Session One

We launch in a few hours. I've dropped in a journal note that every character has received somehow in the past day, so feel free to discuss that in character prior to the session start, either here on the forum, or if folks show up early, in the virtual tabletop. Everyone should also have private access to a randomly generated rumor they've heard in some appropriate fashion. Finally, I've posted a journal entry with the current set of house rules, mostly as discussed previously. There shouldn't be anything particularly surprising there, but please check it out. I have tweaked the Injury/Shock tables, I'm not certain whether players can merely roll or see the actual table, but I'll post the full table if desired.

We can't see the actual table, just roll, but thats ok so its a total suprise whatever happens.

Initial thoughts: the session was a bit bumpy at times, mostly in pace, but there was some great conversations and talk between characters, which was great. I realize also that sending the group to this particular place is clearly a "rail" of sorts, although the position you were to begin dictated that. I would have run with it had you tried to escape. ;0 I'm reasonably happy with the open ended many-branching nature of the dungeon though, which has already provided a lot of options for the group to do as they will within that context. I realize that may be somewhat frustrating in terms of task-completion, however. Bookkeeping wise, collectively you gained 600 XP, or 150 each. That's halfway to level 2! Although as noted, leveling up will normally only be at Safe Havens. I may have more thoughts and I'll leave them here, feel free to post your own thoughts about the content, style, or how I personally could improve here as well. Thanks to everyone who was able to make it. As a further note, healing *is* clearly important, and not having a class capable of healing along was painful. I suspect healing potions will be bought in large quantities eventually. One thing that may have been missed though, is the Fighter's ability to heal themselves once per rest, which will have signicantly more impact on the game due to these variant rules.

I don't see the starting point of a campaign as a "rail" or as "railroading." It has to start somewhere and with some sort of premise after all. You could just have easily started us at the ruins of the black castle and given us an exposition info-dump. (That's probably what I would have done.) The interaction scene at the start was basically just an improvisational warm-up exercise plus exposition which is just fine. The only cost of that sort of thing is time and tempo (at least as it relates to getting to the first conflict). All-in-all, no problems here. Now that I see leveling up requires a safe haven, you could very easily do away with the restrictions on regaining (half) hit dice during a long rest only in safe havens. This might be a marked improvement, in fact. We will definitely be returning to civilization to level because leveling is fun. You don't also need to tie it to resource recovery with that house rule in effect. You can keep system shock and lingering injuries as-is as long as we don't have to go back to safe havens to get hit dice back. Without those potions last night, Chuck Dagger was effectively done adventuring after one successful attack by a single monster (5 damage!). That is probably not the intention of these house rules, but it's certainly the effect it will have. Not requiring safe havens for hit dice recovery will mitigate this somewhat, but still leaves the possibility of the 15-minute work day on the table and will encourage the creation of healing characters or the purchase of potions as you say (in 3.Xe, it was the ubiquitous wand of cure light wounds that everyone hated but used anyway). The only thing I wasn't too sure about was when you were asking for rolls from players without the players having described an action. To me, this is something of a presumption of a character taking an action with an uncertain outcome by the DM. Perception checks was the most obvious thing, but there were other instances if I remember correctly. I've certainly seen lots of DMs approach this the way you do, but personally I don't think it fits with D&D 5e. I can live with it though and will adapt accordingly. It should be noted, however, that it will encourage people to boost their ability check numbers more than anything as that's the only real way players have any control over things given that approach. This kicks the skill in playing from actions taken during play to options chosen during character creation or advancement - character skill rather than player skill. I can talk about this further if I'm not clear. We should probably talk about passive Perception as well, especially since Chuck's is 20. I'll post more on that later. I can offer some advice on how to make it useful, but not "overpowered."

The only thing I wasn't too sure about was when you were asking for rolls from players without the players having described an action. To me, this is something of a presumption of a character taking an action with an uncertain outcome by the DM. Perception checks was the most obvious thing, but there were other instances if I remember correctly. I've certainly seen lots of DMs approach this the way you do, but personally I don't think it fits with D&D 5e I'm learning here myself, so noted. More than happy take suggestions. I suppose in those situations the better course of action is to use the 5e mechanic of the passive skill, since mostly these asked for rolls revolved around "did you hear X which I know about but you don't know about". As a matter of principle, I *am* interested in pushing for player skill over character skill. Without those potions last night, Chuck Dagger was effectively done adventuring after one successful attack by a single monster (5 damage!). That is probably not the intention of these house rules, but it's certainly the effect it will have. Not requiring safe havens for hit dice recovery will mitigate this somewhat, but still leaves the possibility of the 15-minute work day on the table and will encourage the creation of healing characters or the purchase of potions as you say (in 3.Xe, it was the ubiquitous wand of cure light wounds that everyone hated but used anyway). Essentially yeah. No this wasn't the intent... I think the primary issue of the 15 minute workday will be well solved by enforcing of the old-school mechanic of "wandering monsters" which I was doing in any case. If I roll that every 10 narrative minutes as I have planned, that's 6 chances per short rest and 48 per long rest if the character choose to rest inside a clearly dangerous area like a dungeon.

