DnD players! Answer me this....

[linwolf]

Haven't played in years, lack of friend that enjoy the game too, but when I did it was played as a dungeon crawler. The best DM in that group that those who send bigger monster in bigger numbers after us until the party was crushed without ever making it feel like there where no way to win the fight. Roleplaying played a very small part of our gaming sessions.

 

[GlorySeeker]

I just recently starting gamemastering again after a long hitatus (in my case we're playing the new World of Darkness, Werewolf: The Forsaken). When the players and I were talking about what we wanted to play we made the decision that we would actually [i/]roleplay[/i] and not just a dungeon crawl with lots of monster killing (even though the game is about a werewolf pack kicking butt).

We figured that these days it is pretty easy to get your kick-down-the-door-and-kick-ass fix, with all the simple button-mashing, slashing, shooting video games that are out there. Put aside all the video games, there is a whole bunch of miniture games (like HeroClix) you can get into if you want a simple brawl.

The one thing pen-and-paper games can offer over the video games these days is the depth of character and detail you can get into. Even the most interactive and detailed video game RPGs can't match the spontaneity you get with pen-and-paper.

I love the last bit here. THE REASON, that DnD will be the game of games, is that( With a good Dm and imaginative players) It can be more expansive than any other game you can play.

 

[GlorySeeker]

I also like the mix of feedback and advice. The players and I regularly have rap sessions about what they feel about the Table and how its running.

Thanks for the pathfinder info as well!

 

[Rathilal]

Depends on the people you play with to be honest. Personally, I prefer majority RP with a good sum of open world elements, but a big enough long term goal to keep the players focused. I enjoy doing combat too, but the RP and getting material items is what creates a sense of progression and gives you those classic, enjoyable moments.

 

[Composer]

coming from experience, not many people likes the rails, so try and give the players a good amount of decisions.
the key to being a good DM is LYING.

 

[Chased]

I run my sessions to be very story heavy and I find that if I just let the players loose then they'll just do goofy stuff and burn out. What I found works best with my group is when I pre-write a bunch of little story arcs with the ending being absent. I'll often give them morally gray conflicts so they have to heavily weigh their decisions and how they'll effect the story. It's always important to have consequences for player's actions, whether they be obvious or not (for example, I'll let them rob a shop keeper blind but an hour later they'll be met by a hired assassin who's thirsty for blood).

coming from experience, not many people likes the rails, so try and give the players a good amount of decisions.
the key to being a good DM is LYING.

This is also huge, the best DM's also tend to be the best liars.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I like a mix of combat and other content. I especially enjoy mysteries and puzzles and having to use my brain to bypass obstacles.
As a DM myself, I find the illusion of choice works great if you are a good enough liar to keep your PCs from ever picking up on it. They feel like they are making tons of decisions but you aren't being caught without content because you are able to lie your way through anything.
Everyone wins.

 

[Falseprophet]

Personally, I prefer a small number of fights that actually matter--either important to the story or representing a good challenge to the party--than a whole lot of pointless random encounters and nonsensical dungeon rooms that only exist to pad out an adventure. In most cases as long as players are having a good time or have a feeling of accomplishment (and you don't have to measure that in gold, XP or loot all the time), it doesn't really matter what you do.

But I also find D&D's emphasis on combat--especially 4th ed's--to get really stale after a while. Other than a friend's long-running 4th ed game that's wrapping up soon and a Pathfinder game I was running that ended abruptly last year, I think I'm done with d20-based systems. Back to World of Darkness for me!

It's essentially a copy paste of 3.5 with a few elements of 4th edition added in and somehow sold as a new product. I really don't know, legally, how they got away with it.

Wizards of the Coast didn't repeal the Open Game License on the 3rd/3.5 edition ruleset, so Paizo is able to continue to make use of it. It's also legally questionable if it's possible to patent/copyright a set of RPG rules in the first place. Seems to have worked out for Paizo, as Pathfinder regularly outsells 4th edition, hence the motivation for D&D Next.

 

[GlorySeeker]

I like a mix of combat and other content. I especially enjoy mysteries and puzzles and having to use my brain to bypass obstacles.
As a DM myself, I find the illusion of choice works great if you are a good enough liar to keep your PCs from ever picking up on it. They feel like they are making tons of decisions but you aren't being caught without content because you are able to lie your way through anything.
Everyone wins.

Yes. I do this to my group on a regular basis. And it works obscenely well. It lets me take the players on a great adventure, and they get to play important roles in it. Kinda my preferred method when I play. I love the potential for a character to develop.

 

[TheCommanders]

add some terrible looking artwork.

The artistic giants of D&D (Caldwell, Elmore, Easley, Fields, Parkinson..) from the 80's and early 90's were the best.

It went down the tubes when they left and the 3rd edition was brought in with that shitty comic book art style.

You'll see no argument from me.

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

It really depends on the group. Some people like combat and tactics, some like to hoard heavy-hitting items and break the game as much as possible, and some like to get in character and contribute to the story.

Personally, I think character-driven campaigns in table-top RPGs are the best of the bunch, but that's just my preference. A lot of people prefer the 'game' side to the story side.

 

[VoidWanderer]

For me, I enjoy a well-fleshed out world where you feel like you are exploring the world. It gives you time to think about the scenarios in front of you and enjoy the adventure.

Balancing this can be very difficult. Let the game flow naturally and it will be enjoyed everyone.

Last session my group was in, very little happened. We came to grips with our short time travel thingie, and found somewhere to stay.

Oh, and the Dread Necromancer helped an Astral Deva ascend to the next level!

