"Random DM Conference"

Denathil "The Mutt" Verasi said: So... I wake to find about 5000+ Words to read... I feel like I'm back in high school going over some Brit. Lit. As for having an actual conference via hangout, is there a particular day of the week, or just in the month ahead that stands out to anyone? Or shall we stick to just using the forums (Mind you there is a G+ Community linked somewhere up in that mess with discussion branches to keep things organized) Anyhow, sadly I am at work already so can't sit and read all of this =(. Glad to see a font of knowledge being readily shared though, I will never cease to be impressed by this community. On Thursday's at 3 or 4 pm Eastern (seems to vary a bit), there's an #rpgchat on Twitter. We discuss a given topic for an hour. Since Google Hangout is something of a commitment for people to get on, especially if they're at work, perhaps you might consider a Twitter discussion along those lines instead. Not only would this be easier since people can do it from their phones and whatnot, people can follow those they like and plan to play here on Roll20 in the future. Just let's come up with a clever and short hashtag. Btw, I'm @is3rith on Twitter in case anyone would like to follow.

i love this thread, i unfortunately dont have google hangout or twitter, or really any social media presense whats so ever, so seeing some of this discussion here has been really enlightening.

I'm personally not a fan of "tweeting" as I am a dog not a bird :P Perhaps if I could bark? Anyhow I would say keep the discussion here and if something wonderful comes up in a conversation elsewhere, either a snippit of information or a topic that you want to throw into the stew pot transfer it over. As of right now I can't even take the time to ascertain what the topic even is as I am just doing quick skimming between my duties at work. If someone does set up a twitter tag that they want followed, or a forum post they would like shared I will apend it to the starting post of this thread as a sort of database. (which requires new readers of course to go back and read but hell reading is healthy). ~The Bloody Mutt

Looking at the length and depth of the posts here, I think Twitter is possibly the worst idea for continuing these discussions live... I think spirited discussions like this will just spur on the developers to improve the forum to encourage the community. It's a great asset of Roll20 and I'm sure they appreciate that. Now, the 'yes, and...' principle. I've approached this in actual improvisation. There is a game purely based on this process which leads to hilarious, ostentatious displays. It's a great approach but it is only one of many fundamental values. Creativity often comes from constraints. Many improv games specifically close down options to direct creativity. Sometimes a person will be cast in a roll (interviewer), or behaviour will be limited (only speak in questions) but generally the participants have to hand over some freedom. The 'yes, and...' principle is about collaboration. As an exercise it encourages participants to listen to each other and develop their ideas. It is often employed to deter those who plan ahead and try to steer an improvisation around their own ideas. My main issue with the style of game Iserith is discussing is that constraints no longer seem meaningful. How can you put a character in a difficult situation when they know they can 'imagine' a way out? Even with this idea of developments not contradicting what has already been established. How can there be a tricky decision when a player just needs to find a loophole in the given circumstances? I accept that your adventures may not result in these moments as frequently, given that they are generated with the party. I prefer to use 'yes, and...' to guide my response to the players. They tell me what they want to do and I tell them what happens. I never say no to a player unless the rules forbid it (but often players know the rules well enough not to ask). By all means they can look for a village, but I decide if one is there. It is a collaborative game, I haven't always decided what is there so the players build the world by requiring me to decide. However, if I handed the power to decide over to the players then I couldn't balance difficulty and tension. Knowledge and perception checks next... I don't expect my characters to know everything about my world. I don't know everything about my world. I go with skill checks for these things unless they're trivial. A PC probably knows his dad's name but might not know the name of the 4th King of their homeland. My player definitely doesn't. The player can help me fill in details about what they remember, but they have skills and traits within the game that have their own mechanic. My player might not know the effects of a natural poison but their character might. Or the character can learn by going to a library. Death... I work with the idea of ' fun ' in my games. From the Dwarf Fortress community, 'fun' happens when everything goes wrong. It's what happens when people take risks, try crazy things or go beyond their means. A player's death is a big moment. It should carry significance. It should be hilarious or painful or any number of things as long as my players will remember it as a big moment. It will  mean the end of a character's involvement with the game, but it will also be much more meaningful than another fight with some goblins.

I largely agree with everything you have said, John B. Unfortunately, I have exhausted my capacity to expand upon this particular set of ideas. I'm going to hang back until another topic comes up.

another topic, well, here is a particular problem i run into with my group.  my players like to play as morally gray to out right evil characters, i take this into account by generally putting them in roles that cast them as villians or initially uninterested indiviaduals that get drawn into the plot.  my problem is, as evil characters more than half the time they are vying for power, even at the expense of sacrificing fellow players to acheive their goals.  dming can be challenging enough trying to balance a cohsesive team againt your own minions, but when they areplotting against each other it can be a nightmare. i dont like constraining the players by using personality control devices.  and by that i mean plot devices like bomb collars or brain bugs that inflict harm when they go against an antogonists wishes.   granted its not always bad, sometimes it leads to great fun, they love their characters and i enjoy witnessing the micropolitics that occurs behind other player's backs, even the betrayed player enjoys exacting his revenge later on as another character.  but generally once the back stabbing begins, it spells doom for the rest of the campaign, cause now you have a fragmented group, with characters going seperates ways, and i dont like having my players spliting up, doing opposite things, leads to boredom when one group is in the middle of a battle and another group is shopping. i guess my question is, how would you deal with evil campaign characters without overwriting their character creation choices and campaign choices while preserving team cohesion?

