Kids are natural storytellers and role players as those two tools help them understand the world. However, introducing young children to roleplaying games is often difficult, because many of the game systems used by adults are a bit too complicated for them. Thankfully, Enrique Bertran, from NewbieDM.com, created a system for kids 4 -7 called rgpKids.
The rules of the game are very simple and people who've played D&D will understand most of them right away. Players choose from four types of heroes: sword fighters, healers, archers and wizards. Each hero type has distinct advantages and disadvantages. Fighters and healers need to get into the thick of things while archers and wizards get to hit their targets from afar. Attacks are done using an opposed roll, lowering the amount of information one needs to remember, important when playing with little kids. However, the game does introduce simple tactics in that a group of allies can give both monsters and heroes an advantage when they attack.
The game also provides a simple skill lists exists to help with the exploratory phase of the game, if that is something the group is interested in. Children that age can have a hard time sitting still for long periods of time, so the amount of exploration depends on the players. All heroes are given 3 skills, one of them is always search. The two other skills given to each hero are tied to what makes him or her different from the other heroes. For instance, the archer gets animal friendship and tracking while the sword fighter gets strength and intimidate.
In addition to the rule set, the game provides an adventure, The Lair of the Frog Wizard, complete with maps and tokens. The setup is simple and provides ample opportunity for parents and kids to let their imaginations run wild. An evil wizard is turning some of the townspeople into frogs and to prove it, the sheriff shows the heroes his deputy, Rufus. I can totally imagine the giggles of little children who hear their parents say "Ribbbbitttt!" as the sheriff introduces the poor deputy. In addition, the heroes can befriend a group of wolves who will teach them a howl which can aid them in their quest. It reminds me a lot of the types of stories my parents used to share when I was a child.
Overall, I think it's a great game for young children. It provides just enough of a framework to give it some structure and order, while allowing the imagination to run free. To be honest, I'm half tempted to play it as an adult, for those times when we just want to play a game. If you want to see the author play some of the game with his child, see the video below.
In my last post, I mentioned that some people wish to do away with boxed text. This caused a fair bit of discussion on Twitter and ended with me admitting that I often feel lost on how to set a scene in D&D, particularly for published adventures.
For me at least, I have a hard time knowing how much information to give all the PCs at the beginning, after they've entered a new room. I've read the warnings about DM monologues and reading 6 paragraphs of boxed text. I realize that coming up with and conveying lots of intricate detail is more about self-pleasure than it is about being useful to the players.
Sometimes I feel like I know a ton about what I'm not supposed to do and very little about what I should. Add to this that I’m probably learning to DM in the reverse of how you should, meaning I’m a newer DM for experienced (and smart) players, and my anxiety gets pretty high. I'm thinking through this problem in hopes that some of my ideas will help those of you in a similar position and that I can get some tips from you all.
First, I should detail a few assumptions on my part. To me, every scene should have a place in the story and should have the chance of revealing at least one detail about it. I say chance, because players should always have the choice to not care about the story the DM wants to tell. I'm not a big fan of encounters for the sake of XP alone. I also try to give my players hints about what's going on without hitting them over the head with a big clue stick but DMs, and groups, will vary on how they feel about that.
When creating or reading a scene, I like to list the goals for it. What about this scene is important enough to have us play it out? If it's to spot the item they need to retrieve, I need to provide clues that the item is in the room or, at the very least, that they might want to more thoroughly search an area or two. If it's to introduce an NPC, the descriptions I give should reinforce what they should remember about him or her. The problem I have with many published adventures is I often don’t immediately grok why this scene is there.
Once I understand the goals, I start working on the details, or as I like to call it, the “texture.” When I create encounters, these details work together to tell the story. So if I’m dealing with a scene where the PCs should guess that the tailor maybe isn’t everything he claims to be, some of the details I might write down are overly blunt shears, bolts of fabric that look old, a lack of customers, and perhaps an abnormally long wait time on orders. I would also write down hints that point to who he is, in this case perhaps someone dabbling in necromancy which he practices in the basement: an overly scented shop, dim light, an aura of the arcane, and a book left open behind the counter.
With goals and details in hand, I can start playing the scene out in my head. Which items are the PCs likely to notice first and who will notice it. All of the PCs will be able to see or otherwise sense some of this information while other bits are more specialized. For divvying up the latter, it's useful to have a list of their skills and and any modifiers or feats that apply, such as the level of light they can see in. If you can get a summary of their backstory and some of their personality quirks, all the better. You can use the passive skill scores to guide you as you decide what information they might know.
