#dungeons and dragons DM advice

[araliadon]

My top 3 tips for DM-ing

1. Never let anyone play an artificer for any reason. “Awe but I’ve got a really good-” NO!

2. You make the rules. The DM’s guide is just that… a guide. It’s your world, you can do what you like, even following a pre-written campaign. When Captain Barbossa said; “they’re more like guidelines than actual rules”… he was actually talking about DM-ing a DnD game. *nodding seriously*

3. If you do go “off script” and your players are loving it, it’s kinda important that you actually make notes… (oops!? Found that one out the hard way.)

You can find my wife’s top three DM tips here

[wilwheaton]

The following tips and advice for running D&D games comes from years of research, hundreds of interviews, and thousands of surveys from both new and experienced DMs. Be careful at 1st level. 1st level characters are extremely vulnerable, more than at any other level in the game. Consider giving 1st level characters five extra hit points. Don't run more creatures in a battle than there are characters and run only monsters with a challenge rating of 1/4 or below. Level the characters up to 2nd level quickly. The Starter Set and Essentials Kit adventures can be lethal if a DM isn't careful.

How to Play Dungeons & Dragons: SlyFlourish.com

This is just one of a handful of *extremely* helpful tips for anyone who is new to D&D, or is looking to refocus themselves as a DM.

[dailyadventureprompts]

DM Tip: My Time, Threat, Tension Method

Artsource

Inspired by playing the new updates to Blades in the Dark and a recent discussion on the best way to use information gathering skills like perception and investigation, I wanted to share a technique that's quickly become a fundamental part of my DM toolbox when it comes to designing scenarios in D&D and other TTRPGS.

This technique is useful for building individual encounters, but can scaled up to provide structures for entire sessions or adventures. It's the closest I've come to formalizing the supposed "exploration" pillar of gameplay that WotC is so fond of mentioning but never provided any rules for.

Here's the rundown:

Figure out what your party is trying to accomplish (gather information, rescue a hostage, get through a door to the next area of the dungeon)

Establish at least one or more threats that would impede the party trying to accomplish their goal (raising an alarm, getting attacked by a deadly monster, letting their rival gain the upper hand)

By and large the thing that's going to separate your party from suffering the consequences of these threats is going to be time: a resource they have a limited amount of because you're going to arrange circumstances to maximize the drama. You don't need to keep track of individual minutes, more of an abstract sense of "everyone in the party gets to do two things before I mention they hear footsteps approaching the door."

Players are allowed any amount of surface information they'd like and a bit of faffing about on the side, but if they want to get closer to their goal they're going to need to spend time. Some actions are going to cost a flat amount of time, while others (especially those that are up to luck when time is of the essence) are going to require the party to roll. As an example: finding a secret door in a room by noticing the lack of dust on a hidden lever vs. spending ten minutes tossing the room and bruteforcing the solution.

Place a few diversions in their way, whether they be outright red herrings or time sinks that get them something but not the progress they want. (emptying the villain's safe doesn't uncover the secret diary the party is looking for, but it's rewarding in a way other than progress).

You can also be a bastard and put some traps in, not just the type that spring up and deal daamge, but the kind that make threats happen sooner (alarms, surprise guardians) but the kind that introduce new threats (curses, lurking poisonous animals, evidence left behind that alerts their foes)

It's also a good idea to scatter some hints amid the initial setup/diversions to generate those delicious "AHA!" moments and reward players who are paying attention. When someone acts off a hint or guesses the right course of action there's no time cost or roll required. They solved the puzzle, let them move on.

Depending on the scenario you might swap out time with safety, influence, or limited materials as the "resource" being consumed for the sake of the goal.

You can use this method to plan individual escape room style challenges, entire wings of dungeons, or mysteries across towns. All that's required is for your party to know what their goal is and know where to look and you can build out the whole session from there.

[theworldbrewery]

1d12 ways to complicate an encounter

A magic or mundane artifact generates an effect harmful to the PCs, but it is guarded by the monster's minions.

The encounter's setting starts to collapse during the battle, and all the combatants will need to escape.

A boss monster has a 'second form' that activates mid-way through the battle.

Traps are placed throughout the battlefield, and characters must be wary of them.

The PCs must complete a ritual while fending off attacks from the enemy.

The encounter area is a series of cliffs or platforms, forcing characters to jump around and risk falling, possibly into a pit, water, or lava.