@Reb: I think a little bit can be written in the preface to the campaign; I too have the morally grey players in a campaign but I knew this from launch. Have them as a part of something unifying, a group, organization, or family relation. Perhaps even have them ostracized so they don't really have that many other choices, strangers in a strange land. Lastly, a looming threat that makes their squabbles petty can pull a group together, or push rather lol. Then there is option two, define factions, stick them on opposing sides, and run two separate game nights. Reverse psychology, they'll congregate and make a team just to spite you? rofl ... 

Oh also there is the captain planet idea, they each have an item that cannot be stolen or removed, and only by their powers combined can they "insert motive here".

i think the captain planet idea falls in line with personality control device, and interferes with character creation, as without the other artifacts the player is worthless in the campaign, making their choices vastly limited.  inevitably, my players spend more time trying to shed the bonds that tie them when using personality control devices. i dont really have the player count to split them up. i generally fall back on your first suggestion, placing them in settings where they need to work together, but as they form relationships with NPCs during the campaign, they try to bend the relationship into power over others.  Such as, they strike up a repore with a weapon smith, gaining his favor through a task they accomplish on the side, they will then pursuade the smith to deny selling or jack up prices on the other players.  now, i could just deny them and make the blacksmith neutral, but now i have robbed the player of self determination.

@John B: Your constraints are the game's rules and whatever fiction has been established prior to and during play. That's a lot of constraint. If the "world" doesn't have airships, you can't wish into existence an airship to get you out of the jungle. If there are no villages for 100 miles, you can't wish into existence a village a short walk away. If you're in the dungeon to obtain the Heart of the Monkey from the octagonal death trap, you can't simply wish it into the palm of your hand. The upside is that this means the DM must improve his ability to frame situations and settings, providing more fictional context in which to operate. The players respond in kind. Imagining a way out of situations is kind of what the point of D&D is, isn't it, at least as far as the characters are concerned? Then we use dice to determine outcomes based upon action . I think what you fear is what many DMs fear about giving up the power to determine what is true or not in the context of the "world," that players will then use that power to negate every challenge you come up with. This simply doesn't happen - or rather, it could, but it doesn't. Why? Because of the reason the players playing in the first place: to be challenged. Use that desire to allow the players to help make the challenges real for them! If the DM puts up a proverbial wall in front of the characters and the players point to a ladder laying on the ground nearby, then the truth is that the players weren't interested in that particular challenge in the first place. Thus, making them jump through whatever hoops you had in mind to climb that wall likely wouldn't result in anything other than mild annoyance or worse. (Here, I'm using "the wall" as a stand-in for any given obstacle or challenge and "the ladder" as the tool imagined by the players to defeat it.) Through direct collaboration, the players can help create their own challenges and escalate things the DM puts in front of them, if they find it interesting. "Yes, and..." actually lets players put themselves in far more dangerous situations than the DM might otherwise feel comfortable putting them in. This comes with the players' direct buy-in which means they won't short-circuit their own ideas by finding a ladder for every wall. It's a judo-flip done on metagaming. Instead of working against you as most DMs try to avoid, it works for you! An exchange from the last game I ran: DM: The grippli - tiny tree frog warriors - are leaping toward you in a horde, tree to tree. They are clearly out for revenge for what you did to the Wart Mother at the Sacred Pond. If they catch up to you, it'll be a tough fight because they got nothing to lose. What do you do? Seeker: We established that the bullywug pirates and juju zombie musketeers were out somewhere in the jungle looking for us last session, right? I spot some of their tracks in the mud right now . I'm going to lead the grippli right into these guys. DM: Yes, and because the bullywugs want to take you to Captain Burrp, they can't let the grippli have you! The tree frog warriors are closing in fast. It sounds like your goal is to outrun them, for a time, but the most important thing here is to find that patrol of pirates and zombies quickly by following those tracks. Perception check? Seeker: Yes, and if I make it, we lead them right into the pirates and zombies, a fight breaks out, and we can get away from it cleanly. DM: Yes, and if you get a middling roll, you lead them right into the enemy, but we'll go into tactical play and you'll have to withdraw less cleanly as both sides fight the other and you're caught in the middle! If you fail, the grippli catch you before you can find the pirates and zombies and the noise of the fight attracts their attention. Cool? Seeker: Oh man, we really can't afford either of those outcomes - we're running out of time. "C'mon, men. Shake a leg!" We run as fast as we can. [Nervously prepares to roll...] That's just a simple exchange, one of many in our games where there is direct collaboration out of thin air to build a scene, a challenge, and tension. Our games are difficult and tense. The players often use their power to make them even more so. Every roll really means something. This latent fear that DMs seem to have about giving up narrative control is unfounded in my experience. If the players do use their narrative control to handily beat your challenges, then your challenges probably weren't interesting to begin with. Work with the players and "Yes, and..." to build challenges they've bought into and won't try to circumvent with ladders. (The universal "you" here, not you, John B.) I still hold to the notion that if you're asking for a skill roll to know or not know something, it shouldn't be a roll. What's it to the DM that the player uses metagame information to have his character know about the 4th King of Such-and-Such? Use that established detail to find out something about the character - how did you know that, Ragnar? "Ragnar served in his army during the last war." Nice, we just learned something new about the character and he's more developed as a result of that simple exchange. Now I want to know more about that war! Having knowledge means the PCs can act more readily because they have fictional context to do so. Not having it means...? I agree with what you say about death. Note, however, that we can wish death happens that way you describe or we can make it happen that way by letting the player decide it's time, when the dice roll that way. I'd add that if "death" is the only "bad thing" people are imagining can happen in a given tense situation, they're leaving out a TON of drama from their game. It's not the only source of tension, and not even the best one.

