My session summary - Thought I would share if anyone would like a read.

Four adventurers traveled to Fallmerrow on the same day. The Half Elves Varis, Lucas, and Gylndorin met up with the Human Regdar at The Gentle Pig. There they had small talk with the Tavernkeep Oswin Bronzeoak, and reminded him not to bite his nails. Gylndorin and Varis shared a pitcher of ale, while Varis and Lucas shared their worship of Kord, the God of battle and storms. After probing Tavernkeep Bronzeoak for work, the four adventurers set off for the Lion's Manor to speak to Count Reynrad Yon, head of the Fallmerrow Adventurer's Guild. Just as they were about to cross the bridge in town, a winged lizard swooped down unseen, and stole Gylndorin's coin purse as it flew by. Lucas quickly grabbed a nearby stone and threw it true, hitting the lizard hard, but not taking it down. At the same time Varis starting spouting out random facts about the beast, stating that it was a Spiretop Drake. Gyldorin and Regdar chased the lizard to the Darkstone tower while Lucas and Varis continued to the Lion's Manor. Lucas and Varis met Count Reynrad Yon and got some leads about some Kobolds attacking a village, and were told to talk to one Lancepesade Thormond Singlebluff stationed in the Eastside Guard Tower overlooking the Slums. Count Reynrad Yon drilled the young adventurers with questions about their knowledge of beasts and adventure. Meanwhile, Gyldorin and Regdar arrived at the darkstone tower and met its owner, Count Erik Steelswift. After much conversation they came to the conclusion that the flying drakes were a menace to Count Steelswift aswell, and decided to take on a verbal contract to find their nest and destroy it. The adventurers rendezvoused and headed to the market to buy a climber's kit for Lucas(the most athletic of the four) and an additional dagger for Regdar so he could defend himself in melee. There was much haggling and confusion as the group argued for who was paying for what, but in the end it was overcome with generosity. With their equipment bought, climber's kit in tow, they decided to stop by the Darkstone Tower one last time before heading into the Fallmerrow Forest. Lucas surprised the group with some fast talking negotiation, and convinced Count Steelswift to throw 5 gold their way as payment for going after the drakes. Varis stepped forward, having studied Lucas' strategy, and demanded that the group receive 5 gold each . Count Steelswift laughed him off as a joke. The adventurers entered the forest, with thick giant trees and undergrowth, and quickly lost sight of the town...they were lost. After some successful navigation and not so successful navigation (Varis tasted some random animal feces for an unknown reason), Lucas got fed up and simply climbed one of the giant trees, and managed to see the location on the nest from atop the canopy. They were close. They battle was a drawn out and sluggish event, as the new adventurers tested their combat prowess. There was much shouting for advice and careful movement. A drake mauled Gylndorin with biting attacks as it flew around the group, but they managed to send it fleeing deeper into the forest bloodied as two more drakes stood guard in their nest, screeching a most annoying sound. Lucas had the clever idea of flashing some silver to the drakes, which worked better than any of them expected, drawing them down into a bloodlust. Varis followed suit and soon the battle was over; the group intoxicated with stabbing, clubbing, and hurling sling rocks at the beasts. Lucas once again, being the most athletic of the four, scaled the giant tree to the nest with some effort and a near fall. Once atop the nest Lucas threw down Gylndorin's coin purse, much to his relief, and gathered the other stolen loot. The group split the remains of three other coin purses, and studied a hemp necklace with intricate silver amulets. They tossed a torch into the nest and watched it burn.

+1

How long was it from the start of play to them entering the forest?

