DMs - How involved do you get with PCs?

[Ramtrap]

Hi everyone,

I'm just curious how involved DMs get with their players' PCs? I think it's important that the DM check the PC over prior to beginning the adventure, but I'm wondering if I'm meddling too far by asking to review characters any further than that? I've been listening to a lot of what Matthew Colville's series "Running the Game" says, and he hasn't covered this topic so much, but in an interview with his friend, Jim Murphy, he said something I kind of drew interest on. Paraphrasing, he said something to the effect that if his players need to 'cheat' that's fine, if that's something that helps them have fun. I agree that the fact that everyone has fun is ultimately the main goal. I've been looking over their sheets as they advanced from 1 to 2 and was thinking about doing that in perpetuity, but now I feel that A) I'm putting my nose where it doesn't belong (which was never my intent) and B) it's a LOT more work for me. They said (and again I agree) it's THEIR job to know their character, their attacks, spells, etc. It's my job to run the game.

What do you experienced DMs say? Any advice you can offer would be appreciated. Thank you!

Will

[Remedeez]

So here's my long-winded 2 cents, so I apologize in advance!

Firstly, I've played D&D since I was a kid (20ish years now).
I used to DM in High School, then life hit and I took quite a long break. Now, I've got a great circle of online friends who I played MMOs with for the last 5 years or so. None of them have EVER played D&D. Interest bubbled up, and I offered to DM a game for them (8 Players. All new to D&D).

When it comes to "looking over their sheets" and stuff like that, I find I'm doing it constantly. Not because I don't want to, and certainly not because I think they're writing down the wrong information or anything like that. I do it because they are all new, and they constantly want to make sure they're "doing it right" as they say. They need the guidance at this moment in time, and I'm more than happy to oblige.

Now, on the flip-side of that, I have, in the gentlest way possible, informed them that during play it IS their job to know their characters. What they can and cannot do, what they can cast, how they cast it. You know, that kind of stuff. With our group dynamic though, being that all of them are still learning D&D, I find I'm looking at their sheets or looking things up for them constantly. I'm not saying this kind of stuff bothers me, at all. I quite enjoy sharing with my friends one of my most favorite hobbies of my entire life.

As far as "needing to cheat to have fun" goes, that's a very grey area in my opinion. You can do quick searches all over internet-land and find articles and blogs and forum posts about how GMs will sometimes fudge (aka cheat) rolls to avoid TPKs and the like. So what you consider to be "cheating to make things stay fun", others may not, and vice-versa. In my group, for example, I made a TERRIBLE encounter once, and it took the party about 2 hours to overcome it. They were all around 2nd or 3rd level at this time. I didn't fudge any of my rolls as I saw during the encounter they were finding more unique ways to overcome the monsters and win the battle. Of course, lots of death saving throws were involved, and I think I may have given the poor Cleric a heart-attack at some point, but they made it through of their own volition, and that just goes to show how even new players can learn the "rules" and mechanics of the game and even overcome poorly designed encounters. (I STILL FEEL AWFUL ABOUT THIS ENCOUNTER!!)

Sometimes, surely it might be okay for the GM to fudge things, but that really, really depends on the GM. Some GMs will NEVER EVER fudge anything, purely on principle. This is something you as a GM/DM should decide yourself. Is the outcome worth fudging, or not. If you TPK, for example, are you willing to continue the campaign and allow your player's to just start new characters? If you TPK and let it happen, it could be the reason to start a fresh new campaign! If you TPK and fudge it and let everyone live, or get resurrected, or what have you, is it because you aren't done telling the story?

Aside from that, I love looking at the backstory and fluff information of the PCs who I DM for. We play an entirely homebrewed world. I find ways to really ingratiate their characters into the world. The first week we started playing, the Bard in my group had the flaws "A scandal prevents me from ever going home again. That kind of trouble seems to follow me around" and "I once satirized a noble who still wants my head. It was a mistake that I will likely repeat" written on his sheet. I went to town with this one. The PCs started their adventures together in a small village not too far from the kingdom's Castle. I talked to him before the session started and we decided it was THE KING who he ticked off, as part of his backstory. Now, there are castle guards on the lookout for him. Sometimes he'll find wanted posters of his character while out and about, and he'll tear them down or use his dagger to scratch out the area where his face is depicted before anyone else in the party can see the posters and call him out on his current "running from the law" status. It makes for some great fun during our campaign. Stuff like this lets the PCs feel like they REALLY are apart of the worlds you create. I know my players love it.

So that's my 2 cents for now!

[Ken L]

Depends on the game, and definition of 'involved' in respect to your players.

For simple one-shot games, outside of base statistics (point buy systems), I don't really check their feats/skills/abilities that closely unless I see something fishy going on. If it comes up during play due to its concealed nature, I deny it on the spot and have them fix their sheet leaving X ability and its replacements nullified till next game. That way players have an incentive to be accurate unless they want to loose spell slots or abilities at crucial moments, but this only works if you have a good handle on the cheese that can occur. Much of it can fly under the radar, but the general theme is 'Trust but Verify'.