@Reb S: Here's what I say to players about PVP activities. Perhaps it will be of use to your situation - While the base assumption is that you are a group of adventurers who have agreed to work together to achieve your collective goals, character vs. character conflict is just fine; however, it must be consensual between the players involved and not one-sided. Just like in a movie, the actors aren't at odds - their characters are and this represents, on some level, agreement from both parties to engage in in-character conflict to make the scene better. So if any intentional action you take has a potentially negative impact on other PCs in the game (whether you perceive it as negative or not), the outcome is entirely determined by the player whose character is being acted upon or against. No dice will be involved in these dealings. If you want to steal from someone - the target decides if you succeed. If you try to lie - the target decides to believe you or not. If you try to attack - the target decides if it hits. And vice versa, them against you. (Note that this does not apply to taking actions against NPCs that may cause trouble the party may not want. Outcomes of this nature are up to the DM, collaboration, and the dice, and I can assure you they will always be fun and challenging.)

Captain planet is a last resort and a joke, no one wants the heart ring .... It seems your player get the most enjoyment out of back stabbing rather than story. Maybe you should look for a system that is focused more on RP back stabbing? The boring lulls in the game are a byproduct of the style they enjoy, there is little you can do to bend the framework of a game largely based on teamwork to a group that is the antithesis there of.

Reb S. said: another topic, well, here is a particular problem i run into with my group.  my players like to play as morally gray to out right evil characters, i take this into account by generally putting them in roles that cast them as villians or initially uninterested indiviaduals that get drawn into the plot.  my problem is, as evil characters more than half the time they are vying for power, even at the expense of sacrificing fellow players to acheive their goals.  dming can be challenging enough trying to balance a cohsesive team againt your own minions, but when they areplotting against each other it can be a nightmare. i dont like constraining the players by using personality control devices.  and by that i mean plot devices like bomb collars or brain bugs that inflict harm when they go against an antogonists wishes.   granted its not always bad, sometimes it leads to great fun, they love their characters and i enjoy witnessing the micropolitics that occurs behind other player's backs, even the betrayed player enjoys exacting his revenge later on as another character.  but generally once the back stabbing begins, it spells doom for the rest of the campaign, cause now you have a fragmented group, with characters going seperates ways, and i dont like having my players spliting up, doing opposite things, leads to boredom when one group is in the middle of a battle and another group is shopping . i guess my question is, how would you deal with evil campaign characters without overwriting their character creation choices and campaign choices while preserving team cohesion? To discuss this a bit further (as it is very common from what I see in others games), I often see this kind of player interaction as a sign that there is tension and/or player narrative control lacking in the game. "I want to play an evil campaign" generally means "I want more narrative control." Because nobody would fault an evil character for burning down an inn, right? It's an evil act to most and the character is controlled by the player and so the DM can't really do anything about that without seeming like he's blocking their choices. Burning down an inn or knifing the merchant or whatever is just the player exercising control over the game world through his only perceived interface with the game. Giving the players more narrative control without needing to be evil often serves to stop this impetus (if you think it should be stopped) because they can be "good" and have the same measure of narrative control. Let the players control more aspects of the game, within some limits like "Yes, and...," and I bet this problem (if you see it as such) goes away. The other thing is tension. I bolded part of your post above. Where is the tension in this shopping scene? Why is it getting "screen time?" My guess is that you believe that every choice should be played out, even if the outcome is not in question. This really isn't necessary and in a lot of ways contributes to what some may consider "disruptive" play from the players. It kills the pacing of the game, too - you get less "done" and the game doesn't move forward like it could. They're hanging out in the tavern and before you know it, they start a fight, the place burns down, town guards show up (ugh), and in the aftermath there's a lot of dead constables and potentially some PCs in the clink. This is one of the oldest D&D tropes in the book and it happens frequently because the DM is playing out scenes that have no real tension. In the absence of compelling tension, the players will create it for you. Now, this is fine if you like that sort of thing, but it's not what many consider D&D to be about - heroic fantasy adventuring. (Hence Voth's good suggestion to try a different game platform if this kind of play is what you like.) In the approach I advocate, every scene has tension or at least a compelling question to be answered. This might be, "Will the ghoul tear Ragnar's face off?" or "Will we find out the truth behind Gnomefinger's motivations?" or "Will Ragnar finally tell Princess Lilac he loves her?" Once that question is answered or events occur such that the question cannot be answered, the scene is done and we move on. If a scene has no compelling tension - and this is something I collaborate with the players on in case I'm missing some angle they find important - then it gets no screen time. We narrate the outcome, establish the necessary fiction, and move on. Most shopping scenes will be about whether Ragnar gets a 10% discount on that shiny new sword he wants. Is that really what you'd want to see in a movie you paid $10 to go see? Or is that what ends up on the cutting room floor so you have more time for exciting action and adventure? So, given the events of the game, pick and choose with your players which gets played out and which get narrated. The ones in which there is no tension or no compelling question to be answered get skipped. With that approach, there's simply no time for them to engage in creating tension among each other with backstabbing and treachery. They're going to be facing other greater problems together - or face the (fun and interesting) consequences of inaction. To some extent (and this goes back to player narrative control), gameplay like this is a byproduct of seeing the game as about being immersed in the character . This doesn't happen when you focus on collaboratively building and becoming immersed primarily in the scene and, by extension, your character. In order to do this, the players need to be able to control aspects of the world outside of the four corners of their character sheet. If you or your players believe in policing the use of metagame information by players, you may actually be causing (in part) this kind of gameplay from the players. Ultimately, of course, no approach works without player buy-in and if you want something to happen or change in your game, the best way is to address the matter directly, outside of the context of the game. Say directly what you want or hope to see and ask for the players' help in making that happen, if they're interested in it. The worst they can say is "no" in which case perhaps you can find some other common ground on which to operate.