Well, 2 were brand new to table top rpg, and 2 were new to 4th ed and very rusty. It was a 3 hour session, about 2 hours in town/wilderness role-playing and explaining rules, and a hour of combat and rule explaining

Ken B. said: Well, 2 were brand new to table top rpg, and 2 were new to 4th ed and very rusty. It was a 3 hour session, about 2 hours in town/wilderness role-playing and explaining rules, and a hour of combat and rule explaining I would not have wanted to spend two hours on what you described in the town and wilderness, and would have preferred to get right to the roleplaying, with minimal rule explaining. But if you had fun in the way you all wanted and expected, then that's good.

well now, it's not like I sat down and read the rule book to them, it was mostly answering questions and a lot of conversation between players (Meeting for the first time), and describing the town, building, NPCs, Talking to NPC's etc. That's why it is a summary , or else it would be 2 hours of dialogue.(which I couldn't write, because that's impossible to remember) Using skills and explaining what a DC is and how it is set can be a very hard thing to explain to new players.

There's no need to explain or justify. I'm sure it was fun for you. a lot of conversation between players (Meeting for the first time), The players, or the characters? I generally have the characters know each other. Using skills and explaining what a DC is and how it is set can be a very hard thing to explain to new players. Yeah, I probably wouldn't explain it, beyond asking them to roll when necessary. "What do success and failure look like? Ok, roll as high as you can," would probably be the extent. But I really dislike explaining (and re-explaining) rules. Sounds like a pretty traditional session, with a lot of talking and relatively little adventure. What did your players think, particularly the new ones?

The conversation was between the characters mostly, the players know each other by character names more than their real names. (which is great) The characters didn't know each other from the start, But before the session began everyone explained their character background. When the session started, everyone pretty much slipped right into their RP shoes comfortably and introduced themselves, finding common ground. My GM style is a bit awkward compared to the traditional RP style. I know what you mean though, I don't exactly like to explain (and re-explain) rules. But I use a lot of RNG and guidelines, so I make sure the players are aware that I am not going to "fudge" anything to keep them were I want them or make things less (or more) dangerous. My players get the effect of risk and excitement in a way that can be hard to explain; The actions that their characters make can seriously alter the course of the whole game or put them in deadly situations, and there is nothing that I as the GM can really do to save them. All four of the players really enjoyed it, and are looking forward to the next session. In time, everyone will be more comfortable with the rules...and that should cut out the time needed to explain things (such as; how does climbing work?, why does it use athletics?, what DC would surface X have?, etc)

My GM style is a bit awkward compared to the traditional RP style. What you describe sounds very common to me. My players get the effect of risk and excitement in a way that can be hard to explain; The actions that their characters make can seriously alter the course of the whole game or put them in deadly situations, and there is nothing that I as the GM can really do to save them. That's not hard to explain, that is a very common way for people to try to play. What's not very common is a clear understanding of the stakes actually on the table. What does death mean? Does it mean that the work that went into the character is gone? Does it mean the player does not get to play for some amount of time until the character is brought back or replaced? Anything can work, of course, if the players know and accept (really, not hypothetically) the stakes. I'm just curious what your stakes really are. and that should cut out the time needed to explain things (such as; how does climbing work?, why does it use athletics?, what DC would surface X have?, etc) Yes, drop all of that as soon as you can, and reclaim your time.

What you describe sounds very common to me. Ah, perhaps my experiences under other GMs are different . I have played under 5 other GMs, and the effect was to let players make any decisions they want, and one of two things would happen depending on the GM. You would be comfortably (but sternly) guided back to the main story line. The DCs would be "fudged" to get a desired outcome. (this is hard to tell until you realize you can't really do anything out of the norm) I'm just curious what your stakes really are. Everything. The character, The treasure, That one informant needed, etc. If a character is dead (permanently - unable to res or destroyed), players can continue if they roll a fresh character and rejoin the party in some way. I make this very clear ahead of time, because a lot of players would rather play under GMs that take care of the characters.