I'm learning here myself, so noted. More than happy take suggestions. I suppose in those situations the better course of action is to use the 5e mechanic of the passive skill, since mostly these asked for rolls revolved around "did you hear X which I know about but you don't know about". As a matter of principle, I *am* interested in pushing for player skill over character skill. This is going to sound very basic and long-winded, but it's a key D&D 5e conceit in my view and it's sort of for everybody (including myself so as to organize my thoughts), so please don't take it as patronizing. The basic conversation of the game is this: 1. The DM describes the environment. 2. The players describe what they want to do. 3. The DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions. Somewhere between #2 and #3, the DM has to decide whether the actions the players described will succeed, fail, or have an uncertain outcome. If it's the latter, that's the only time the DM calls for a check. Let's call this 2b. So no we have: 1. The DM describes the environment. 2. The players describe what they want to do. 2b. The DM decides whether what the players described succeeds, fails, or has an uncertain outcome and calls for a check in the case of the latter. 3. The DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions. Without #2, there can be no #2b. So if the players haven't described an action, the DM cannot ask for a check. What's more, players can't ask for a check at all - they can only state actions, so it's incumbent on them to always be doing something to drive the action of the game forward. This is really important in a sandbox game. The players must primarily be proactive, not reactive, or else the game stalls. While we're at it, let's look at passive Perception. Perception in D&D 5e is used when there's an uncertain chance of a character detecting the presence of something by spotting it, hearing it, or whatever. The passive check mechanic is used when a character is performing a particular task repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again or keeping an eye out for hidden threats like monsters and traps. (It can also be used when the DM wants to secretly determine when the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, but I'm not an advocate of this.) A passive check is still a check - only used when the DM thinks there is uncertainty in resolving an action. Note: "Passive" isn't to be confused with "not actively doing something." Because that's an easy mistake to make. A passive check is actively doing something over and over again and taking the average result of a roll. The "passive" part refers to there being no rolling. Put those two together and we get passive Perception which is when a character is trying repeatedly to spot, hear, or otherwise detect something. This is why when it comes to determining surprise, the DM compares the monster's Stealth check to the PCs' passive Perception check (or vice versa). There are, however, exceptions to when the DM does this. In the case of a PC doing something other than keeping a constant eye out for hidden threats - such as someone who is engaged in an exploration task (map-making, navigating, foraging, tracking, etc.) - that PC's passive Perception isn't applied at all. They're just straight-up surprised because they are not keeping an eye out. This is why a ranger's class feature that lets him do an exploration task while being alert to danger is kind of nice. Likewise, you might decide that if we spend enough time searching a hallway for secret doors (perhaps at the cost of a wandering monster check), we just find the secret door, no roll, no passive check. Or you might say we certainly fail because we're looking in the wrong place. If we're spending just a little time on it and aren't honed in on the exact area, you might then decide finding it is uncertain and go with the passive check to determine a result. (One might then ask: So when do you use a regular Perception check then? Well, anytime a character isn't doing a task repeatedly.) Now, to bring this all together, the DM is well-advised to telegraph hidden things. Telegraphing means to convey something subtly. In a D&D context, this means noticeable clues or the suggestion that there may be hidden clues. If there's a hidden object in the room, there should be some outward sign of it that is subtle e.g. a scorch mark on the door might be due to a flame trap in the area or a draft in an otherwise sealed room could indicate the presence of a secret door. Of course, that scorch mark might be from fire beetles mating or the draft a bit of residual magic from the elemental plane of air, but that won't be apparent until the PCs investigate these clues, make deductions, and act accordingly. If they ignore the clues, they might run afoul of the trap or miss the secret door. If they engage with those clues, they may or may not find the trap or secret door, depending on what they say they do and whether they succeed at a check - passive or otherwise - when their actions have uncertain outcomes. That was a lot of words that I hope are useful. Looking at it this way and internalizing it should make aspects of the game run smoother in your mind and be easier for you to adjudicate. It will also show you how Chuck's PP 20 isn't always a big deal because sometimes I'll find the trap or secret door with no check, sometimes I'll fail to find it at all, and sometimes you'll use his passive check to decide. If anybody has any questions or wants to workshop some examples, let me know and I'm happy to discuss it. In any case, while this position is based on my understanding of D&D 5e and long experience in DMing, it's up to Drew to decide whether and what to take from this advice. I make no judgment on that so long as the game experience produces a good time and helps us create exciting, memorable stories in the doing. This advice is meant only to help smooth out any potential rough edges in the game and isn't a statement of anyone doing anything "wrong."