i guess i just need to find a system that more accomadates our play style.  really when we play the plot is secondary.  there may be a huge monster ravaging the countryside, and the mayors daughter is trapped in the underground fortress and by saving her, he will give you the next step to forging the ultimate weapons, but my players would rather just let her die and instead set up business in town and conscript slave labor to gather materials to forge their ultimate weapons to kill the monster.  i guess i could tell them no, but it so much more fun to say yes.  i end up setting up slave revolts, revolutionists, assasins, and their reasoning is that since they are the only ones that can defeat the monster, the town owes it to them. my friends are just a bunch goof balls, its fun, but it completely ruins any sense of a cohesive plot.

It sounds like you're going with a traditional approach of quest-givers offering rewards for doing things. Have you ever tried flipping that on its head? In a "Yes, and..." group, the DM is obligated to accept and add onto player ideas and the same goes for the players as to the DM's ideas. So when the DM says something like, "There's a huge monster ravaging the countryside, the stuff of nightmares. In fact, Ragnar used to have nightmares of this monster when he was a child and here it is given form. What personal connection to this rampaging beast do you have, Ragnar?" The DM has established a truth here - that there is a monster, it's messing stuff up, and Ragnar is connected to it. The player then says, "Yes, and...", accepting the DM's idea and adds to it with his own ideas, perhaps, "Yes, and I'm connected to it because it's a vengeful spirit made real by a curse placed upon my family for a slight against a warlock 3 generations ago." What just happened there? The DM's prep is validated by the player. The player has learned something new about his own character. And all the other players have learned something about Ragnar and the world. Don't you want to know what it's going to take to slay that beast? Or what that warlock's all about? Or what Ragnar's clan did to deserve this curse? The possibilities are endless and we can play to find out all of these answers! The character now has a personal stake in being involved with this bit of game content. It's no guarantee that Ragnar will stop his shopping trip to go deal with this beast, but that personal stake can make all the difference. Especially since at least part of that established fiction came directly from the player himself, meaning he is more likely to want to see where that idea goes than if the DM just made it all up himself. Same goes for the mayor's daughter, the ultimate weapon, or any other bit of game content (whether it's a plot or just a situation or location) - establish a connection, ask the player for their buy-in, and ask them to help you flesh out why they care (not if - why ). It creates so much fiction to add to the tapestry of the game, develops the characters beyond their character sheets, drives action, provides stakes, suggests future adventures (i.e. less work for DM), and includes player ideas that they'll want to see play out.

I think it would be helpful to identify some different styles that are emerging from these discussions. Iserith, whilst completely accepting of other playing styles, it seems that you are more focused on the collaborative storytelling approach, and that you take more of a head-writer role a lot of the time than a traditional DM. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to make assumptions about the way you work, but that is how I interpret a lot of your stance on topics discussed so far. I prefer more character focused work, playing out shopping scenes and limiting their narrative involvement to their own actions. My players appreciate a closer connection to their character and still bring a lot of personal narrative to the table. If anyone else has a specific approach, feel free to pipe in (or shoot down my definitions) but if our comments are framed with our particular approaches then we may understand the different allowances made whilst playing. @Reb S. - It's just another gimmick, but have you tried working with them on their level? Get an NPC that is prepared to help one group take out the other group. But that NPC of course offers the same deal to both and double crosses them. Then they have been made to look like fools and now have a shared enemy.

I generally start off with a plan then it devolves into impromptu story telling on my part reacting to their actions.  Probably not as elegantly, I start off with a plan, then I end up throwing it away the minutes the players open their mouths.  Maybe I should just plan to have the players make up most of it as it goes along.  I have always been a big fan of allowing the players to do what they want, to the detriment of my own plans.  I guess I just need to get over myself. I generally try to shy away from the WoW exclamation point quest givers, or if I do, I try to dress it up a little, I prefer them to happening upon hints in the environment.  I have never really considered having the players almost explicitly making their own quests and plot with nudges from me.  I think I will utilize this and see how it goes in my future games.