Ken B. said: What you describe sounds very common to me. Ah, perhaps my experiences under other GMs are different . I have played under 5 other GMs, and the effect was to let players make any decisions they want, and one of two things would happen depending on the GM. You would be comfortably (but sternly) guided back to the main story line. The DCs would be "fudged" to get a desired outcome. (this is hard to tell until you realize you can't really do anything out of the norm) Yes, these are both examples of illusionism, a common practice in RPGs. When illusionism is done in violation of the social contract, it is known as railroading. In other words, plenty of players are fine with plot-based games or the illusion of choice, but when they think they have freedom and meaningful choice and the GM violates that, then they're being "railroaded." A "story-line" is a plot and so if a GM has designed one that presumes character actions, he is well-advised to get the players' buy-in to stick to the plot and not wander off it rather than subvert or curtail choices they think they have.

You would be comfortably (but sternly) guided back to the main story line. Why do you think that is? The DCs would be "fudged" to get a desired outcome. (this is hard to tell until you realize you can't really do anything out of the norm) Why do you think that is? I'm just curious what your stakes really are. Everything. The character, The treasure, That one informant needed, etc. Is the fun of the players at the table at stake? That is, is it possible for an outcome to arise that the players themselves do not find fun? If a character is dead (permanently - unable to res or destroyed), players can continue if they roll a fresh character and rejoin the party in some way. I make this very clear ahead of time, because a lot of players would rather play under GMs that take care of the characters. Why do you think that is? How possible is it that a player will be ejected from the game due to character death? I assume you do nothing to advise them away from such an outcome, so how likely is that to occur? What I'm getting at is how common is it for players (some or all of them) to have their participation ended or suspended by an in-game occurrence. This is something I've never gotten a good sense of from the rules, or the way people describe their games, so I'm very curious. For my part, player participation via their characters is not at stake, nor is their interest in the events in the game, since we collaborate to take the game in directions the players want. I assume you enjoy all of the safe, in-town interaction, but do you think the length of that is due to the players not wanting the game to end early in a combat gone bad?

Yes, these are both examples of illusionism, a common practice in RPGs. When illusionism is done in violation of the social contract, it is known as railroading. In other words, plenty of players are fine with plot-based games or the illusion of choice, but when they think they have freedom and meaningful choice and the GM violates that, then they're being "railroaded." A "story-line" is a plot and so if a GM has designed one that presumes character actions, he is well-advised to get the players' buy-in to stick to the plot and not wander off it rather than subvert or curtail choices they think they have. Ah, OK, thanks for this, now I can properly explain how I set up my campaigns. I write many railroads with very detailed beginnings and very rough plots, NPCs, stages, etc. Once the characters get on a railroad, I flesh them out further between sessions. The characters can abandon or destroy their railroad at any time, and I (as the GM) may loose a lot of written material that will never be used, but that is the cost of player freedom.

Ken B. said: Ah, OK, thanks for this, now I can properly explain how I set up my campaigns. I write many railroads with very detailed beginnings and very rough plots, NPCs, stages, etc. Once the characters get on a railroad, I flesh them out further between sessions. The characters can abandon or destroy their railroad at any time, and I (as the GM) may loose a lot of written material that will never be used, but that is the cost of player freedom. There are other ways that don't involve that cost, but If that's the way the freedom is provided, then yes. If you enjoy making up the railroads for their own sake, I don't imagine you feel too bad about not getting to use what you created. It's when people aren't willing to give up their preconceived ideas that players (and GMs) find themselves getting controlled and blocked.