There is a monster that uses the blink spell or tunneling to avoid attacks between its turns.

A minor enemy has the ability to summon or call for reinforcements every round.

There are three sides, not two, battling in this encounter.

A disastrous environmental effect, such as an avalanche, wildfire, or earthquake, occurs in the area, dealing damage and forcing the combatants apart.

An anti-magic pulse affects some areas of the battlefield periodically, suppressing spells and magical items when it is active.

The enemies are shockingly weak and easily defeated, but the PCs' goal isn't here -- the treasure chest is a mimic, or their princess is in another castle.

[notetakers-blog-of-holding]

Adding Texture Into Your Campaign

What is Texture?

I'm talking about all of the little details that add up to create a complete description. Texture is the color of a sword's hilt, the sound of distant rumbling thunder, or the smell of baked pies as one passes through a village. It's knowing the reason why the villain is so villainous, and hinting at secrets that are never revealed. Everything that makes the world feel like a place where people live, rather than just an exercise in problem-solving.

Chances are, you already have some texture in your game. If you are running a pre-published adventure or world, there are almost certainly many little details that you normally don't see in your homebrew adventures. The goal is to add enough texture into your game so that your players won't notice the difference between a store-bought adventure and a homebrew.

I use the word "texture" for these details because for me, they are the difference between a flat, predictable description and one that is alive and vibrant. When adding details to your game, your goal should be to have enough volume so that the descriptions blur together into a patina of verbal imagery.

Texture cannot exist in a vacuum; if one part of an image has texture and the remainder does not, it will be obvious. Players should not be able to pick out what is important to their plot based on the level of detail in your description. For example, pretend your DM gave you the following description:

You enter the wizard's study. There are some bookcases, a desk, and a chair. There are books all over the place, and a single red quill pen, eight inches in length, stands in a brass pot of ink on the desk.

Nine out of ten players will go immediately for the pen. Why? Because it was the only item in the room truly given texture. The rest of the area was painted in only in the broadest of strokes. If the DM was trying to set that quill up as a clue of some kind, he has now robbed the players of the opportunity to discover that on their own. Now, consider the following alternative:

You enter the wizard's study. A musty smell fills the air, and swirls of dust follow you as you move. A pair of oak bookcases sit on opposite sides of the room, each filled with leather-bound tomes in assorted shades of brown. On the left bookcase, one shelf has broken, spilling its contents over the shelf below and onto the floor. A massive desk, at least seven feet in length, fills the center of the room, with dozens of tiny brass-handled drawers. A large book lies open on the desk, near a single red quill pen, eight inches in length, standing in a brass pot of ink.

The DM has given the exact same description of the pen, but has instead hidden its importance by giving detailed accounts of the room's furnishings. He knows that the only important clue in the room is the pen, but the players do not. Their actions will thus deal with the entirety of the room rather than the metagame thinking that would lead them to the pen. One might decide to check out the broken bookshelf, another might want to check the desk drawers. If they eventually look at the pen and discover its relevance, they will feel that much more of a sense of accomplishment.

This example also illustrates one of the key features of texture: it is most often irrelevant. In other words, if the players have a mission to accomplish, most of the texture you put into your descriptions will have no direct bearing on that mission. But that's the point; if I go to mail my phone bill, the fact that I pass a parked police car on the way to the mailbox isn't important. It does, however, tell me something about the immediate area and what might be going on there. This is why adding texture to your game creates the illusion of reality; you are basically giving players proof that the world is turning with or without them.

Here are 5 simple ways you can add texture to a room or character description:

Color: People spend a lot of energy making sure the things they own are a pleasing color. Anywhere intelligent beings live, there is the opportunity for changing the color of the walls, the doors, the furniture, the upholstery, the curtains, etc. Of course, natural settings can also have a bewildering variety of unexpected color. Why talk about a tree when you can talk about an ancient, grey-barked tree with green mossy overgrowth climbing its branches?

Brokenness: Things break, often. Whether they have been repaired or not is a good indicator to the players about the level of attention a room receives. How well they are fixed might also be a clue; if the bookshelf was propped up with another book but generally left broken, it says that the owner doesn't care too much.

Juryrigging: Spaces are often not used in the manner for which they were designed. People tend to adapt a room or object to the purpose they require, rather than the crafter's intent. This is especially true of dungeons, where the current inhabitants almost certainly did not build the place. Think about how they may have altered the room's purpose, and what changes they might have made as a result.