John B. said: @Reb S. - It's just another gimmick, but have you tried working with them on their level? Get an NPC that is prepared to help one group take out the other group. But that NPC of course offers the same deal to both and double crosses them. Then they have been made to look like fools and now have a shared enemy. Yeah, I help them double cross each other once they start in on it.  However, once they find out they are all being betrayed, they will scapegoat, kill the NPC or devolve into straight up PVP.  Its not totally bad, but sometimes it would be nice to make it to the end of a plot line.

@John B.: That's a pretty decent analogy (head-writer role) though I would eschew any authority that may come with that. The closer I can get to everyone playing and having equal "power" at the table (or online), the better. I also don't write plots or scripts as you would in a TV show or the like. It's probably no surprise that I also enjoy GMless games. I ran in the many styles that others espouse for years and years, so I know the work and can make for great games. I've had a blast in all, being blessed with good players and DMs. Each style's got it's own little foibles though I've found and so far the best method I've found for the least amount of prep and the most amount of player engagement (the things I value when I play) is what I've been talking about above. As for hiccups, it's not easy (at first) because improvisation is a skill like any other. Some players have to grow into it as they test boundaries (2 to 4 sessions, I've found). But once you get there, it's magic. Less prep also means more games (or game the same amount but with higher production value).

Reb S. said: I generally start off with a plan then it devolves into impromptu story telling on my part reacting to their actions.  Probably not as elegantly, I start off with a plan, then I end up throwing it away the minutes the players open their mouths.  Maybe I should just plan to have the players make up most of it as it goes along.  I have always been a big fan of allowing the players to do what they want, to the detriment of my own plans.  I guess I just need to get over myself. I generally try to shy away from the WoW exclamation point quest givers, or if I do, I try to dress it up a little, I prefer them to happening upon hints in the environment.  I have never really considered having the players almost explicitly making their own quests and plot with nudges from me.  I think I will utilize this and see how it goes in my future games. As to throwing out what you want in favor of the players, that's mighty cool of you, but it does represent wasted prep on your part. If you try out the approach I'm talking about, frame your questions to the players in such a way that it points back to the non-plot based prep you've done. Say you got a dungeon location with particular iconic monsters, NPCs, treasures, etc. in it. Ask a leading question that ties the PC to that specific thing that you prepped. You'll require less prep as a result and none of it will go to waste! If you need any help or advice on this approach, don't hesitate to ask! I'd also love to hear about your experiences in this regard.

Well you don't like personality control devices Reb, but an interesting one could have them placed in some sort of soul link. If one dies they all die, this would make combat death saves very intense (dunno what system you run). Also if you really think about it, is it personality control or just running a test on how their personality would react under such constraints. I could just picture one threatening suicide lol. Still if this just contrasts too sharply with your personal style a new system may fix it all, Im no expert on systems tho so read some reviews or start a thread ... lol

I have a DMing question: travel, resting, watches, and the random encounters generated by this. How do you handle this under different circumstances such as familiar land, unfamiliar, safe, or unsafe? Do you gloss it over and say "three weeks later you are here" or do take 21 sleep cycles? When and why? How do you determine this?

When my party travels the first thing they are asked is "How." Are you going fast? Are you being cautious? What route do you plan (in the maps they know, so far this is the only map they have far as world travel goes)? Are you heavily laden? Etc.

The only time I will play out travel is if the challenge of travel matters. The most common example of this is when the PCs are under a time constraint and the challenge is thus to get from one place to another in under a certain time or [bad things]. Then it's probably a complex skill challenge with thematic complications along the way, some of which can turn into encounters depending on the rolls or how the players want to overcome the complication. If travel doesn't really matter, then we skip it and I just ask the players what kinds of obstacles and encounters they had along the way and how they overcame them. Maybe I'll throw some world-building questions in there to flesh out the world a bit as well. Then it's back to the action at whatever location.

Resting depends on the type of adventure I'm running. There's almost always some kind of time constraint in our adventures, so resting is always a trade-off. Short rests or extended rests (4e) generally have a roll for random events attached to it. Those events aren't all encounters, sometimes they're stuff that happens off-camera and are revealed later. An event happens, generally speaking on a roll of 5 or 6 on a 1d6. It's sometimes only on a 6 if the PCs pay a cost or take action and make a skill check to reduce their odds through preparation (whatever that means in context). Failure on that skill check, of course, means the event now happens on 4, 5, or 6 instead! If an encounter does occur during an extended rest, I ask the players to tell me when it occurred, who was on watch, and whether it happened before they got the benefit of the extended rest or after. The latter bit I ask players to decide on short rests as well. Some scenarios don't allow for short rests or extended rests at all. Some scenarios tie the benefits of short and extended rests to objectives.

Iserith said: An event happens, generally speaking on a roll of 5 or 6 on a 1d6. It's sometimes only on a 6 if the PCs pay a cost or take action and make a skill check to reduce their odds through preparation (whatever that means in context). Failure on that skill check, of course, means the event now happens on 4, 5, or 6 instead! I like this, and I'm adopting it in my own campaigns.