Essentially yeah. No this wasn't the intent... I think the primary issue of the 15 minute workday will be well solved by enforcing of the old-school mechanic of "wandering monsters" which I was doing in any case. If I roll that every 10 narrative minutes as I have planned, that's 6 chances per short rest and 48 per long rest if the character choose to rest inside a clearly dangerous area like a dungeon. Time pressure or wandering monsters are a good counter to the short workday. A short rest in a dungeon where wandering monsters happen on a 19-20 means a 47% chance of at least one wandering monster encounter. That jumps to 63% on 18-20. A long rest is at least one guaranteed wandering monster encounter at 99+%. With a frequency of 19-20, there are at least 5 such encounters about 53% of the time. While long rests aren't "interrupted" by combat unless that combat lasts an hour or more, that many wanderers would certainly have the chance to wreck the party. The practical result is that we leave when it's time for a long rest and hunker down outside. If there was additional time pressure, that choice might be a hard one as well. Right now we're probably looking at delving till low on reserves, then retreating to the surface with some regularity until completion.

I'm traveling this week so don't have a ton of time to dig into all that at the moment, but it's helpful/useful. To be perfectly honest I think I was feeling an element of time pressure and responded by trying to force the action to a certain extent, clearly a mistake regardless. I'll adjust.

Note: "Passive" isn't to be confused with "not actively doing something." Because that's an easy mistake to make. A passive check is actively doing something over and over again and taking the average result of a roll. The "passive" part refers to there being no rolling. I'll try to work on my adjudication of this... Characters that indicate via narrative that they are doing something in repetitive fashion will get the benefit of passive checks I think. For instance, "Chuck steps carefully down the hallway, watching for secret doors" indicates I can use Chuck's PP for checking to find secret doors. This can probably also work to some extent with "standing orders", though it seems reasonable to rule that there are only so many things a character can be constantly checking for in this fashion. I actually did try to push this style somewhat: for instance the second secret door in the crystal statue room wasn't PPed by Chuck--mainly because combat broke out reasonably quickly and it didn't seem reasonable that a half-dead Chuck was really all that attentive to the walls... Now, to bring this all together, the DM is well-advised to telegraph hidden things. Telegraphing means to convey something subtly. Oddly, I feel like I did this better in the session 0 that was thrown together, impromptu style. Possibly that's because since I was working from nothing save the map I had to create on the fly. The crystal statue was perhaps not telegraphed particularly apart from genre-savvy. And the tapestries. Without #2, there can be no #2b. So if the players haven't described an action, the DM cannot ask for a check. What's more, players can't ask for a check at all - they can only state actions, so it's incumbent on them to always be doing something to drive the action of the game forward. This is really important in a sandbox game. The players must primarily be proactive, not reactive, or else the game stalls. Agreed. And again, I think my error here was born of lack of familiarity with the format. Somehow I got caught up in a mode of "they're supposed to do X and Y, then wrap this session up!" and started trying to force the issue, when I should have just sat back and waited, and maybe rolled some random encounter dice. The former style of forcing the issue *isn't* the kind of game I want to run, there was just a personal disconnect. This advice is meant only to help smooth out any potential rough edges in the game and isn't a statement of anyone doing anything "wrong." Taken in that vein. :) I realize this *is* the internet, but I'm pretty generally happy to hear and adjust with constructive criticism. Even to some extent during a session small suggestions are fine, so long as they don't derail us terribly. On that note, I've set the time for next session, the same day/time as last week. Life has been and will continue to be much more busy than it has been recently, but fortunately I've got a lot of material already prepped out. For those who anticipate being there, please sound off here so I check the numbers, since things are pretty obviously hairy.

There is nothing forseeable (family included) that could stop me from coming... I was absolutely dirty that I couldn't show for session 1.

I'll try to work on my adjudication of this... Characters that indicate via narrative that they are doing something in repetitive fashion will get the benefit of passive checks I think. For instance, "Chuck steps carefully down the hallway, watching for secret doors" indicates I can use Chuck's PP for checking to find secret doors. This can probably also work to some extent with "standing orders", though it seems reasonable to rule that there are only so many things a character can be constantly checking for in this fashion. Yeah, check out Basic Rules, pages 64-65. It goes into marching order, staying alert for hidden threats, and exploration tasks. I think the key takeaway from there is that if you're doing anything other than remaining alert for hidden threats, then your passive Perception isn't applied if danger comes calling - you're just surprised. So if Chuck is walking down a long corridor continually checking for secret doors, he's not being alert for traps and monsters. Same deal with our map-maker. I actually did try to push this style somewhat: for instance the second secret door in the crystal statue room wasn't PPed by Chuck--mainly because combat broke out reasonably quickly and it didn't seem reasonable that a half-dead Chuck was really all that attentive to the walls... He had purposefully checked behind the tapestries for anything unusual prior to the combat and wasn't half-dead till after the combat. But anyway, it's all good. I'll be there next session.