Bodily Functions: Living creatures need to eat, sleep, eliminate, and possibly mate. If you set up a monster's lair in a location where the occupant cannot realistically achieve all of these needs, it will be far less believable. Likewise, NPCs also need to fulfill these functions, and often at the worst possible time.

Scars: Creatures who are surviving in the wild or who fight regularly should be scarred, especially if they do not have access to healing magic. Scars hint at a story that the player's don't know; they imply that the creature has lived an entire life up to the point when it appears "on screen". An Owlbear with a jagged scar across its beak is more memorable, and perhaps more fearsome, than one without.

Those are just my opening thoughts on the subject. I'll be posting more examples of Campaign Texture in the future. In the meantime, dm me! I'd love to hear about descriptions from your campaign of which you are particularly proud of!

[artisicallya-rambo]

I put far too much thought into these DnD classes

[thesezombiestastelikeashes]

Things I've Learned About DM-ing from Brennan Lee Mulligan and Aabria Iyengar

(In no particular order)

Players only follow bread crumbs if the floor is made of bread

Just because the party doesn't follow a plot point doesn't mean it's dead. You're developing it for later.

Consequences maketh man (or rather: character)

Don't be afraid to make your players cry, but do cry with them and hold their hand after

Presentation is 75% of DMing. If that's your costume or makeup or your body language and tone, put your best face forward. Your players will follow suit.

Build the world with your players. They'll love the world more for it.

Be your players' biggest fan. Cheer them on when no one else will. Applaud them when they kill your big bads. Cry with them when they lose their character. The story isn't possible without both of you.

[anim-ttrpgs]

A big part of Eureka is splitting the party. Normally games are loathe to do this because of the potential to bore players while they passively watch others play the game. I'm curious how you deal with this when you run Eureka. Sending players away seems like it could make it either better or worse. Like if it's at a home, people can go hang out by the snack table and drink and chat, but that doesn't work as well at, say, a game store. I'm curious how people felt about having to leave the game several times.

While the risk of boring the players or putting too much stress on the GM is a real concern, the addage of "don't split the party" actually originated in the TSR D&D era, where splitting the party made them weak and vulnerable to all sorts of situations that would be less of a problem for a full strength party, However, for a game like Eureka that produces more conventional narratives (everyone take note that I did not say that Eureka produces more narrative or is "more focused on narrative", just more conventional narratives) and has more of a focus on intrigue and horror, the party splitting up to cover more ground and collect more clues in the limited time they have to solve the mystery, but also making each one of them more vulnerable if something happens, is an actual trade-off that can improve the gameplay and story.

First of all, besides it just being really entertaining, I really recommend you listen to the Tiny Table Actual Play of Eureka. It has some really good examples of splitting the party and sending players away that are executed really well, and also some good discussion of it in the post-mortem episode and the interview.

I’m going to answer the ask directly from my own gameplay experience, but I really really urge anyone who has played Eureka to comment with their own experiences with splitting the party and sending players away.

Alright, so, obviously how long players are willing to wait their turn is group-dependent, but with our own group, we’ve actually kinda had the opposite problem from players getting bored. Instead, Narrator and the players whose characters are currently in the spotlight start to worry that they’re selfishly hogging too much session time, and try to rush the scene along (to its great detriment), when in reality the players who were sitting out were happy to keep waiting. Realizing this led to us altering the advice regarding splitting the party in the rulebook, and actually recommending the Narrator go a little longer before switching to the other characters.

I personally am happy to wait up to like 90 minutes if my character is out of the scene, because I have faith in my group and also in Eureka that the payoff for waiting will be that much greater, seeing the characters relay what they have learned while they were apart in dialogue rather than the player just saying “My investigator tells them everything that happened.” It really heightens the tension, lets the characters shine, and can even really help with solving the mystery, because having the events and evidence recounted out loud can help with making connections that might have gone over people’s heads the first time.

Of course like the rulebook says, it also comes to the judgement of the play group as a whole, and should definitely be discussed beforehand basically as part of session zero, and even mid-session if it needs to be. (Communicate your preferences to your play group!!!!!) There’s plenty of scenes and situations where having the other players leave the room instead of sitting and watching would add nothing at all to the experience.

Now I want to hear other people’s opinions. If you have played Eureka and had a party split where some players left the room or otherwise excused themselves, how did it go?