Ken B. said: Yes, these are both examples of illusionism, a common practice in RPGs. When illusionism is done in violation of the social contract, it is known as railroading. In other words, plenty of players are fine with plot-based games or the illusion of choice, but when they think they have freedom and meaningful choice and the GM violates that, then they're being "railroaded." A "story-line" is a plot and so if a GM has designed one that presumes character actions, he is well-advised to get the players' buy-in to stick to the plot and not wander off it rather than subvert or curtail choices they think they have. Ah, OK, thanks for this, now I can properly explain how I set up my campaigns. I write many railroads with very detailed beginnings and very rough plots, NPCs, stages, etc. Once the characters get on a railroad, I flesh them out further between sessions. The characters can abandon or destroy their railroad at any time, and I (as the GM) may loose a lot of written material that will never be used, but that is the cost of player freedom. I wouldn't want you to sell yourself short or to misrepresent yourself to future players, so: You're not railroading unless you violate a social contract. For example, if you told your players that they have total freedom to explore the shared imaginary play-space, but they really don't because you're going to get them onto your plot no matter what they choose, then you are railroading. If you instead tell the players that you have a plot-based adventure and that the game is about that plot and they tell you they're totally cool with sticking to it, then you are not railroading - you haven't broken the social contract because the social contract is to follow your plot. I say this because "railroading" rightfully has a negative connotation since it represents the subversion of choices that are being presented as meaningful. You don't want to say that you're railroading when you're actually not doing that. To get further into it, what you're describing are "metaplots." These are things going on in your campaign setting that the players can choose to engage with or choose to ignore. As long as they do not presume character action, they are not plots. Plots in an RPG context presume what the player characters do during the course of that adventure. A "metaplot" can easily be boiled down to a situation that will unfold a particular way if the PCs don't get involved. If they do get involved, then it unfolds on an improvisational basis with rules/dice determining outcome of tasks or conflicts. As well, improvisation and collaboration can cut down on your loss of written material, and both of those are core GM skills. I recommend learning them as soon as possible. I, too, enjoy the creative process for its own sake, but it's nice to not have to put a lot of prep work aside if it can be helped.

You would be comfortably (but sternly) guided back to the main story line. Why do you think that is? The DCs would be "fudged" to get a desired outcome. (this is hard to tell until you realize you can't really do anything out of the norm) Why do you think that is? Headhunter Jones explained exactly what I am talking about. Is the fun of the players at the table at stake? That is, is it possible for an outcome to arise that the players themselves do not find fun? This is why I warn the players ahead of time. I am sure many players seen this and decided it could cost them fun, and so did not apply to join my campaign. But of the players currently in my campaign (6 now) they have told me how excited they are to play in a game where there is real risk of loosing their character forever. How possible is it that a player will be ejected from the game due to character death? I assume you do nothing to advise them away from such an outcome, so how likely is that to occur? That is totally up to the player and their character. If they roll a character that is hot-headed and prone to rushing into combat with no questions, then death is pretty likely...but with some savvy combat and luck,they may also establish quite the reputation. But this is the choice the player has made when making the character, and this is what will be fun for them.

As well, improvisation and collaboration can cut down on your loss of written material, and both of those are core GM skills. I recommend learning them as soon as possible. I, too, enjoy the creative process for its own sake, but it's nice to not have to put a lot of prep work aside if it can be helped. Thanks again for your description of "metaplots". This is also something that I am unaware that I am using. As for Improvisation, I try to quickly make tables for likely and some unlikely outcomes and roll. When it comes to strictly improvising from my head, I feel that I do not yet possess the wit to not be predictable. As for Collaboration, I use more of a Caesar's Thumb in my head. If they players are excited about something another player has contributed as a possible outcome, I include it as a strong possibility on my random outcome roll. I actually had this exact situation come up in this session. Varis rolled a nature check without describing exactly what he was doing. He rolled a 1. I quickly jotted down some outcomes for a d20 list, and the possibility of tasting poop was something the players were laughing about, so I made that the outcome on a 10+ roll.

Ken B. said: As well, improvisation and collaboration can cut down on your loss of written material, and both of those are core GM skills. I recommend learning them as soon as possible. I, too, enjoy the creative process for its own sake, but it's nice to not have to put a lot of prep work aside if it can be helped. Thanks again for your description of "metaplots". This is also something that I am unaware that I am using. No problema. You might like these reads: Structure First, Story Last Don't Prep the Plot As for Improvisation, I try to quickly make tables for likely and some unlikely outcomes and roll. When it comes to strictly improvising from my head, I feel that I do not yet possess the wit to not be predictable. It's a skill like any other. We have to work at it. Check this out: GM Improvisation 101 . As for Collaboration, I use more of a Caesar's Thumb in my head. If they players are excited about something another player has contributed as a possible outcome, I include it as a strong possibility on my random outcome roll. I see. Consider also that a great "random generator" can be five or six people throwing ideas into the mix and figuring out why it works in context. There are a lot of upsides to accepting someone's idea immediately as being true and using it. It also makes improvisation easier for you.

