Ok, so I have been playing D&D for a little more than 3 years now, and recently I took on the role of DM for our group. We are just starting at Level 5, in the Underdark, heading downwards. There are 5 of us, me included, and one other player that shows up once in while when he happens to be on our plain of existance. He isn't the problem. 2 of my group love evil campaigns and always want them and hate the thought of a good group. The other 2 wouldn't mind having a good campaign for once. I personally would LOVE to have a good campaign seeing as we've never really had one. And now I have the power to create a good group. Which I did.
So my 1st question is: Was this selfish of me?
Now, this past week one of my group's members came to me about a question that was brought up before, but was never answered, and quite frankly I do not remember it being asked to the group. The question was "So have you thought about my suggestion to have a second campaign, an evil one? One that could maybe be following our current "good" group, and be trying to hunt them down?" I put good in quotations because the group started as LG but the 2 who hate good campaigns have been slowly converting to their old ways and the group now more resembles NN and might soon start being NE.
So I guess my 2nd question is: Should I say yes to this second campaign even though I'm not comfortable with it, but I sort of did force them to be LG when they didn't want to be.
I'm not comfortable with having 2 campaigns at the same time (with our old DM, we used to have 2 or 3 campaigns going on at a time but he had been reading about D&D years before we started our group) because I just started DMing, and I'm still having trouble trying to get the balance of monster encounters right ( I don't want them so hard that I kill the group, but one person complaines that I always go to easy on them and he really wants an encounter where he is faced with death at least ONCE!), and coming up with dialogue from NPC's (voices are not one of my strong points). I am at least good at coming up with several sessions worth of planning, props and lineing up encounters. I'm also uncomfortable because I know they want an evil one, but I really wish they would give this good one a try for at least this first big quest. I'm sick of always having evil campaigns.
Please help? And sorry if my rambleing on is incoherent, just ask me to explain parts better if you want. Thanks, NotInThisReality
First, let me just say that I think it's great that you are thinking about your group and are willing to compromise. That is a really good attitude to have.
Now to answer your question, I would say no. Starting a good-themed game was perfectly reasonable.
Remember that even though you are a DM, you are still a player, and your fun matters as well. And IMHO, I would say that your opinion carries significantly more weight in matters concerning basic tone and setting. As the DM, you put in more time and effort into the campaign than anyone else. You should not feel obligated to DM something that you are uncomfortable with or that you simply aren't going to enjoy DM'ing.
From the sounds of it, your group has done far more evil campaigns than (remotely) good ones in the past. So I think it is your evil players' turns to give a little this time around.
So I guess my 2nd question is: Should I say yes to this second campaign even though I'm not comfortable with it, but I sort of did force them to be LG when they didn't want to be.
Unless you didn't let your players know ahead of time to expect a good-themed campaign, you didn't "force" them to do anything. They opted in. They had, and still have, the choice to opt out. Though restricting everyone to LG might be a bit confining. Personally, I would framed the tone of the campaign as being "heroic", which allows more wiggle room as far as alignments are concerned, but still slants the group's overall moral compass towards "good". But I digress.
I would say only run a second campaign if you are comfortable with it (especially two campaigns that would be so complexly interwoven), to which you have already explicitly expressed otherwise. And that's perfectly fine. Taking on too much at one time, especially as a new DM, is an easy way to burn yourself out. And a burnt out DM isn't fun for anyone.
If your evil-philic players are that keen on playing in an evil campaign, they could always try their own hand at DM-ing. Your group could alternate campaigns, which can be great to keep games flowing while giving both DMs more prep time. Or your evil players could start their own group if they simply cannot reconcile their distaste for heroic-themed campaigns. Though depending on how close your group is, and how available new players may be, that may or may not be the most convenient solution.
Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
First up I would try to avoid getting too caught up with alignment. I don't think it helps as a tool to define characters and tends to create more issues than it solves.
Secondly, I would stick to running a single campaign unless it's something that excites you as a DM. If it doesn't, then it's just more work for you,and you already have by far the most work between sessions. Ideally you need to find a way to provide everyone with something that they want within your current campaign.
How you do that depends on why they enjoy playing evil characters. If you post some more details about the kind of evil stuff that they like to get up to, we can probably start to figure out a way to keep them happy in a heroic campaign.
The problem here, which really isn't a problem at all, is that this game truly thrives on enthusiasm, even more than some others. If your players aren't enthusiastic, then you aren't going to get the game you want anyway, so it's usually in your best interest to give the players what they want or else take the risk that they get bored and start "playing with their food."
The solution is to understand that the role of the DM has to be more subtle than that. You're negotiating with your players, and in every negotiation neither side comes away completely happy. You have to learn to pick your battles. If you give the players enough of what they want then you earn their respect and they'll be more forgiving when you choose one or two specific things that you won't accept. This may seem counter intuitive, except that in this case, unlike most negotiations, there is an assumption already that you are here to work together, so you shouldn't be afraid of being rolled over by compromising first.