[hifi-walkman]

I recently saw this post

I thought it was good, and lots of people raised good points... I also thought it very quickly sidelined from dungeon design as game design do dungeon design as world design. early in the post, the discussion was about how one navigates a dungeon as a space, later in the post it became about how one writes a dungeon as a vehicle for narrative and lore.

so, I wanted to talk a bit about dungeons as game design, because it's how I like them the best, and I feel like it is not talked about enough.

First though, I want to clarify some terminology, I'm going to use a few terms here.

Mini Dungeon: A single location in a tabletop RPG which has a self contained story, and can be fully explored, and all of its challenges overcome within less than five nights of gaming, often just in one night of gaming.

Dungeon: A large playable space which hold challenges that need many sessions of play to overcome, but is still in some way self contained

Mega Dungeon: Synonymous with Dungeon as used in this text.

Jacquaysing: A term describing the application of good game design to a Dungeon, used in honor of Janelle Jacquays.

With definitions out of the way, let's get on to the main text.

So, the post that inspired this article opens with a statement,

"My take on fantasy RPG dungeons is that if I pick two rooms at random on your map and there is only one path to get from the one to the other you shouldn't be allowed to call that thang a 'dungeon'." the post later goes into "but how do I make that kind of layout make sense" which gets into the asthetic design thing... But I'm going to challenge that later question directly.

First off... If you've ever been in any building on a college campus, you can realize that it makes sense. Real buildings are designed as loops, and intersecting mazes, with multiple strange often inexplicable connections between floors, and often (in spaces designed to be public, or by organizations and individuals with large sums of wealth) to be visually appealing despite the requirements of their intended function.

I don't think much of the question is actually about it making sense though. I think a big problem a lot of people come up against when designing D&D dungeons isn't realism, or worldbuilding, it's context. I think that a space that is designed in a labrynthine way might technically not be necessarily unrealistic, but if that space is entirely without context, it may still feel unrealistic.

So, context. I like a two methods of providing context to a dungeon's unusual design.

a dungeon is not a singular designed space, it is multiple designed spaces in close proximity, and the interactions at the peripheries of those spaces are a large source of the location's complexity.

even if a dungeon was a single space "as originally designed" in lore, its modern inhabitants don't treat it as such.

I tend to like using those two methods together. A dungeon might once have been a castle's stores, connected to a large mine, that broke into a cave system, which grew around a crashed interdimensional spaceship, but now it's not any of those things anymore, the mines are empty, the ships original inhabitants are long dead, and the castle was abandoned by its builders, instead it's the source of a gold rush as every local warlord, cult leader, and bandit king seek the treasures of the lost dungeon.

But before layering the techniques, you have to... understand each technique individually, so lets run that down. I should note, as this is about game design, I'm going to be talking about the consequences to playable space that this lore decision would cause, not how to implement this kind of worldbuilding structure into the asthetics of the dungeon.

First off, multiple spaces. I generally think that if you want a mega-dungeon but you don't want it to be: A. Bland, or B. unbelievable, you should make the dungeon be different spaces that intersect in complex ways, instead of one unrealistically large, and unrealistically complex space. this should mean two things.

these spaces are designed in different ways. One might have lots of hallways and small rooms, another might have lots of closely connected large rooms. One might have many secret areas, one might have no secret areas. the structure of the layout should be different between the different spaces, both to aid navigability ("We're in the dwarf ruins, because the walls are smooth, and the tunnels all have sharp corners"), and to give the space a distinct feeling from another space it intersects, which will make the gameplay of exploring it more enjoyable.

each space should have multiple connections to multiple other spaces. If a space only has one entrance, to one other space, that isn't an interesting area, that's a large closet. Each space should connect to at least two others (so that it can both be used as a path between them, and also be discoverable from either one), and connect in at least two ways to at least one of those connected spaces.

These two principles would lead to a dungeon that held exploration and challenge regardless of the number, or number of types of inhabitants.

In regards to amount of inhabitants tho, again, I think you should make it more than one faction, and I think there are a couple good guidelines for doing so.

the factions don't like each other. the gameplay of an RPG is just as much social interaction as it is decisionmaking, and that should be reflected in the Dungeon (which will be the primary playable space of many campaings). If there is conflict, and story, it will push the players towards social roleplay (not just tactical roleplay) and give greater context and variety to their decisions.

the factions will partition the space like miniature nations.

