|
While I'm not one to say "Bad-wrong-fun" to people, since this is part of an advice-post, I'll take this opportunity to critique some of these rules, as they relate to advice for the new GM here.
2) I like the rule and I agree with it mostly, but the "you're doing it wrong" part is where I have to argue; That statement puts unnecessary hostility between player and GM. I'd rephrase it: " if you’re not having fun something is wrong, and talk to me after"
7) I actually don't mind this rule, but I wouldn't advise it for new GMs. Essentially, an inexperienced DM will be far more likely to kill the PCs accidentally, with a fight that is more difficult than the CR would indicate. With a new DM, this rule can almost create a similar hostility as I mentioned above, as it seems like the DM is deflecting blame for unbalanced encounters.
9) I suppose this depends on how much you trust your players, but generally if someone misses a session (and assuming this isn't a frequent occurrence), I generally say that nothing negative happens to the PC, unless the player agrees to let another player, or the DM NPC his character. This goes along to what I feel is the fundamental purpose of the game: It's supposed to be fun, so the players should want to show up, and there shouldn't be a feeling of "I better make it to the game, or else the other players will treat my character like the guy who passes out at a frat party."
10) It's not that I necessarily disagree, but I think this is a blunt way of putting it, and there are cases where I would flat out disagree. For example, if a PC dies in combat, I wouldn't necessarily fudge anything, because there needs to be some risk, but if the PC get's one-shotted by a lucky blow, I might overrule and say, that the PC is unconscious and bleeding out, but not dead, and I might even provide some sort of stipulation to it, like if the character got one shotted by cultists, I might say that when the wound heals, they notice that the scar has formed in the shape of the cultists' god's holy symbol, and that it's slowly corrupting the PC.
I agree with your input Tholomyes, It is abrupt and could cause offense but then it has a better chance of making people think before not bothering to turn up without telling me.
We had players who tended to not turn up regularly without telling us beforehand and didn’t answer their phone when called. The rest of the players were getting annoyed with the situation so they arraigned the whole tattoo incident. This led to these rules being created and posted.
Saying your doing it wrong is too abrupt I agree but I am trying to condense it all to one sheet of paper. That is why I have the bit about talking to me after the game.
Also on the dying being the players fault; that was a very sweeping statement and yes may not be suitable. Players often blame the DM for the death of their character when they attack a creature head on without thinking. This is basically me trying to say that not every situation can be overcome by hitting it repeatedly with a sword without actually saying it.
Saying Life is not Fair and nor is Roleplay. It is a game of chance, randomness and luck. You can mitigate much of this with tactics and good decisions but you are always going to roll that 1 just when you needed a 2 to make that jump. Such is life.
It is intended as very tongue in cheek.
Thank you for your constructive comments.
Sic
Who said I was creating something myself? I'll first run a published encounter or adventure path. But I'm not sure which one yet...
Ugh man to the OP I like what you're saying and I like your approach but I can't help but feel that you are biting off way more than you can chew here.Have you thought about running a single-session published encounter or two, or an Adventure Path before you create something yourself?
Your question about how to introduce the players to each other threw me, as a lot of the AP's and such have suggestions for that.
I suggest:
No Evils, and no CN that act CE.
Yeah, I agree with pretty much everyone else and am only going to allow core classes. No gunslingers/summoners/etc.
What's wrong with CN characters that sometimes act a bit evil? I'm wary of putting too many limits up-front on what players cannot do, and saying "No CN that acts evil!" may sound a bit limiting.
Because too many (and I mean WAY too many) immature players think No Evils eh? Well, I’ll just run a CN amoral “Richard’ and that’s not really evil…”. Honestly, that’s a very common meme. Too common. Nip it in the bud.
As far as fumbles- those are entirely optional with a deck you can buy. I advise against it. For a new DM I advise strongly against it.