectations (both in the negative, the affirmative, and with all sorts of twists and such). That's the one thing I really like (and dislike) about Burning Wheel as a game - that the actual game mechanics exist to be driven and shaped by such things. As for why I can dislike that at times, there are certain players that inherently dislike those kind of mechanics and there are times where I also sort of benefit from having those sort of tricks be something entirely "behind the screen". Both methods have merits... once again.

    I am the grayest gray-person ever sometimes.
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
  • Roleplaying is about story telling.
    Sometimes. For some groups. To varying different degrees.
    No matter what, whenever you play an RPG, you are engaged in storytelling. The story could be, "OK, so your rogue gets a critical hit on the bugbear." That's not exactly an exciting story, but it's still a story.

    How many RPG player's love to engage in meta-talk about a session? "Oh man, this one time, my paladin was at like 5 HP, and I got this streak of 20's and just annihilated the front line of this invading force of orcs!" That's also a story.

    Different games focus on different kinds of stories, and different ways of generating and telling them. But it's all storytelling in the end.
  • edited March 2012
    Saying that the game contains storytelling or has a story or is part of a story is slightly different than saying that a game is "about storytelling". If you include the meta of the stories, then baseball is "about storytelling". If you're going that far, I'll accept that your conclusion makes sense given your premise... but I don't think it's a particularly meaningful statement in this context.

    Does that sufficiently clarify my statement?
    Post edited by Anthony Heman on
  • edited March 2012
    Also, don't be afraid to throw away what you have. Keep a central framework, and attach or remove bits as nessassary. If one of your players, say, "figures out" part of the grand evil plot, and it makes more sense, or is more consistent, or is just downright more fun sounding than what you had in it's place(if you had something in place) then roll with it, and re-use the bit you had later on.

    Also, don't be afraid to let the players mislead themselves. I recall one long campaign, where I had the players do just about everything right, they saved the day from the Villain, everything was going well, they handed over the keys to the kingdom...To the real villain, because they'd just guessed the wrong guy was the villain. They had every bit of evidence they could possibly need to find out the identity of the mysterious main villain, but they fitted evidence in to lead to the conclusion they already "Figured out" rather than the other way around, and I let them roll with it. The follow up campaign was trying to sneak in, raise an army/resistance, out-manuver the big bad politically, and then overthrow him to put someone who was somewhat less of an affably evil death-lord tyrant kinda guy. And since they'd spent the entire last campaign regularly reporting to him, he knew how they worked, and was often a step ahead of them.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • Those are always especially awesome stories.

    Another pointer that may or may not need to be spoken: it's generally useful to always have extra tools on hand. At any given time I've got a couple monsters/traps/locations/characters in my campaign folio's just for filling in blanks and controlling tension/pacing/timing. I realize that it's expensive to spend time developing things that won't be used for practical purposes, so that's not for everybody. And similarly, it's commendable to cut your losses and pull anything that's not working out.
  • edited March 2012
    Very good advice - one of my best(or at least, most used) skills as a DM is vamping while I quickly check my notes.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • 4E I'd say is probably the best edition to start with for D&D since it is very structured, easy to grasp, and has very standardized rules. You can switch from playing a fighter to playing a wizard very easily, and its really only the fluff that changes (a daily power for a fighter might be something very exerting, whereas a daily move for a wizard is a spell he only memorized once). Supplements add more complexity, but on the whole it isn't a really bad edition. It is mostly decried by people who were so used to having a generic cleave path fighter that when they can't exploit the rules they bitch.
  • Wow, I keep wanting to give advice but what I am going to say keeps getting posted before me. I guess that is a good thing since the only RPG I have played is Dungeons and Dragons 2nd edition (I have played 2.5 but only once) and that was a while ago.
  • Saying that the game contains storytelling or has a story or is part of a story is slightly different than saying that a game is "about storytelling". If you include the meta of the stories, then baseball is "about storytelling". If you're going that far, I'll accept that your conclusion makes sense given your premise... but I don't think it's a particularly meaningful statement in this context.

    Does that sufficiently clarify my statement?
    I will concede that a series of nothing but straight-up encounters is not a "story" in the way I'm thinking of them - that's more of a tactical wargame, and is more akin to baseball.

    But even the most stereotypical D&D game, with a town and a tavern, is about storytelling.

  • I will concede that a series of nothing but straight-up encounters is not a "story" in the way I'm thinking of them - that's more of a tactical wargame, and is more akin to baseball.
    Baseball is presented to, and consumed by, its dedicated followers as a narrative moreso than a game.
  • edited March 2012
    I will concede that a series of nothing but straight-up encounters is not a "story" in the way I'm thinking of them - that's more of a tactical wargame, and is more akin to baseball.
    Baseball is presented to, and consumed by, its dedicated followers as a narrative moreso than a game.
    This is true, and the drama associated with sports fandom impacts its audience much more like a story than it does anything else. I just didn't feel like belaboring the point this morning.

