In our last article, we discussed the DM’s responsibilities in getting a group of players together. We looked at several places to meet, a DM’s behavior in the first session, and different possibilities on how to bring a party together. In this article, we’ll look at how DMs can acclimate characters to their game world without bulldozing them with house rules, crushing them with an enormous background to the campaign world, or railroading them into unpleasant situations. Several simple solutions to these potential problems are available to every DM.
First, let’s look at the topic of house rules. House rules are too often the bane of players and a bounty to DMs. Frequently, DMs perceive problems with the rules that they seek to fix with their own wits. Unfortunately, this can result in a game so foreign to D&D that new players become paralyzed with unlearning and relearning the rule system. Sometimes new players or groups are too timid to speak up to perceived unfairness; other times, DMs refuse to do their jobs unless entire groups of new players agree to play their modified game. Both of these situations are problems waiting to happen and should be avoided at all costs. Here are some tips to do so.
When getting a group together, DMs should come to the table with a tabula rasa. Every new group and new campaign should start with a clean slate for all, with the openness and freshness of a rural country day. That doesn’t mean DMs should be unprepared, but that any house rules they’d like to implement aren’t forced on players. Instead, a democratic process of deciding rule by rule what’ll be incorporated is more favorable. I would suggest that DMs email (if available) every potential house rule to their players at least a week before their first meeting. That way, at the first meeting, the DM and players can discuss the rules, the explanation behind the rules, and any problems that the players see with the rules. Afterwards, a simple vote, preferably not a secret ballot, will suffice to lock in or out house rules. DMs should be particularly careful to remember that they should have to give up some of their house rules; they are, after all, only about 20% of the average gaming group.
If a democratic process just isn’t an option or if a DM feels that every single one of his house rules will be eliminated, I suggest a modified round-robin selection process. Taking turns, the DM should choose a house rule that he feels is the most important, and then the players as a collective group should choose the rule that they feel is the absolute worst. The house rules should be ranked in this way, with the DM’s #1 and the player’s #1 being recorded next to the rules until every rule is ranked. Then, one of two things can happen; all the players’ rules can be tossed and all the DM’s rules kept, or a type of bartering can occur where the players and DM compromise. The value of the rules has already been established during the ranking, so the compromises can be made evenly and realistically. Some may say that this second strategy splits the DM and players at the start, creating an unhealthy DM vs. Players environment, but the act of compromising heals any perceived rift and shows both sides that they’re working as a team to create an enjoyable game in the long run. Also, some DMs might climb up their soap-box and say that since they’re doing the majority of their work, they deserve to create whatever world they’re going to run. Those DMs certainly have a point, but an empty world isn’t very enjoyable; players need to populate the world, or there’s no point to the whole thing.
A last strategy to deal with house rules may be, in fact, the most radical one. Simply don’t have any. I loathe house rules and think they should only be implemented in the most extreme of circumstances. I’ve played in campaigns so mired in house rules that every session seemed to stop at some point for a house rule to be discussed. That said, I do employ a very limited number of house rules. The list has, admittedly, grown during my most recent campaign, but only after a thorough discussion with my players and a unanimous agreement have any new rules been implemented. As a last word, house rules should always, always be justified as a benefit to players instead of a desire to overcome mechanical inadequacies. If justification of this kind is impossible, then the DM should consider eliminating the house rule.
Another sticking point at the beginning of many campaigns is the depth of knowledge a DM expects players to have about his campaign world. DMs pour so much blood and sweat into the job of vitalizing their campaign world that they sometimes erroneously expect players to have as much interest in learning everything there is to know. Not unlike entering a chilly pool, some players are willing to jump right in and inundate themselves while others want to take it an inch at a time. Those timid players, while appreciative, often just want to play in the beginning and allow the campaign world to exist around them instead of fully immersing themselves in it from the start. Some DMs perceive this as a slight, but instead, the DM needs to make an effort to incorporate these players while giving them time to learn about the world around them.
One strategy to help these players is to print out fact sheets for each session with relevant information prepared for the players. These sheets should never be more than one page, double spaced, in realistically-sized font, and players should be given adequate time before the session starts to review the information. This allows the DM to have a character’s “previous knowledge” help guide him without putting too much stress on the memories of the players involved. These fact sheets can be accumulated over a long period of time into a kind of compendium that can be posted on a gaming web site and accessed as necessary by the players.
Another strategy is to start a campaign world with very little background and to develop the background as the campaign goes on. The developing history of the world can be catalogued in a similar fashion as described above. A benefit of this strategy is that no player or the DM can have a wealth of knowledge that gives them a leg up against other players. Also, the history can be co-created by the players themselves, which helps the players feel more ownership with the world and makes them more ready to defend it both in and out of game against aggressors.
A last suggestion on this topic is to keep a database, online if possible, of every NPC, location, and relevant piece of information that the PCs encounter. There are many websites that offer these services for free. I use a Yahoo! Groups website upon which I keep a database of NPCs, unidentified magical items, important locations, and general notes about each session. The website also provides a message board on which discussions can be held between sessions about topics that might take up too much time to debate during a session. Also, the pseudo-anonymity of posting on a message board (though, of course, in this case everyone knows who you were) allows some meeker players to voice their opinions without feeling uncomfortable. Overall, the website offers a permanent documentation of the campaign and a place where everyone has access to group information at any time of day or night, making every player empowered in the game.