 

[Starke]

Ok, I am currently running a table with some good friends, with a mix of experienced and new players. They are rather enjoying the sessions, and the world thats being fleshed out, and the story that they are slowly unraveling. But as Im running it, Ive begun to notice how little combat I throw at them. (There are of course, other ways to challenge the players) So my question is this;

What do you like in a DnD adventure? Do you like a combat dungeon sprawler? Or more like being guided along in a story? What are your thoughts?

(Its a 3.5 adventure, just to answer that question)

I prefer story over combat, if for nothing else then that combat chews up so much time to sequence out. That said, the Escapist isn't the group to ask. The people to ask are the rest of your group. Everyone's different. Their tastes, their interests. I can tell you what I prefer in PnP, so can anyone else here, but we're not in your campaign.

So far as it goes, if they're really wanting more combat, unless they're coming from the tabletop wargaming/strategy set, D&D might not be the best system to be doing combat heavy roleplaying in.

D&D excels at tabletop wargaming, at a squad based level. Games like Exalted do an excellent job of giving the players a more fluid combat experience. I mean, this is ultimately all player choice, but I'm just throwing this out there.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

I'd say you need a mix of Role-playing and combat to really play the game "right" if you ask me. Too much combat just get's boring. Combat with no direction just becomes a snore and you really don't connect with the players or characters, but too much "talking" can just leave people wanting more to do. If all you're doing talking, then you're not really "playing" the game.

So I guess the answer to your question is you really need both to have a successful and interesting game. I've had sessions that were all combat, and it was just boring. People started getting really off topic and breaking character because no one really had any frame for what we were doing or why we should care. I've also had games where we basically just talked amongst each other's characters, but that didn't really work out because we had a guy who wanted to be the "hero" of the story, for lack of a better word. He was our group's munchkin, so his character was absolutely RIDICULOUS. He had levels in about 5 different classes, so making his character have any kind of back story that made sense was a almost laughable feat. It's really hard to justify why your Raptoran Rogue/Master Thrower/StormTalon/Fighter/Swordsage would also have levels in Cleric and Assassin other than "I just wanted more stuff". So when we were talking about our characters, we practically spent an hour trying to decipher make sense of this homunculus of a stat sheet make sense.

 

[Starke]

I've also had games where we basically just talked amongst each other's characters, but that didn't really work out because we had a guy who wanted to be the "hero" of the story, for lack of a better word.

I'm coming at this in pieces, because I know it's the same person, but we'll stick a pin in that for the moment.

I kinda suspect nearly every PnP gamer has started at this phase. Or, at least a lot of immature players do. In general they grow out of this, but even so, there is some good material to be had there, if you have a good an experienced GM.

He was our group's munchkin, so his character was absolutely RIDICULOUS. He had levels in about 5 different classes, so making his character have any kind of back story that made sense was a almost laughable feat. It's really hard to justify why your Raptoran Rogue/Master Thrower/StormTalon/Fighter/Swordsage would also have levels in Cleric and Assassin other than "I just wanted more stuff". So when we were talking about our characters, we practically spent an hour trying to decipher make sense of this homunculus of a stat sheet make sense.

Okay, I'm going to risk stating the obvious. The gamemaster's job is to prevent stuff like this. Pencil and Paper games, basically by nature are hideously unbalanced monsters. The GM's job is to ensure the players don't do things like this, and there are any number of ways to enforce this within the rules.

One possibility is to start enforcing an XP penalty, normally, with (3rd and 3.5) D&D you accrue a 20% XP penalty for each class after your first (if it is not your favored class) (unless those classes are within one level of your preferred class). If you have a munchkin, forget that final clause, and suddenly he actually starts losing XP every time he kills something.

Another, less rules lawyer-ish option, just say "no". Some combinations, some power sets, they're flat out inappropriate. I've had a GM say that mixing Rogue and Sorcerer together was verboten, and that taking any Dragon Disciple PRC wasn't an option. I've seen a GM say no to a player that wanted a lycanthrope (in D&D). I've had to tell a player no, you don't get to play an Imbued Hunter in a Project: Twilight campaign of Old World of Darkness.

I mean, that's part of the GM's job, in any game. Simply saying, "no, I see what you're trying to do there, you can't do it." If I was the GM, and he came in with that sheet, I'd tell him, "no, come back with a sheet that has a single class, or at most two, and you need to justify any second class. You don't get to take a third base class ever because of this stunt. If you want to take a PRC later, and you only get one, you need to explain to me exactly why it makes sense from a story perspective."

 

[mikeybuthge]

The thing about DnD or Pathfinder, or any PnP game, for that matter, is that your group's preferences and styles matter, I play with a group of shy, shut-in type people, and very outward people, it makes for a great game when you hit some RP moments, where two players have an argument in character, and then you hit combat and the shy people really shine. Anyways! To the point, a mix of both is generally good, but it always depends on your group

 

[kingthrall]

give them a cursed flawed sapphire gem of wandering monsters. Make it non magical but make the players roll randomly (you decide the die roll events) until the player inspects the gem and see's blood inside it. It can only remove the gem by casting a spell of heal on the gem.

basicly when you think there is not enough monsters make the players roll the dice.

Oh and if the gem gets annoying make blood seep out of their bags or something to indicate an item being carried.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

-ship-

Our DM was the kind of guy who said that the game was supposed to be "fun", which I agree with. But the problem was that he didn't want to be the "bad guy" and say that someone couldn't play a character how they wanted, so we ended up with that monstrosity. I played a Human Cleric/Contemplative, super easy. Up until that guy, our most "complicated" character was a Half-Elf Druid/Sorcerer who was going into Arcane Hierophant, so her classes were very much justified as a "natural progression" kind of situation.

The end of the whole ordeal was basically me and the other players had to basically boycott the game until our DM pulled his testicles out of his purse so he could tell the guy that he needed to make an appropriate character, and that no, this was not his on personal self-insert anime.