If this sounds like a lot of work, that’s because it can be, especially for a newer DM. The brain has an awesome ability to recognize and assimilate patterns, but it takes time to do so. A newer DM just hasn’t seen hundreds of encounters and maybe hasn’t seen another person DM yet, so they have to do a lot more conscious work. The nice thing about boxed text, when done correctly, is that can serve as a short-cut for creating those patterns. Running encounters is a bit easier because a lot of the hard work was done already and, with each one, they get a better idea of how much information to give at the start. In addition, the boxed text can provide the start point for their own hacking, much the same way we hack on monsters.
So while I’m all for moving to another system in modules for more advanced DMs, I hope that something like boxed text sticks around for the beginners. And I hope more products come out for beginners that are focused only on them instead of serving multiple masters. So what about you, how much information do you give out at the beginning of an encounter and create your own boxed text for a published adventure?
I've put off writing this post, because, well, it wasn't exactly the best game ever. The weather was a bit grey, many of us were stressed and some background social anxiety was going on. Nothing too major but enough to dampen our spirits a bit as we went into a dungeon.
Ah, dungeons. My group doesn't exactly love dungeons. I've stayed away from them as much as possible in my campaign for that reason. They seem to love investigating city streets, combing through libraries, and studying found objects. Most of them have characters with pretty good social skills and they aren't afraid of using them. So, dungeons aren't their thing exactly.
However, I did learn a few things from this session. First, is that running the Red Box for veteran players can be hard. Since they already know about class builds, they ask all sorts of detailed questions. I can't remember the exact questions asked, but usually the subject was does this feature of class x apply to these builds. I don't know what the correct answer is, but I said if it wasn't in the Red Box player's guide, the answer was no. This scenario makes me wish that they had a simplified character creation guide in the box, something I as a DM could quickly reference when players ask such questions.
Another thing I learned is that it can be difficult to get players to interact with the environment. I struggle with this all the time. I've heard the advice that you shouldn't give a speech to your players at the beginning of a scene (the equivalent of multiple paragraphs of boxed text) yet I still haven't found a good way to make sure I give enough info to the players to pique their interest.
With the movement away from boxed text, I fear new DMs will be as lost as I am. Perhaps it makes sense to do some tutorials on how to present this information. For instance, have a few veteran DMs take an encounter and detail how they would present it to the players. Even one would be nice, but having multiple DMs do this for the same encounter would help newer DMs notice differences of style better.
Finally, I like the random roll tables. It took me a while to come around, but I like being just as surprised as the players about what they get. I learned that back when I created some rumor tables for a skill challenge in my game. My only complaint about the random roll tables is that I wish the items on them were more interesting. Rope and chains are great and all, but I think one of them should have had some interesting clothing to encourage creativity.
One of the upcoming changes to D&D is the move to a rarity system, where items will be common, uncommon and rare. Used well, the change can force players to get more creative with their solutions to problems. Going to an area where falling is a real risk? You can't just buy everyone a Safewing Amulet. Hopefully, rarity combined with random item tables will spark creativity at the table.
So, those are my thoughts from our second session. How about you? Have you played the Red Box yet? What are your thoughts on the character builds?
Recent years have seen reboots of many long-lived and beloved story lines whether it's Star Trek or Dungeons & Dragons. Many fans of these series went through all the stages of grief, mourning the deaths of their friends and companions. As a lover of story, I totally understand this reaction. It's unsettling when the world rearranges itself beneath your feet and all the lore and knowledge you've gained no longer orients you in the world.
However, as a newcomer to the world of D&D, this reboot has been a godsend. I'm being a bit selfish here. While in theory I love canon, those stories weren't my stories. I didn't grow up with them; I didn't sneak a flashlight under my covers so I could read them. Instead, I viewed them as a barrier to entry. I heard their whispers, "That girl, Tracy, she's just a poseur. I mean, she doesn't even know who Orcus and Vecna are. How can she call herself a D&D player?" I've had my geek cred challenged on the account of the fact I couldn't recite lines from Star Trek from memory, so why would these D&D players be any different.
The other guys in my gaming group couldn't convince me that canon was my friend either. One of the members, Joe, kept telling me that if I set my campaign in a published setting and wanted a lake where none existed, I could just create the lake and the rest of the group would be ok with it. In my mind I wanted to believe him, I mean, a few of them really wanted to play in Eberron after all, but my fears and self-doubt cried out, "It's a trap! They want to use your newness against you. They've read the novels. They are going to recite stories from it that you have no idea about and laugh at you when you don't get the reference."