But of the players currently in my campaign (6 now) they have told me how excited they are to play in a game where there is real risk of loosing their character forever. So, when death is the only way to fail, it's not possible for an outcome to arise that the players themselves do not find fun. That was my question. If they roll a character that is hot-headed and prone to rushing into combat with no questions, then death is pretty likely...but with some savvy combat and luck,they may also establish quite the reputation. Did the players start out "rushing into combat with no questions" and have to learn from you not to do that, or did you basically just tell them not to do that? I mean, they like the idea that their characters can die forever, but are they actually taking any risks that would lead to that? Spending two hours out of three poking around a city implies to me that they enjoy doing that, not that they feel they must do that because it would be a risk otherwise. If death for the characters was not likely or even possible do you think that this group of players would run their characters any differently? Thanks for answering my questions, by the way.

I love the initial post, the whole thing. welcome to the life. Post some more of this in future, please.

and that should cut out the time needed to explain things (such as; how does climbing work?, why does it use athletics?, what DC would surface X have?, etc) Yes, drop all of that as soon as you can, and reclaim your time. That doesn't work for everyone, giving hard fast advice to GM's with new players of "no no don't muddle in details, just give results to get on with the game is the right thing to do" is wrong without knowing the players, only applies if the players want it that way. have him ask the players if they want to learn it or care to know the inner reasons first, not just to skip it for the sake of saving time. 2 of my players are engineers,and 1 a chemist as real people. Mine want to know the who/what/where/why/how of rolls, rules, and calculations of what they are doing, to understand why it failed, or succeeded. Me also as a player, I want to know why things tick how they do..not just some hazy result the GM feeds me and i take at face value out of ignorance for the sake of game speed. It would drive me mad in a new game setting a GM that just tells me the results and difficulty of that action without pointing me to why it is that. They still play actions based on character knowledge and situation not using OOC knowledge on percentage chances, but much prefer to know exactly why the decision the character made out of determination and heat of the moment rash decisions only has a 5% chance of success. Because the rock has a -10% penalty, and 40 mph winds adds a -30% chance, and with them having being exhausted a 32% chance of losing strength and failing to make the whole climb 1/2 way up. Again our approach isnt right for everyone, but to give blanket advice to skip it seems a bit pushing your style as superior...when its really merely preference of style vs being better quality of style. and this part: My players get the effect of risk and excitement in a way that can be hard to explain; The actions that their characters make can seriously alter the course of the whole game or put them in deadly situations, and there is nothing that I as the GM can really do to save them. That's not hard to explain, that is a very common way for people to try to play I think it may have come out wrong, I read it as "its a very common mistake in gameplay style people try to play." I think saying "a very common way people prefer to play" would have sounded less condescending :) I think it was the word 'try', it implies them doing it for lack of knowing better.

William R. said: Again our approach isnt right for everyone, but to give blanket advice to skip it seems a bit pushing your style as superior...when its really merely preference of style vs being better quality of style. Knowing your players' preferences is good advice. Note that Paul was essentially saying what has been offered as advice by the game designers in the rule books for 40 years now - rule and go, don't sweat it, worry about it after the game. That's not really a "style." It's common wisdom in the hobby, suggested by the designers themselves. I think it may have come out wrong, I read it as "its a very common mistake in gameplay style people try to play." I think saying "a very common way people prefer to play" would have sounded less condescending :) I think it was the word 'try', it implies them doing it for lack of knowing better. It's quite possible that however you're reading it is not the poster's intent. I see what he says as a statement of fact. People do try to play that way. My experience in actual play and via years of discourse on RPG forums bears that out as well. It works for some people and doesn't work for others. Like any style, it's helpful to discuss its upsides and downsides by questioning assumptions honestly.