Just like with the "different spaces" game design process, have multiple connections, with multiple factions.

those decisions will result in situations where even a space that was once uniform, uninteresting, or maybe slightly nonsensical seeming, is contextualized. "why are there three hallways between these rooms when two would do?" is a question that is never asked, because the players are instead asking "which hallway is controlled by a friendly faction" or "what path can we take between these rooms that keeps us out of the battle-prone borders?" The space itself can be incredibly unrealistic, but if the contents within contextualize it such that the player puts other things first, their disbelief will be suspended by distraction.

another important note, is that two "factions" doesn't have to mean two nations. In certain levels of a dungeon, a single dragon with no followers or minions could be a faction on its own, or for that matter, so could a lone wizard, or owlbear, or a certain group of untintelligent monsters like boars, or bullette.

and now, for how I combine those principles, generally use a few tricks.

one faction in a region. This one is simple, it gives the players a good sense of what faction's territory they're in, and makes both the boundaries between factions, and the boundaries between territories make sense.

one dungeon exit per faction. Dungeons may feel self contained, but at the end of the day, everyone has to get out of the house sometime, and if your factions don't at least have a way out of their current level of the dungeon (In deep levels an exit from the dungeon itself might be unreasonable... or not, deep levels are also usually full of dangerous enough things that they could feature interdimensional portals and the like) they're going to lose both realism, and gameplay interest. If your players have an even chance of encountering any given dungeon faction, than the story at the table can be truly emergent, with the players experience of the dungeon being shaped as much by their own decisions as they are by yours.

3. Leave some space. if all of the factions are right up against each-other, the players will have an awful time navigating the dungeon, and it isn't "realistic" either. Unless one faction is actively besieging another, the space between factions' population centers is going to at least be a few rooms of no-mans land or wilderness.

4. story from every direction. For each entry into a faction, design ahead just a little with the setup of what the faction expects from that pathway, and how they've responded to it. A faction's main dungeon exit might be heavily trapped, but a border with a nearby faction only lightly patrolled. A border with an enemy will likely be guarded actively, or maybe even barricaded in some way. the shape of the players' encounters with a faction should be determined by their direction of approach, not just in social dynamics, but also in physical space.

Okay, that's everything I have on like "these are two easy ways to contextualize dungeons so that your players won't notice/care that they have unrealistic elements because those elements will exist in context and seem normal as a result."

but, I have some other general dungeon design tips. Most of these are "Jacquaysing"-esque tips, but they're worth mentioning anyways.

connect different levels lots of times. Level 1 should have more than one staircase to level 2, because then the player's path through the dungeon can branch and loop in a greater variety of ways.

simple labrynths are weak dungeon design. Generally "labrynths" are like... mazes on children's menus at restaraunts, they're a single "correct" path, with lots of branching "incorrect" paths. They lead to dead ends, and backtracking, and pissing off your players. Branches are fine in moderation, (every side room with only one door is technically a branching path), but actual complexity of a space will come from loops, not branches.

no choices without context! A dungeon should be full of choices, choices about rations, choices about allegiance, choices about who to stab next, but one of the main choices of a dungeon, is the branching path, a choice of where to go next. Branching paths may all eventually boil down to "left or right", but there should be enough information present in the choice that picking one over the other means something. It should never feel like a coin flip could make as good a choice as you can. Maybe the left hall is narrow, and the right path is wide, maybe a breeze comes from one path but not the other, maybe the paths slope confusingly, maybe one path smells really bad. Whatever it is, make sure that the players can see a discernable difference between paths, and that the difference present relates to something on the paths... And a cool breeze generated by "Glathdinar's disk of cooling blades" (electric fan) ten feet away should be used sparingly. fakeouts are only fun when they're actually unexpected, and they should usually be far enough from the decision itself that they're an actual joke or twist instead of a sight-gag.

Anyways... yeah, have fun with your dungeons, make good ones, and have a good day!

[dungeonmalcontent]

If you ever feel like maybe it's a little embarrassing to do voices in d&d, like maybe you won't do it good enough or people will think you're weird, you will never be more embarrassed than my college rhetoric TA. This girl was maybe 23, tops, pale white girl with red hair, stood out in the room like a sore thumb. She was smart, don't get me wrong. Had the course material memorized (probably better than the professor, honestly). But the first time we went through the "lineage" of Greek philosophers and got to Cicero she busts out with the best Cicero (TeS) impersonation I've ever heard in the middle of the class. Not much, just a "what?! Cicero?!" Like someone was accusing her.