For 'mini' campaigns I generally ask for a small blurb regarding backstory, and I perform a bit more of a detailed overview of their abilities/skillsets. I also pay closer attention to player demeanor and how they carry themselves personality wise as I'll have to deal with them for more than a single session. In general, as long as they can play ball without too many hiccups , they're in. In terms of hovering, I do keep eyeballs on their abilities and ask about them during level up. My mini campaigns are typically with people I have some level of association with, but are not willing to GM long term for due to hesitation.

For long-term campaigns, I nail in the backstory requirement, but oddly I'm very lax in terms of vetting their actual statistics. It really depends on the level of trust you have with that player. I seldom put out a recruitment call for new players, but when I do, it's a strong vet on their personality as opposed to their mechanics. You could say I'm very involved in that front as if personalities clash, then there's drama. That's not to say it's flawless, I've at times let someone slip though based on requests/recommendations only to have their instability manifest, but it's a pretty solid system. Returning to the statistics and level up checking, it's again 'Trust but Verify' with the same response as my one-shots save for the exemption of my not requiring to see it until I notice something fishy. I typically retro-actively penalize in those events, likewise I grant boons when I mess up, It's great system in my opinion that puts an incentive to be in the right.

Currently I run:

A long-term PF campaign based in the Taldor hinterlands just outside of Oppara (in person)
A recent long-term SR5 campaign based on a homebrew world, used to be a mini-campaign that had since evolved. (mainly due to novelty of system as opposed to group composition)

I ran a number of other pre-written adventures/modules/encounters (I run one-shots for a FLGS to introduce new players), as well as one other homebrew world. Generally I'm leaning on more homebrew worlds these days as it cuts out the meta which I usually have a tight leash on.

[Ken L]

Aside from that, I love looking at the backstory and fluff information of the PCs who I DM for. We play an entirely homebrewed world. I find ways to really ingratiate their characters into the world. The first week we started playing, the Bard in my group had the flaws "A scandal prevents me from ever going home again. That kind of trouble seems to follow me around" and "I once satirized a noble who still wants my head. It was a mistake that I will likely repeat" written on his sheet. I went to town with this one. The PCs started their adventures together in a small village not too far from the kingdom's Castle. I talked to him before the session started and we decided it was THE KING who he ticked off, as part of his backstory. Now, there are castle guards on the lookout for him. Sometimes he'll find wanted posters of his character while out and about, and he'll tear them down or use his dagger to scratch out the area where his face is depicted before anyone else in the party can see the posters and call him out on his current "running from the law" status. It makes for some great fun during our campaign. Stuff like this lets the PCs feel like they REALLY are apart of the worlds you create. I know my players love it.

Haha, moving past the hovering/rules aspect, this is pretty much why I GM in a nutshell; for my actual campaigns, I build in their backstories into the world itself. I find it easier to do this in a homebrew setting as in written adventures, it either becomes a side-quest, or a replacement of written encounters with character backstory elements. In my Taldor game, my cavalier's house was in war with another rival great house so there was this constant searching for enemies wherever he went, the wench? the stable boy? It eventually came to a head when they gambled a risky venture and he woke up the next day to find his horse gutted neck to navel with all its organs displayed around it (akin to 'speaker for the dead'). He swore an oath to find the killer for 'boba fett the second' and it's pulled a whole new direction to the party's adventures thus far. I never played for the 'avenging boba fett' story arc to happen, but it did, and I've since created new plot line characters involved it. That's not to say the other members don't have their stories integrated. This however is more of a player driven slice-of-life campaign as opposed to a directed story so I have more leeway here.

[Remedeez]

Haha, moving past the hovering/rules aspect, this is pretty much why I GM in a nutshell; for my actual campaigns, I build in their backstories into the world itself. I find it easier to do this in a homebrew setting as in written adventures, it either becomes a side-quest, or a replacement of written encounters with character backstory elements. In my Taldor game, my cavalier's house was in war with another rival great house so there was this constant searching for enemies wherever he went, the wench? the stable boy? It eventually came to a head when they gambled a risky venture and he woke up the next day to find his horse gutted neck to navel with all its organs displayed around it (akin to 'speaker for the dead'). He swore an oath to find the killer for 'boba fett the second' and it's pulled a whole new direction to the party's adventures thus far. I never played for the 'avenging boba fett' story arc to happen, but it did, and I've since created new plot line characters involved it. That's not to say the other members don't have their stories integrated. This however is more of a player driven slice-of-life campaign as opposed to a directed story so I have more leeway here.

Oh yeah! That is some fantastic stuff! I do agree, sometimes if I notice one character in the party is getting more of their story in the world than another, I try to ensure that in the future other characters are also getting their limelight (or their chance to avoid the limelight, as is the case with our Bard at the moment). :P

I like to try my very best to include them all as equally as possible, and that the inclusion isn't "pity-inclusion" but ACTUALLY means something to each and every one of them. Its just my style of DMing, though. I made custom "legendary" type items for each character in my party, that someday during their adventures they will end up on a quest to obtain said special item. The items are unique to each character, benefit that character only (either class-based or usage type things). The Druid in our group on her backstory said she left her Elven home due to a vision. Now during our sessions, sometimes to drive them towards the wondrous items I've made for them, I give her character very vague visions, and what she does with the information is up to her, but currently she's been having visions of a shadowy figure wearing a blazing gold cloak. She still doesn't KNOW that I'm leading her to wondrous items for the party, but she does love that I'm giving her character important (albeit very vague) tidbits for their adventures.