    But baseball isn't about the storytelling expressly. The players are actively engaged in creating a narrative, sure, but that's not the goal. RPG's all have storytelling as their primary purpose, and use different vehicles to achieve that.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • But baseball isn't about the storytelling expressly. The players are actively engaged in creating a narrative, sure, but that's not the goal. RPG's all have storytelling as their primary purpose, and use different vehicles to achieve that.
    I have to raise the question of genre then. Are you defining a "Role Playing Game" by the reason a person enjoys it, or by the common tropes and mechanics?

    Consider the table where you have two players. One that primarily attends the game for the storytelling, and another that primarily attends the game to advance his character mechanically, roll dice, and "win" tactical combats. In this case, they are at the table, both playing the same game (Dungeons and Dragons), but they are essentially playing different "games" (Storytelling Game with tactical skirmishes vs. Tactical Skirmish Game with a narrative).

    And the truth about genres, regardless of which method you use to define them, is that they blur and bend together frequently. Not just game system to game system, but table to table, player to player.

    You could, quite legitimately, state that a "Role-Playing Game's primary purpose is storytelling" but you should notice that you are also saying that any game that doesn't make storytelling it's primary purpose is not an RPG. Then it becomes quite possible for someone to be playing Dungeons and Dragons, but not be playing an RPG. Which, down the line, has resulted in all kinds of nerdrage, confusion, elitism, and people telling each other that they're "doing it wrong".

    I guess my perspective is that the "high road" to take is to just accept every type of game that's defined as an RPG loosely and welcome everyone into the fold... and mette out the specifics and particulars on a game to game player to player level independant of broad genre-based categorization.
  • A "role playing game" is:

    A mechanism for conflict resolution to facilitate collaborative storytelling.

    I guess my perspective is that the "high road" to take is to just accept every type of game that's defined as an RPG loosely and welcome everyone into the fold... and mette out the specifics and particulars on a game to game player to player level independant of broad genre-based categorization.
    Then the term is too broad to be useful. ;^)

    The conflict resolution has to be implemented TO facilitate the storytelling, and the storytelling has to be collaborative. I can role play with Monopoly, but calling it a "role playing game" is a deep stretch. That would be like calling Counter-Strike an MMORPG.
  • Are you defining a "Role Playing Game" by the reason a person enjoys it, or by the common tropes and mechanics?
    See Rym's answer. RPG refers to the game itself, not the way that people use it.

    It's worth noting that if you just do what D&D says - say you play a module and follow it exactly - you will in fact be engaged in a collaborative storytelling exercise.

    Your example about the players playing different games is absolutely spot-on. Modifying any base game results in a different "game," like putting $500 on Free Parking in Monopoly. However, that again is a player-side implementation; the genre is really only useful when attempting to discuss the game outside of its specific implementations.
  • A "role playing game" is:

    A mechanism for conflict resolution to facilitate collaborative storytelling.
    That's certainly a potentially good definition. But this particular wording has a waterfall effect, and it suffers from making virtually every game into a role-playing game, and every sub-mechanism of every game into a role-playing game unto itself. I don't think that's necessarily wrong but, as you said:
    Then the term is too broad to be useful. ;^)
    :And:
    I can role play with Monopoly, but calling it a "role playing game" is a deep stretch.
    So once again, the question of what the purpose of genre definitions remains the elephant in the room and it's exactly why I take the perspective I take. If you are attempting to make the categories themselves significant terms, then what category do you call Dungeons and Dragons? We all call it an RPG as a sort of mother-of-all-RPGs, but it's also an extension of Chainmail and other miniature skirmish games. There's also a certain group of forge enthusiasts that think that the game should focus strictly on making the whole "tactical fantasy combat" the primary component of the game. And they're not necessarily wrong.
    Modifying any base game results in a different "game," like putting $500 on Free Parking in Monopoly. However, that again is a player-side implementation; the genre is really only useful when attempting to discuss the game outside of its specific implementations.
    I think you are overestimating the clarity of the rules as written. It is trivially easy to interpret all of the rules of the game the same way, but to emphasise in practice entirely different things. This isn't the same thing as literally changing the rules. For a better monopoly example, examine what happens when no player elects to buy property. The rules don't forbid turning down every property. You are in-fact playing the game as written. But if this is the only way you've ever known of monopoly being played... then when someone else talks about monopoly... you will have such vastly different experiences that you are essentially playing different games.
    http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/one-hour-roleplaying/
    That's actually a pretty good basic walkthrough.
  • Also to everyone going to PAX, you may appreciate James Portnow's panel on game genres. You may not. I have no idea whether or not he is good at panels. But he seems fairly eloquent on the subject.
  • Also to everyone going to PAX, you may appreciate James Portnow's panel on game genres. You may not. I have no idea whether or not he is good at panels. But he seems fairly eloquent on the subject.
    Maybe it will be streamed. In my experience, there is no correlation between general smartness and public speaking skills.
  • edited March 2012
    I think you are overestimating the clarity of the rules as written. It is trivially easy to interpret all of the rules of the game the same way, but to emphasise in practice entirely different things. This isn't the same thing as literally changing the rules. For a better monopoly example, examine what happens when no player elects to buy property. The rules don't forbid turning down every property. You are in-fact playing the game as written. But if this is the only way you've ever known of monopoly being played... then when someone else talks about monopoly... you will have such vastly different experiences that you are essentially playing different games.
    This does touch on a complex issue with D&D and older "all-encompassing" RPG's. In reality, D&D is a framework for creating games. It's a meta-game in some ways, but this still makes it a game.
    That's certainly a potentially good definition. But this particular wording has a waterfall effect, and it suffers from making virtually every game into a role-playing game, and every sub-mechanism of every game into a role-playing game unto itself.
    Well, it's sort of like the difference between a theory and a fact. A theory is a systematic explanation of a collection of facts. Likewise, the conventional RPG is really a thematic linkage of a collection of sub-games, to form one large, over-arching "meta-game." The games all work together to facilitate different aspects of telling a specific kind of story.