"Evil is a loaded word." Could you give us some specific examples of the kinds of things they do, want to do, or have done in previous campaigns, so that we can zero in more effectively and put some of this in context. Solutions will always be better if there is an effort to meet a common ground with the players.
And now I have the power to create a good group. Which I did.
So my 1st question is: Was this selfish of me?
No. This is part of Session Zero which everyone should do. Everyone agrees in good faith what the game will be at the outset. Ideas get put in the pot and boiled down until you have something tasty for everyone. This should include but not be limited to the tone/style of the game, the types of characters, the purpose of the adventuring party, and the world.
So I guess my 2nd question is: Should I say yes to this second campaign even though I'm not comfortable with it, but I sort of did force them to be LG when they didn't want to be.
No. You had a Session Zero where they were able to voice their concerns and desires for the new campaign. You shouldn't feel obligated to run another game to suit their needs. You forced no one to play in the "good" campaign.
I guess the bigger question is: Why do they want to play evil campaigns all the time? What does evil mean to them? What sort of situations are you putting their "good" characters in that make them start shifting to evil? I've seen plenty of DMs who insist on "good" campaigns put a lot of morally gray stuff in their games and then get mad when the PCs do something that isn't so nice. If you're doing that, stop it. Get them out of town and take them to a Dungeon of Evil where they can trounce monsters.
While you're at it, do away with alignment or giving any weight to it whatsoever. It's a straightjacket, crutch, and excuse for bad behavior in the wrong hands.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
First, let me just say that I think it's great that you are thinking about your group and are willing to compromise. That is a really good attitude to have.
Now to answer your question, I would say no. Starting a good-themed game was perfectly reasonable.
Remember that even though you are a DM, you are still a player, and your fun matters as well. And IMHO, I would say that your opinion carries significantly more weight in matters concerning basic tone and setting. As the DM, you put in more time and effort into the campaign than anyone else. You should not feel obligated to DM something that you are uncomfortable with or that you simply aren't going to enjoy DM'ing.
From the sounds of it, your group has done far more evil campaigns than (remotely) good ones in the past. So I think it is your evil players' turns to give a little this time around.
So I guess my 2nd question is: Should I say yes to this second campaign even though I'm not comfortable with it, but I sort of did force them to be LG when they didn't want to be.
Unless you didn't let your players know ahead of time to expect a good-themed campaign, you didn't "force" them to do anything. They opted in. They had, and still have, the choice to opt out. Though restricting everyone to LG might be a bit confining. Personally, I would framed the tone of the campaign as being "heroic", which allows more wiggle room as far as alignments are concerned, but still slants the group's overall moral compass towards "good". But I digress.
I would say only run a second campaign if you are comfortable with it (especially two campaigns that would be so complexly interwoven), to which you have already explicitly expressed otherwise. And that's perfectly fine. Taking on too much at one time, especially as a new DM, is an easy way to burn yourself out. And a burnt out DM isn't fun for anyone.
If your evil-philic players are that keen on playing in an evil campaign, they could always try their own hand at DM-ing. Your group could alternate campaigns, which can be great to keep games flowing while giving both DMs more prep time. Or your evil players could start their own group if they simply cannot reconcile their distaste for heroic-themed campaigns. Though depending on how close your group is, and how available new players may be, that may or may not be the most convenient solution.
Thank you very much for your input. I found myself taking a sigh of relief several times while reading your post. I must say I have been feeling somewhat guilty about how my sesssions have been turning out, afraid that I was the only one having fun. So it's good to have conformation that DMs are supposed to be having fun as well as creating the fun. I know that sounds stupid and that I should have realized that before, but I've been stressed about it for awhile now I'll be more comfortable with being a DM after a little more practise.
It would be neat to see what sort of style they (or one of them) would use if they were to DM. I think I'll ask them what kind things they would have the group do, and I'll try and insert something along those lines into my campaign. Not taking their idea's, but adjusting them to my settings (and of course I'll ask them first if that's ok with them).
So for the time being, I will stick to the one campaign, and try to make it a less LG strict group. What if I was to say to the group "ok so I'm deciding to make this group less straight up LG but now you can be anywhere on the good spectrum." Would that make sense and be better? less strict but still keeping within the limits I want?
So for the time being, I will stick to the one campaign, and try to make it a less LG strict group. What if I was to say to the group "ok so I'm deciding to make this group less straight up LG but now you can be anywhere on the good spectrum." Would that make sense and be better? less strict but still keeping within the limits I want?
It's never enough to say "just be Good." You have to tell people what YOU think "Good" means. Give specific examples, motivations, and character traits a "good" character has in your opinion.
Alignment is subjective and that's one of the many, many problems with it. If you're going to lay down the law on what's acceptable in your game alignment-wise, it's important to discuss the expectations you have to make sure they are in line with what your players are thinking. Saying "good" is not enough.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
So for the time being, I will stick to the one campaign, and try to make it a less LG strict group. What if I was to say to the group "ok so I'm deciding to make this group less straight up LG but now you can be anywhere on the good spectrum." Would that make sense and be better? less strict but still keeping within the limits I want?