I like the idea of dropping the percentiles to a d6, it's funny how robotically I chose a d20. Hmm it seems one could use just 1-2 to spawn the attacks and go up or down on dice size to alter the percentile, just imagine, you are in a dark spooky place trying to rest and the DM ominously slides that little pyramid over "you must roll a d4 dun dun duuunn". In roll20 terms I have a token preset with stats that are appropriate for the area dropped to the GM layer. Last rest cycle encounter that spawned in one of my games were two carrion rat swarms in the belly of a temple ruin that ended up being attracted to blood, based off the fact half the party went to bed bloodied it pushed up the percentiles. They were out of surges as this was one of those campaign stints where the DM reminds the PCs they are mortal. Without spoiling anything for any current campaigns, Iserith, gimme some examples of off-camera events during rest cycles? Evil army gets closer? or like actual changes to the dungeon in the sense a door/trap that was unlocked/unset may become locked/set?

Sure, here's a couple examples from two adventures I have on Roll20 ( Island of the Frog and The Crucible ). You'd roll a d6 to determine if there is an event, then another 1d6 to determine which. You can see they both have "off-camera" events built in. There's really no spoilers here - you could play these two adventures over and over and come up with different fictional outcomes each time. 1 or 2. Random Monsters: Flock of Peacockatrice (4), Great Apes (2 silverbacks, 10 harriers), Murder of Stirges (2 dire, 2 swarms), The Lornak, Reaper Bloom (2 reaper blossoms). 3. Volcanic Activity: There is a sudden eruption of the volcano on this island. This is a Complexity 1 skill challenge. Complications include: Ash Cloud, Earthquake, Panicked Beasts, Pyroclastic Flow, Raining Debris, Poisonous Outgassing, River of Lava, Volcanic Rift. 4. Progress for Enemies: One particular faction gains a foothold in another area to the detriment of the PCs now or later. 5. Faction Encounter: The PCs run afoul of Grippli Hunters, Bullywug Pirates, or Chitine Horde, as appropriate to their location. 6. Increased Activity: The PCs' sedentary activities have been noted by creatures in the area. Double all remaining Complications related to Groups in the appropriate skill challenge. 1. Random Encounter (500 XP):  2 kestrekel blood flocks, 10 kestrekel carrion eaters; id fiend; 2 goblin beast marshals, 3 bloodmonger wolves. 2. Rival Faction Gains Ground 3. Random Encounter (625 XP):  2 bone constructs, 5 decrepit skeletons; 5 ambush spiders; dragonborn mercenary, 4 common bandits. 4. Something is Undone 5. Random Encounter (750 XP):  silk wyrm adult; 5 nothic mindwarps; Enda Yate, 4 scurrying wererats. 6. Respawn: The restless dead rise again or the living/recently dead becomes undead.

I like the volcanic activity, that could be reskinned so many ways even straying away from natural disaster, like anything from disease advancements to withdraws from some addiction and the corresponding skill challenges. Something is undone sounds very frustrating.

Voth said: Something is undone sounds very frustrating. Ask the players: "During your rest, something you have done has been undone. What is it and who did it or how did it happen?" Their answer comes with their inherent buy-in such that it can't be frustrating (to the players, if not the characters).

Gotcha, you preempt the ooc frustrations by making them choose, lol.

I think I know what you mean, but I "ask," them to choose not "make" (just to be clear). This turns the issue of the metagame right on its head. Any questions can always be turned around to the questioner, but then you have no grounds to be annoyed with the answer if you do that!

Well you can spin it how you like, superficially speaking, but I understand the psychological mechanic being used to soften the blow. I too word things with less bluntness and more diplomacy when in game. I think ultimately it comes down to personalty, no matter how it's spun, losing progress would irritate me lol, but clearly it's incentive to push on a play tactically to optimize your healing surges (or corresponding healing mechanic for systems you run) . Without such incentives some players can get very careless with encounters and don't take them seriously.

All in all though, thank you Iserith for showing me an angle I hadn't thought of rest wise, how long have you been DMing?

I like for choices to be meaningful in our games. The key to that is not necessarily that a given choice is right or wrong, but that each choice represents a potential trade-off. Sure, you can rest - if you're willing to put something at risk. If you cleared out the Hallway of Deadly Traps and then decided to take a nap, well, there's a chance magic or dungeon denizens reactivate those traps (something is undone). Sure, you can go after Jarl Osvald to stop the threat of the Northmen, but that means ignoring the grimlocks coming up from the Underdark to steal children in Grimfjord. Tension and risk are things I try to bring out as much as possible when I DM. I aim for there to never be a dull moment from start to finish. These trade-offs make for a dynamic and changing (and dangerous) game, all the time. I've been DMing for just over 20 years now.

20 years is a respectable resume indeed, I do enjoy the learning experience = ) I've been at it roughly 6 months now so I feel like I have so much to learn. I too like to make choices meaningful and try to make them nonlinear. I know where I want my players to be in a year (relatively speaking, time frames are so abstract) but where they will be in a day I have no idea. I also like to make choices have layered effects, they may have completed some objective but at what cost? So then tension and risk themes are something that play into my game plan well. Also I have been looking for ways to play up dynamic changing enviornments.

Homies, I've been DMing for like a week. :D

Yeah Alex just from the first delve to the second I played with you, your confidence increased. Probably helped it was mostly the same people. You'll run into lots a rules lawyering and errata being brought up (like the hellish rebuke issue), I recommend getting dndinsider cuz that searchable filterable compendium is so nice to have as a DM. 4e has so much freaking errata.