    I disagree that this wording makes every game into an RPG. Not all games have mechanics whose primary purpose is narrative creation. Power Grid technically contains roleplaying, but it is not an RPG because the narrative is not the end goal.

    Even the most munchkiny D&D player is attempting to craft a story for their character. Even if the story only exists in their head, and it boils down to "OMG MY ELF IS SO SWEET," it's still the primary purpose. You might roll dice, kill monsters, and gain treasure, but those are all sub-games driving the larger game of "tell the story of a totally bad-ass elf."

    Perhaps a more useful definition would be "a set of conflict resolution mechanics whose primary purpose is to faciliate the collaborative creation of narrative."
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • Also to everyone going to PAX, you may appreciate James Portnow's panel on game genres. You may not. I have no idea whether or not he is good at panels. But he seems fairly eloquent on the subject.
    Maybe it will be streamed. In my experience, there is no correlation between general smartness and public speaking skills.
    Indeed. Or between public speaking skills and the ability to present smart ideas in a 1 hour block to a crowd you can't really predict.

  • RymRym
    edited March 2012


    Indeed. Or between public speaking skills and the ability to present smart ideas in a 1 hour block to a crowd you can't really predict.

    MAGFest's crowd was surprisingly the opposite of the PAX crowd in many ways, at least in terms of panel audiences. I wouldn't expect the average PAX attendee to raise their hand to affirm that they prefer "games where there is no conflict or possibility of losing/failure" to all other kinds of games.

    At MAGFest, I had to deal with a crowd where that mindset was the majority.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • Talking with a friend right now, we may have an idea on hand that sort of relates to this conversation. Akin to "we didn't playtest this", a pen and paper role-playing game called "we don't actually use these rules". Everything is written to be boring, conflicting, confusing, with multiple different interpretations. The goal of which is to teach a group to throw out the rules as they get in the way of the game and replace them with what you want/need them to be at the moment.
  • Talking with a friend right now, we may have an idea on hand that sort of relates to this conversation. Akin to "we didn't playtest this", a pen and paper role-playing game called "we don't actually use these rules". Everything is written to be boring, conflicting, confusing, with multiple different interpretations. The goal of which is to teach a group to throw out the rules as they get in the way of the game and replace them with what you want/need them to be at the moment.
    I actually came up with an RPG a little while ago that does something similar. There's a document that explains the rules, but you don't consult it. Instead, one of the roles taken every turn is The King, and The King decides how to resolve absolutely all conflicts of all sorts, even if what he says contradicts the rules. The King's word is final. And the crown moves around every turn. As the game progresses, what should emerge is a sort of softly-enforced limitation to The King's power, and the game becomes partly about squeezing as much advantage as you can out of that. Among other things.

    In some ways, it's a game design cop-out; ideally, your mechanics should be so important to the creation of the narrative that you shouldn't want to dispense with any of them. The same is true of a game that says "Decide how to resolve these inconsistent rules."

    I'm not a fan of telling people to just change whatever rules they want in a game, because why even have a game at that point? But teaching people to interpret a rule in the way that results in the narrative that everyone wants is a good goal.
Sign In or Register to comment.