No one expected it. The Prof looked bewildered. She mumbled her explanation about how she and her bf had been playing a lot of Skyrim lately.

Anyway. Tl;Dr. You will never be more embarrassed than Cicero, my rhetoric TA.

[swordofsuns]

Dms, Tell your Players Shit

Tell them when your killing off an npc that's close to them. Let them help you make everyone else cry.

Tell them you plan to kill their sister, or their soulmate, or their best friend, or whatever.

Because no matter how good your players are at improv they will be better if they planned what to say. You don't have to tell them when or how. Just tell them

Because I don't think my players could improv things like

(her sisters name is ash) "I won't let you burn out my little flame."

(in response to "hey, it's fine. It's fine, I'll see you next time. It's fine.") "But I didn't get enough of you this time." (They reincarnate.)

(in reaction to its best friend of 15,000 years dying, woo immortal and unaging friendships)."you were the one constant I could rely on, you can't just make me care and leave without me like this"

But I told em what I plan to do and they are planning w me

[vampiric-decay]

i need to be in a dnd campaign so badly. i have a character ready. i just need a group and dm. and it is this final step that has been tripping me up for over a year 🥀

[dailyadventureprompts]

DM Tip: Lining up the Pieces

A few years ago I saw a video that changed the way I design combat encounters, using chess pieces and 4th edition monster roles as a handy way of conceptualizing the enemy roster and making better combat.

I’ve wanted to refer back to it for ages now, but I can’t seem to find it.  As such, I’m going to reproduce it’s wisdom here for everyone’s benefit and hope I can find the source one day.  ( I feel like it was a Matt Coville video, but my searches have turned up nothing. Seriously, if you can find it I will be extra grateful).

TLDR:  You can break down enemy combatants into six (ish) roles represented by different kinds of chess pieces, and you can mix and match them when designing encounter to create fun tactical scenarios. You can also use this as an alternative to CR picking a “budget” of these enemy roles based on how many players are in the fight.  Check out the types below the cut: 

Infantry (pawn):   Generally weaker and mechanically simpler than any other type of combatant, the infantry uses teamwork or sheer numbers to overwhelm the party. This can be anything from rank and file soldiers to a necromancer’s skeletal minions to a pack of wolves, anything that takes up space on the battlefield and prevents the party from targeting who they want or generally getting their way in a fight. 5e combat is a numbers game, and the infantry is there to swing the numbers in the enemy’s favour (until the party cut through them to even the odds).  Infantry likes battlemaps with chokepoints they can hold and crossroads they can use to outflank opponents. When budgeting they’ll have a balance of 2 infantry per 1 player they’re matched against , but the weaker they are, the thinner you can spread them.

Brute (rook): High defence, high offence, the brute is an outright threat that the party should not want to take in a head to head fight. Giants, beasts, constructs, and heavy armoured warriors are your traditional brutes, but you could also go with a buffed to hell battlemage getting all up in the party’s face. Conversely, every brute has some kind of weakness that the party can exploit. They might be slow, or be unable to maneuver as easily, or like a werewolf, fiend, or troll, have particular weapons or damage types that overcome their natural resilience. Their job is to force confrontation, blunder into the middle of combat and force the party to act defensively rather than proactively. They soak up the party’s frontline’s attention while forcing the mid/backlines to scatter under the threat of too much raw damage.  The brute Likes open spaces where they can have a direct path to the party and dead ends they can corner their targets against. Budget: Around 1 per 3 players

Skirmisher (knight):  A very broad type of opponent, the skirmisher’s job is to bully  the party’s weapsots whenever they’re exposed. They can do this by being ranged fighters ( traditional archers, magic users) or by being highly mobile (stealthy, mounted, flying, teleporting). They’re the bane of the party’s backline, generally targeting whoever has the lowest armour/or least health, then using their evasiveness to deny any kind of retaliation when the group rallies to protect their squishy friends. Skirmishers have great offence but are generally pretty weak, made helpless when you can deny them their movement/terrain advantages.  Skirmishers like unfair fights, terrain that gives them a movement advantage, cover, or allows them the highground over their foes.  Budgeting: 1 per 1-2 players. 