So what did I do? I "created" my own world, full of towns and details from 1st and 2nd edition modules. No "canon" there that they could use against me. I picked fairly obscure modules and I made so many changes to them. I pulled heavily on fairy tales and European mythology to give my world a framework. And, for awhile at least, things went pretty well.
And yet, as time went on, I struggled. I had to switch jobs which cost me an two hours a day that I normally would have spent on D&D. My world became less rich and I had to do more wholesale grabbing of stories from other places. Andernach, my beloved dwarven city, had to become a reskinning of Hammerfast because I just had no time to do it justice. I became more and more jealous of my new D&D friends who knew the Forgotten Realms or Eberron like the back of their hand or who had binders of stories and characters lovingly gathered over the years.
Hindsight being what it is, it's easy for me to say today that I was incredibly wrongheaded back then. I didn't realize that the canon of published campaign settings could be used like those binders. I wish I had read articles like "Fire the Canon!" I wish I had read the Planescape campaign setting books, where they explain that the planes are big but that DMs shouldn't worry about that, just start really small and circle out. Don't worry if you don't know all of Sigil, there are plenty of adventures in just one small section of it. Most of all, I wish I had the support network then that I have now.
By the way, if you haven't read the above mentioned article, go and do it right now. It's important that every DM and player understands why canon exists. And if you are in a position similar to the one I found myself in when I started, that being you just started playing but your players all have many more years experience, don't be afraid of canon. Just be honest with your players and tell them you're going to make mistakes.
And if you are afraid, like I was, of misaligned perceptions and assumptions about the world due to different levels of experience, set up a system for raising an objection. Try to be as neutral as possible, just like you would any other rules call. Hopefully everyone at the table will be adult enough to realize that a newcomer just can't have the same level of knowledge as a veteran.
I have to admit, a bit sheepishly, that I created the image of the girl in braids, calling out for her parents that Rob Donoghue referenced in his recent article The Tableau. In my defense, I'm working through my issues of scene setting, my players sometimes feel my stories are too full of grey. Also, one problem I have with Dark Sun is that it doesn't represent a genre I normally enjoy, so I'm having a hard time placing myself in the world.
That said, I'm so happy Rob stepped in to patiently teach me how I should think about these things. (In my mind, I heard an exasperated sigh that reverberated through the internet.) The series of articles he produced on the topic are great for anyone although I will pretend he wrote them for me.
In the first article, Rob explains what is wrong with setting a scene in this way, expanding on his comments from Twitter. He calls the scene a "tableau". Although he doesn't define the term, my understanding is that they are well-known, stark scenes created to stir a particular reaction on the part of the viewer.
In my gut, I knew it was wrong to construct a scene this way, but I've been fumbling around for a way to make something so foreign to me real. But I agree completely with him, forcing the players down a certain path by appealing to their heroic nature is a bit forced and letting their mind wander about why I'm highlighting the girl likely will cause them to become snarky. In fact, a number of the responses were that the girl should be the embodiment of something evil.
For his second post, he explains what we should do instead, create a definite call to action. On twitter he suggested that perhaps a man approaches the girl, his description hinting at a less than heroic motivation. He also suggests making the call personal to the characters instead of pulling just on the heart strings of the players themselves. Of course, this requires characters with some development to them, which is something lacking at many tables. But that is an entirely different matter altogether.
The last post mentions a bit of a GM trick, one that I try to employ where possible. Too often we craft our hooks directly around the character instead of creating the larger web of opportunities and consequences. We tie things to primary relationships instead of secondary ones. Of course, one issue with this trick is that it can explode the number of NPCs the players need to remember, but it can create a much richer story and one that feels a little less repetitive.
As for me, I think I've identified my larger problem. I'm trying to create a world that calls to my players without knowing what it is that calls to them. My natural inclination is to ask them to create the characters they want to play and then build a world around them, negotiating the details of the place setting as necessary.
However, this flies in the face of the normal advice given to DMs and players in D&D and so it's taken me some time to figure it out. Yes, I'm still a storyteller, but to me the real reward is in weaving together the threads presented to me by others rather than in coming up with all of the ideas myself. I love the challenge of such an endeavor.
The solution seems obvious to me. I should have the character creation session sooner rather than later, and create my part of the story from what the players create. This way my needs are met while some of the story remains a mystery to the players.