The last point we’ll look at in this article is the most potentially dangerous—the issue of DM expectations of character behavior. Let me start with a somewhat humbling story about myself. Years ago, there was a DM that made the mistake of assuming that a player would cooperate with what was a completely rule-less, radical plot twist. The player was not enamored with the DM’s idea and refused to play along unless some major changes were made to the plot, which, of course, had already been played out with the rest of the group. Both the player and the DM acted like stubborn morons, and the campaign died. No one won, everyone lost. I’ve intentionally omitted which part I played because, in the end, it doesn’t matter. Both DMs and players intricately control the atmosphere of a game, and both are responsible for its upkeep. Here are some suggestions on how to keep the temperature warm.
In campaigns I’ve both played in and DMed, I’ve been careful to fully understand everyone’s expectations before the game start. As a player, I always have a list of questions ready for the DM. Below is a sample list of questions:
Is your campaign more character oriented or party oriented?
How much do you expect players to play into the game?
What’s your feeling on party conflict?
Player versus player conflict?
Player versus player kills?
How common is magic in a campaign?
How does the DM view alignment?
These questions often give me insight into the DM’s campaign environment that I then incorporate into the character I design. Similarly, when I DM, I ask my players questions about their expectations.
Do they prefer lots of role playing? Combat? Skill usage? Mystery? Intrigue?
Do they enjoy lots of party conflict, some party conflict, or no party conflict?
What alignments do they expect to be able to choose from?
How open should character creation be? Core only? Supplemental? 3rd party material?
How willing are they to play into plot hooks that aren’t directly tailored to their PCs?
I also carefully discuss how I view various alignments with the players, especially when one wants to play a paladin or monk. Far too often conflict appears between DMs and players because of different interpretations of alignments or a god’s portfolio. All of these conflicts can be prevented simply by discussing beforehand both sides’ opinions on the topic. Like with house rules, DMs should be open to interpretation from the players on how a paladin or monk should behave. This discussion allows for players to understand the limitations to their character’s behavior and gives the DM an idea of how they can expect the character to behave. All of these questions boil down to three basic topics: playing into the game, party cohesion, and campaign content. Each of these should be carefully discussed.
For the first topic, players generally fall in between two extremes: those who will play any adventure, any time, for any (or no) reason and players will not play unless the adventure directly pertains to their character. It’s important for DMs and players to be on the same page. When the DM expects his players to be more willing to play into the game, the players generally feel railroaded and the DM feels like his plot hooks are being unfairly snubbed. On the other hand, when the DM provides too open an environment for players that he believes want to create their own hooks based on their characters’ desires, play often drags to a stop or becomes a series of individual side quests without any structure or meaning. Both are unacceptable. To avoid players and DM becoming unhappy, a compromise should be found. Had the DM in the story above simply asked in a straightforward manner, “Won’t you at least try this for one session; the issue will be resolved that quickly,” the player might have acquiesced. Being clear about the goals of the DM and sensitive about the comfort zone of the players will allow a campaign to exist that fulfills everyone’s desires. In the early sessions, the DM should be explicit about his adventure planning, going so far as even to explain how and why he expected players to participate. This disclosure could be as detailed as using character’s back stories as hooks into an adventure or as general as “I expected you to go because everyone else did.” This frank discussion will allow the DM to plan future adventures in a way that everyone in the party will appreciate and allow players to understand how much playing into the game the DM expects.
Party cohesion often makes or breaks individual players’ perceptions of the game. I’ve seen a campaign where the group kept a scorecard of player kills. I’ve also played in a campaign where the DM would prevent players from killing one another via divine intervention. Neither was particularly satisfying. As these examples show, some players prefer full party cohesion, where the party always works together, has similar goals, and acts cordially to one another. On the other hand, some players prefer campaigns where the characters have different motives and goals, separate from time to time, and are willing to be quite rude, if not outright violent, towards one another. To avoid problems here, the campaign atmosphere should be established long before characters are created. This decision can be made with everyone’s interests at heart, but often the DM simply has to make a decision about what’s going to be acceptable and be strong-willed enough to stick to it. Good players recognize that both ends of this spectrum offer interesting opportunities and will create characters they can enjoy playing. In the first sessions, though, the DM must hold strong to the stated expectations and be clear about anything that’s unacceptable. This practice will establish a precedent that will allow the later campaign to flow more smoothly.
The content of the campaign also heavily determines how much all involved enjoy the game. Some players prefer more combat and others more role-playing, but most players fall in-between. All groups should discuss where the balance lies before the game starts. How many combats there will be on average per session, the expectations of role-playing, especially in regards to role-playing mechanics like diplomacy, bluff, and gather information, and the handling of out of game sarcastic comments in the middle of in game role-playing all should be made clear before the first session begins; like we’ve discussed before, the very first session will set the mood and precedent for all that follow it, and bad habits starting in the first session can carry far into the future. The DM should respond and plan based on his players’ desires regarding content balance with the understanding that he should not be expected to plan every session with mathematical accuracy. The law of averages holds true here as well with rolling; a solid balance over several sessions should be more important than session-to-session balance. The party should understand that and be willing to bend with the understanding that the DM is meeting their needs in the long run.
In conclusion, far too many DMs believe that their players should do as they say, not as they do. However, a good DM leads his players by example. Many potentially game-destroying problems can be overcome with a little patience and cooperation within the group. Here, we’ve discussed a few simple ways to help a DM get his first sessions off to a good start and begin paving the way for a successful campaign. Next time, we’ll discuss how to maintain the forward motion we’ve begun here through the practice of collective discussion, post-session meetings, and tailored planning in an article entitled “One small step for Dragons, One giant leap for Dragonkin.”