It would definitely be a step in the right direction. However, I'm going to strongly echo Iserith. Alignment is a pretty hot subject around here. So to avoid derailing this thread into a 50+ page argument about alignment (and no, I'm not exaggerating), let's just say that D&D alignments are not as comprehensive as they could to be. So you'll definitely want to discuss with your group exactly what your expectations of alignment are, as well as what they are not, to make sure everyone is more or less on the same page.
In addition to that, I believe its also just as important to discuss with your group the other expectations you have for your campaign; Things like tone, theme, and (sub) genre. For example, consider post-apocalyptic Darksun and pulp-inspired Eberron. Not only do these two setting feel and play very differently from each other, but for the prospective heroic character, their collective differences can also manifest very different flavors of "good".
It would be neat to see what sort of style they (or one of them) would use if they were to DM. I think I'll ask them what kind things they would have the group do, and I'll try and insert something along those lines into my campaign. Not taking their idea's, but adjusting them to my settings (and of course I'll ask them first if that's ok with them).
Definitely do that. Your players are often your best source of inspiration. They are your audience after all. So who would know better what they want than them (besides a good psychologist, or an advertising firm). So "borrow" liberally.
Additionally, a common suggestion to both new and experienced DMs is to ask your players at the end of each session what they like, didn't like, and suggestions for improvements. Not only is this kind of information helpful, but actively asking for your player's input encourages them to speak up when they wouldn't have otherwise.
Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
First up I would try to avoid getting too caught up with alignment. I don't think it helps as a tool to define characters and tends to create more issues than it solves.
Secondly, I would stick to running a single campaign unless it's something that excites you as a DM. If it doesn't, then it's just more work for you,and you already have by far the most work between sessions. Ideally you need to find a way to provide everyone with something that they want within your current campaign.
How you do that depends on why they enjoy playing evil characters. If you post some more details about the kind of evil stuff that they like to get up to, we can probably start to figure out a way to keep them happy in a heroic campaign.
I have it set in the good spectrum right now. I'd prefere LG, but I can't force them to be LG.
Well, I'm going to stick with the one campaign for now, like I said, not really wanting a second one right now.
"details about the kind of evil stuff that they like to get up to" Well, I don't think they have specific goals in mind, such as killing Pelor when we reach lvl 30 (but they do hate anything to do with Pelor. No joke, they usually curse and make faces when pelor is mentioned in any way. Funny side note, one of the two in discussion bought Pelorum armor not realizing it was PELORum, and when our old DM pointed it out, they sold it right away lol). I think what they really like about evil campaigns is that they have so much more freedom. If they want to kill mindlessly, then there are no moral consequenses, only a bit of jail time or running away and killing more people on the way. It's easier to play out evil. It has more monetary rewards. No end of good people or creatures to kill. One of them loves to play out the prick personality. They actually said that when I asked why they always make pricks. The other one in the spotlight of evil loves to playout greedy and annoying characters. I am not exagerating. she said thats how she likes to make her characters.
Hope this helps sprout ideas any suggestions are welcome
The problem here, which really isn't a problem at all, is that this game truly thrives on enthusiasm, even more than some others. If your players aren't enthusiastic, then you aren't going to get the game you want anyway, so it's usually in your best interest to give the players what they want or else take the risk that they get bored and start "playing with their food."
The solution is to understand that the role of the DM has to be more subtle than that. You're negotiating with your players, and in every negotiation neither side comes away completely happy. You have to learn to pick your battles. If you give the players enough of what they want then you earn their respect and they'll be more forgiving when you choose one or two specific things that you won't accept. This may seem counter intuitive, except that in this case, unlike most negotiations, there is an assumption already that you are here to work together, so you shouldn't be afraid of being rolled over by compromising first.
"Evil is a loaded word." Could you give us some specific examples of the kinds of things they do, want to do, or have done in previous campaigns, so that we can zero in more effectively and put some of this in context. Solutions will always be better if there is an effort to meet a common ground with the players.
I'm just copying and pasting this part since someone else asked the same question. Here are some examples of the "Evil".
I don't think they have specific goals in mind, such as killing Pelor when we reach lvl 30 (but they do hate anything to do with Pelor. No joke, they usually curse and make faces when pelor is mentioned in any way. Funny side note, one of the two in discussion bought Pelorum armor not realizing it was PELORum, and when our old DM pointed it out, they sold it right away lol). I think what they really like about evil campaigns is that they have so much more freedom. If they want to kill mindlessly, then there are no moral consequenses, only a bit of jail time or running away and killing more people on the way. It's easier to play out evil. It has more monetary rewards. No end of good people or creatures to kill. One of them loves to play out the prick personality. They actually said that when I asked why they always make pricks. The other one in the spotlight of evil loves to playout greedy and annoying characters. I am not exagerating. she said thats how she likes to make her characters.
And thank you for the other advice every suggestion and tip helps.
I'll be more comfortable with being a DM after a little more practise.
any suggestions are welcome