Controller (bishop):  The controller’s job is to fuck with the party, Either by locking down some of their stronger options (counterspelling, mind control, status effects, grapples),  by manipulating the battlefield in some way that disrupts planning (aoe spells to prevent grouping together, summoning to reinforce numbers,  barriers and banishment to single targets out), Or by advancing the baddies’ goal while the party is otherwise occupied (the cult priest finishing the disastrous ritual, the master thief making off with the mcguffin) forcing them to split their attention. The controller likes to distinctly be away from combat, and will usually be on the otherside of some kind of hazardous/hard to bypass barrier, sometimes of their own making. Budgeting:  1 per 2-3  players: 

Support (king): Usually a healer, bodyguard, or some kind of buff-bot, the support wants to piggyback on other sorts of units or make them better at doing their jobs. Generally this means they’ll ignore whatever the party is doing to focus on staying with effective range of those who most benefit from their abilities. Supports will stay back in safety while throwing out buffs, bodyguards will put themselves between the party and their designated defendee. They tend to prefer whatever type of terrain most benefits their partners. 1- 2-3 players

Elite (queen): Something to be reckoned with, an Elite mixies the strength and abilities of two other kinds of combatants and uses both to devastating effect. Combine a brute and a support for an unstoppable frontline commander, or infantry and a skirmisher for an elite striketeam that attacks in perfect coordination before fading back into the shadows.  Mix and match for whatever combination you think would be most interesting for a situation, then supplement it with a different unit or two for contrast.  Elites make up your traditional “big bad and minions” bossfight, without escalating to the full party challenge of “solo” monsters. Budgeting: 1 per 3-4 players. 

Picking the right Pieces:

Generally what you're going to want to do when planning a combat is to first think of what the baddies are trying to acomplish with the fight then pick 2-3 different types of baddie that you think would work well in concert to achieve that goal. "Kill the party" is an all too common goal, but you could easily imagine others that provide for dynamic stakes:

A group of forest bandits intend to rob a caravan, so they unleash a captive warbeast as a distraction while their archers rain chaos from above (Infantry, brute, skirmisher)

A villain abducts an important npc into a carriage while their dutiful muscle run interference (controller, brutes)

A necromancer hurls curses from behind a barricade of gravestones while their undead minions pour from surrounding tombs ( Controller/infantry)

While the party is ambushed by an archer in a tower, a cloaked figure waits in the underbrush, waiting for them to thin out and begin picking them off one by one (paired skirmishers of different types)

After the fighter is tricked into single combat against the mounted arena champion, the rest of the party will have to search the crowd for the caster secretly channeling healing magic to their opponent. ( combined brute/skirmisher elite, support)

Once you've got your pieces picked out, you can start designing the battle arena taking the desires of each combatant into account while also throwing in any environmental flourishes you'd like to enjoy.

As an added benefit for DMs like me who don't have the inclination or budget to collect huge batches of minis, it's SUPER easy to pick up a second hand chess set or two and use them as stand ins. Your players will have an instinctive understanding of what each piece does which will help them understand the roles outlined above.

Artsource

[theworldbrewery]

saturday d&d tip: as a player, knowing the TTRPG snack etiquette is crucial. obviously going 3-6 hours straight with your crew with no snacks is an untenable situation, but how do you do snacks for D&D?

every table’s needs are different, but some principles:

good snacks are quiet

good snacks are high in protein, salt, and/or fat — all good for concentration and stamina.

good snacks are shareable - ideally can even be split into multiple serving dishes so people don’t have to reach or constantly ask for snacks to be shared.

good snacks don’t interfere with speaking — a spice level everyone can tolerate to avoid coughing, skip the dairy (which creates throat-clogging phlegm), etc.

good snacks are easy — prepared before the game starts, require few or no utensils

good snacks are clean — keep cheeto dust off your character sheet!

good snacks are provided by the players — the GM works hard enough prepping everything else, pay them back with treats!

[plaid-dm]

SIDE QUEST #009

[angrylesbianbutch]

Forget every single DM "advice" you've ever heard.

A dnd game should be about the party surviving long enough to be in a victorian masked ball with vampires. And in the mean time, at least two of these must happen:

1 of the players should've discovered something about their sexuality

1 of the players should've discovered something about their gender

1 of the players should've discovered something about the way they deal with their mental health and/or trauma

2 of the players should've drop their relationships (if they had one) and started dating each other and they're actually made for each other

Trust me I've been dming for 7 years now, I know what I'm talking about.