Yes, I don't put much stock in how long someone's been DMing, so please don't take my 20 year resume as anything other than trivia. I've seen plenty of terrible DMs who've been playing and DMing just as long. It's a skill set, but it's also a mindset and while skill sets improve with time, mindsets rarely do. @Voth: What sort of advice are you seeking with regard to "dynamic changing environments?" Re: Rules Lawyers -  With the exception of something that is just completely out-of-bounds, you're better off simply erring on the side of the player if a rules question comes up. Niggling details almost never matter in the long run and in most cases, they don't matter to the outcome of a situation in the short run either. DM ad hoc rulings are not legal precedents - they're just a way to keep the game moving. No rules issue is worth taking even 1 second of game time to look up. It creates tension between everyone at the table and it breaks the pace of the game. Ask the player how he or she thinks it works and just go with that. It's literally nothing to the DM and it builds trust. Make a note of it and look it up after the game, then clear it up next session outside the context of the game. (I like a forum post for this.)

while skill sets improve with time, mindsets rarely do. While these words apply to a profoundly huge spectrum of people, outside of DMing as well, lol, I can see your mindset coincides close enough with mine that 20 years of honing is applicable to this situation, imo. As far a what advice I'm seeking, I think its more of a case of serendipity, I didn't know I was looking for a way to implement rest cycles in such a deep way till you offered your advice. From this point forward tho, rest cycles will be seen as less of a nuisance and more as a tool for me when applicable. With rules lawyering I tell my players up front that it's not tolerated, you're welcome to convince me before or after the game (and likely will), but it's an unwanted time sink during and the encounter is balanced for my current understanding of the rules. I also reskin 90% of everything cuz I'm better at making stuff up than memorizing another's made up stuff so I get no questions about monsters lol. 

Reb S. said: i guess i just need to find a system that more accomadates our play style.  really when we play the plot is secondary.  there may be a huge monster ravaging the countryside, and the mayors daughter is trapped in the underground fortress and by saving her, he will give you the next step to forging the ultimate weapons, but my players would rather just let her die and instead set up business in town and conscript slave labor to gather materials to forge their ultimate weapons to kill the monster.  i guess i could tell them no, but it so much more fun to say yes.  i end up setting up slave revolts, revolutionists, assasins, and their reasoning is that since they are the only ones that can defeat the monster, the town owes it to them. my friends are just a bunch goof balls, its fun, but it completely ruins any sense of a cohesive plot. When I was a player in the "old" days those were some of the funnest sessions.  Players doing their own silly things trying to conquer the world.  I think as GM you try and guide them to your plot, but if they want to go scam the local thieves guild or rob some wizard they met that pissed them off then try and go with it.  They always end up having fun.

Voth said: You'll run into lots a rules lawyering and errata being brought up (like the hellish rebuke issue) That is fine. My players are welcome to whatever set of rules they want, so long as they're not obviously fictional. If the encounters appear to be too easy, then I'll make them harder to compensate. *shrug* It doesn't bother me at all.

@Voth: If you want to take it up a notch as far as dynamic play, you might consider something I took from Dungeon World and use in, well, all of my various games - fronts. There are campaign fronts and adventure fronts. Adventure fronts are a way of looking at the factions or forces involved in a given adventure so that you can see at a glance how they might evolve or react as the PCs engage (or fail to engage!) with them. Campaign fronts are a bit more slow-moving - they're the forces in the background that are bigger, more dangerous, and come to fruition later. Adventure fronts can become campaign fronts if they resolve themselves and become more dangerous. The idea here is that for any given adventure location, you want at least 2 factions in play. Those factions should be at odds in some way, directly or indirectly, and each should be pursuing a goal or plan (Impending Doom). An example could be goblins and kobolds fighting a turf war in a ruined dwarven holdfast (but they're both scared of a giant lizard named Snarg that lairs outside the dungeon). When the PCs show up at the location and pursue their goals, they rub up against these factions and based upon the goals of that faction, it generates action. Just choose from the list of possible responses by the faction and execute it in-game. Or if there's a lull in the action, tick off a Grim Portent (one of the steps leading up to the Impending Doom). Here's an adventure front I wrote up for a fellow DM who wanted an adventure set in Dark Sun based loosely on the song, "Hotel California." The location was a cursed walled oasis in a salt flat called Bittercrag where you could check out anytime you like... but you could never leave. With just this little bit of information, a map, and some stat blocks, you have everything you need to run 3-5 sessions of dynamic play whose outcome isn't known to anyone, including the DM! BITTERCRAG (Cursed Place: Shadowland) Impulse: to corrupt the living. Grim Portents: Reveal the Keystone The mission bell rings The heroes just can’t kill The Beast Impending Doom: Impoverishment. Characters are entrapped by Bittercrag, possibly forever, abandoning that which is good and right. Undeath soon follows. Possible Actions: Vomit forth a lesser monster Spread to an adjacent place Draw the attention of a curious party Grow in intensity or depth Leave a lingering effect on an inhabitant or visitor Hide something from sight Offer power Dampen magic or increase its effects Confuse or obfuscate truth or direction Corrupt a natural law THE PALE SSURANS OF SHEMU'EL (Arcane Enemy: Ancient Curse) Impulse: to ensnare. Grim Portents: The storm intensifies Tzivah, the Dune Mystic appears A crack in the keystone Impending Doom: Tyranny. The keystone is destroyed and the curse is strengthened. Those who are trapped are trapped forever. Possible Actions: Learn forbidden knowledge Cast a spell over time and space Attack a foe with magic, directly or otherwise Spy on someone with a scrying spell Recruit a follower or toady Tempt someone with promises Demand a sacrifice THE CRAGNOSE CLAN (Ambitious Organization: Misguided Good) Impulse: to complete the construction of Bittercrag no matter the cost. Grim Portents: The informant bleeds Master Hiram calls for a feast The keystone rises into position Impending Doom: Destruction. The keystone is placed improperly, causing the storm to tear apart Bittercrag and destroy everyone and everything in it... for a time. Possible Actions: Attack someone by stealthy means (kidnapping, etc.) Attack someone directly (with a gang or single assailant) Absorb or buy out someone important (an ally, perhaps) Influence a body of control (change a law, manipulate doctrine) Establish a new rule (within the organization) Claim territory or resources Negotiate a deal Observe a potential foe in great detail