Oh I totally agree, whats good to one, is trash to the other, think me and Paul just have polar opposite styles is all :) Me and my players love the 'devil in the details' type play..sometimes some will spend more time having fun figuring out the actual reason for a chance on a roll and asking what random negative % I choose to add to it as my own adjustment, than the time the action takes to do ingame...then I have other players I could randomly pull a % out of my butt, and they would roll it without caring why, long as it produces a result either way. And for the last part, maybe its my line of work/thinking that makes me see try as implying lack of knowledge to do otherwise. I hear a lot of "Yea bob likes to try to do things that way" or such, as giving the impression he tries to, and just doesn't know the better way to do it. vs "Yea bob prefers to do it that way" as in he knows various ways, but likes that one best. semantics of words is all, and I read it wrong :) I mean no ill intent to Paul.

But what if our GM "style" is not really a style at all? Why do we think there is such a thing as "style"? So, when a "style" is how we view our approach to not fail as a particular GM with certain outcomes that we think the players are expecting in order to have fun. Are the players really enjoying a "style" OR a particular pace of play and narration? Or something else? If you think that you have your own special "style" then you probably have no problem thinking that your players are having fun only because you are the right GM for them, and they signed up for you. . . . . . . . [trollface :P] I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Headhunter Jones said: It's quite possible that however you're reading it is not the poster's intent. I see what he says as a statement of fact. People do try to play that way. My experience in actual play and via years of discourse on RPG forums bears that out as well. It works for some people and doesn't work for others. Like any style, it's helpful to discuss its upsides and downsides by questioning assumptions honestly. Yes, that was what I was getting at. People really seem to love that approach, but it consists of at least two inherently contradictory goals (make a coherent ongoing game, and make a game that can fail to a screeching halt) and results in many, many problems. If people don't have problems with it, it's usually because the players already had no intention to take exciting risks; because the GM blinks and actually does protect the characters, supposedly without their knowledge (though some players know and just want plausible deniablity) and sometimes even without the GM's knowledge; or because the players aren't actually bothered or inconvenienced by character death. I'm interested in which of those, or which other situation, is occurring here.

Ken B. said: But what if our GM "style" is not really a style at all? Why do we think there is such a thing as "style"? Probably so that when someone questions our approach to the game, we have a position to defend till the bitter end. :) So, when a "style" is how we view our approach to not fail as a particular GM with certain outcomes that we think the players are expecting in order to have fun. Are the players really enjoying a "style" OR a particular pace of play and narration? Or something else? If you think that you have your own special "style" then you probably have no problem thinking that your players are having fun only because you are the right GM for them, and they signed up for you. A style might be said to include the pace of play or narration. The pacing of my D&D games are quite fast in comparison to others and my narration tends to be short and pithy rather than long and box-texty. Players have fun for any number of reasons relative to their preferences and how their GM runs things can play into that in a big way. For my part, I love D&D 4e and I might like my fellow players in a given group, but if the DM isn't cutting the mustard, I'm out. It impacts my game experience too much. Suffice it to say, the groups that report having good game experiences are those that tend to be on the same page with regard to their expectations for the game experience. If that sounds simplistic, it is, yet rarely do we see groups coming together to discuss these things prior to play, leading to all manner of problems being reported once they realize their expectations differ.

Headhunter Jones said: For my part, I love D&D 4e and I might like my fellow players in a given group, but if the DM isn't cutting the mustard, I'm out. It impacts my game experience too much. Headhunter Jones said: I love D&D 4e and I might like my fellow players in a given group, but if the DM isn't cutting the mustard, I'm out. Headhunter Jones said: if the DM isn't cutting the mustard Headhunter Jones said: mustard ew.