Faction play is enjoyable. Recently had a loose "Battle of the Noble Houses" event in my campaign that allowed most players (players who joined the fray at the last second were admittedly forced to having pre-enlisted in one of the houses in order to speed things along though it gave the players true regret that I feel made them more keen on just how each house acted) and depending on where players ended at the end of a certain amount of time (the session) determined which house then controlled that part of town. While it didn't go as smoothly as I liked, each player had their moments to shine, or fall on their heads. I likely won't re-use this implement again for quite awhile and not until I have time to actually polish each of the groups beyond a few key characters but far as the feedback I got for this sort of things it was enjoyed.

Thanks Iserith, it is always nice to get a behind the screen look at DM notes for ideas. Hopefully my players don't read our long winded blather on here lol, but my current campaign has several factions complete with a very layered spectrum of what they appear to be, what they are and to what degree the other factions know and the reactions brought by this to slowly paint a detailed picture as the PCs work their way through the ranks of an organization, attempt to reform it, or abandon it all together. Man, that was a run-on sentence. I also have a player who is writing a recap reskinned as a journal entry where he talks to his god and that unique view of a PC's inner dialogue has allowed me to really get into the head of the PC and shape the world accordingly. I run a very abstract, open,  and evolving game where I'm constantly making crap up on the fly so It would be very daunting for me to compile it into a package to pass off to a fellow DM. At best I suppose I could only give a seeded story. Mutt house battle style games I think are a great way to do a gritty underbelly of a city theme, which I like. Not every adventure need carry you around the world to feel epic, I love those more  intimate  settings. A  fractional heave ho over a town's districts lead to some very dynamic story telling and ultimately, for me, turns into resource management. A desire to control the docks to have control over imports and first pick of magic items, control over the artisan district to make a statue and garner favor with the lord of the land etc. 

I actually hope my players do. From a player standpoint, knowing just how much a game could vary from just who is behind the DM screen is wonderful! Especially when they see that the majority really lets them meld their own influence over things to varying degrees. The way my campaign goes, that one two-session situation has a permanent impact on any player that now travels there in another session and gives a very far reaching change as to what is sold at the shops, how the citizens act, etc. But then again that depends on if the campaign ever swings them back in that direction. But as you know, my set-up also has other groups that are then affected by the actions of the other even if they have no prior experience in that location would in essence be touched by this conflict. Delightful for me ^_^

The nice part about that organizational method above is that the "Possible Actions" remain the same between any "Ambitious Organization" whether that be an insidious cabal or a righteous knight's order. So that reduces my prep on the front end greatly. Each of those actions are simply broad ideas that can be used in conjunction with the context of the scene. When the players look to me to find out what happens (perhaps because of an action they took or the outcome of a die roll), I just scan down the bullet points until one jumps out at me, then improvise accordingly. I could show my players an adventure front as above and they'd still have no clue how the adventure will turn out. And neither do I!

At this point, 6 months of DMing under my belt, 1 game a week is trivial, I've not had to think in terms of past or future games really. I no doubt see the value in notes, I takes tons a bullet the hell out of them. As Mutt was saying, actions and reactions are tracked and revisited on players. I do need to hone in and start tracking my thoughts better for future use. At this point I have that new to the game out look where it's hard to even fathom keeping track of the million directions my mind goes with each action a PC takes. I'd like to add more pre existing structure, at this point, Iserith, I could take your factional skeleton and flesh it with my factions easily. = )

Are we supposed to keep track of how long we dm? Crap. Uhhhhh *time*. yeah. :D I have sort of cheated when it comes to the overworld my players are in, simply ripped it from a novel I never could quite finish so structure is there if not loosely. I can't actually recall making notes which is bad on my part I suppose but I just... do everything out of my head, always have. Overall this is something I am forced to remedy as I attempt to have other dms exist in my world.

Yeah I'm an out of my head kinda guy too, and no we aren't having a phallic comparison of time lol! Iserith, I'm having trouble coming to exact terms with "Grim Portents", is this a fancy way of saying trigger or do you literally mean an omen in which case all three omens must come to pass to pull the trigger, or something else?