I do lots of this for my PCs, and being that they're all close friends of mine anyway, they seem to think I'm the best DM in the world, heh! I'm the only DM they've ever had, so I'm okay with them thinking that. Even though, personally, I know I have lots of areas I need to improve on.

[Ken L]

Oh yeah! That is some fantastic stuff! I do agree, sometimes if I notice one character in the party is getting more of their story in the world than another, I try to ensure that in the future other characters are also getting their limelight

Heh, really depends on your players, be wary of those who shove their backstory front and center, but it sounds like you won't have that issue as you have a consistent group. Given that I have introduced numerous players to the genre, often as their fist GM you leave an imprint on your players. I typically say I'm an overall a-hole and that they should try GMing themselves or playing with other game masters to diversify their thought.

My in-person group, we've known each other for ~4 years now and we order wings and beer when we play, good times.

[Reafwalk]

I'd say it depends on the player. If it's a new player (or a whole group of new players) I'd say checking at each level, and before the start of the campaign, is totally practical. You want them to learn and learn right. On the other hand, if it's a group of folks that have a bunch of campaigns under their belts and have done this enough that they can draw a character sheet from scratch with their eyes closed, I'd say double checking isn't necessary. If mid-play some numbers sound a bit fuzzy make a note of it and check it later (after the session). If your players are somewhere between those two points, just make sure everyone knows you're around to answer any questions between sessions, and again if any of the gameplay seems a little off make a note of it and check into it after session.

The only time, too, that I find the "cheating" part to be a huge thing, is when it's not uniform. So if you've got 5 players, and 1 of them is using some "fuzzy math" he's gonna come out of your combats feeling like a big damn hero, while your other four players (who are good, upstanding, rule abiding citizens) are gonna come away feeling like sidekicks. Eventually you have to either tailor the challenge to the BDH, which becomes too difficult for the others, or you find convoluted ways of giving him one challenge while giving everyone else something different. Long term, more trouble than it's worth. On the other hand, if all your players are fudging things a little, you can just up the challenges a bit, and everyone comes out of it feeling like they really took on something super tough. The only problem there can be escalation. If they fudge a little, so you up the challenge, so they fudge more and you have to increase the challenge again on and on.

So yeah. Those are my thoughts.

[Ramtrap]

Remedeez: You make a lot of good points, particularly in regards to fudging numbers. I've done that once so far in my fledgling life to avoid killing a player outright in one attack at first level. I had mixed emotions when it had happened. On one hand, I was glad to keep his PC alive so he could continue on the adventure and not have to immediately re-create someone. That would have put a pretty big hindrance on the party, as well, given that they were going to be screwed without him. Could have potentially been a TPK, but they came out of it. On the other hand, that's the fate of the dice, and I feel I should have killed him. If I'm too chick to do it at level 1, how am I going to react when that character's 3rd or 4th level (or more?). I'm stealing your "legendary" items tailored to the characters idea, as well.

Also, I stalked your twitter and saw the map you'd created--that's freaking awesome! Is there a program you used for that? I totally want to design my own world and put a bunch of stuff together in FG.

Ken L: "Trust but verify" is something that Matthew Colville had said in multiple videos, and now I'm seeing why that's an important distinction. I need to trust the players because I don't want to call them out and create unnecessary tension, particularly if there's nothing fishy going on. But I also need to be wary of the PC that's giving themselves extras that they shouldn't have. It's important that players have fun, because (and Colville says this) when they have fun, I'll have fun. I also appreciated your breaking down the difference in the type of games in relation to how close an eye you're keeping on PC sheets. Having the "overall a-hole" mentality as a DM, I think, is necessary with some players (both their characters and the human controlling them) because some people try and ruin other peoples' fun and a meek GM might let these people waylay a group when the only intention was to grief. I hope I don't encounter too much of that, but you never know what you're going to get when you're getting players from forums. So far so good, though.

Reafwalk: You make good points that periodic checking at level intervals is okay. My concern is when it's a mix of people that are well-versed in D&D versus newer people. Obviously the people that know the rules are going to get by with leveling up their character quicker, but they also know how to skirt things and give themselves extra things (abilities, modifiers to attack rolls, etc.) that they aren't meant to have. Newer players can do the same thing, but completely on accident. I feel for the GM in either scenario because I know how much work goes into putting things together. Putting everything into a home-brew context, and that level of attention to detail must go even higher. My biggest concern (other than the players not having fun) is me creating an epic error in the story because I say something I shouldn't have or give too much information or lead them too much in the direction of epic loot. Lastly, the 'sidekicks vs hero' comparison is very much another thing I worry about. You make good points that I need to essentially make efforts to allow the other PCs to become heroes.

All of this is extremely helpful to me. Thank you very much, all!

[JohnD]

Interesting question. Have seen similar ones conceptually asked on Facebook, albeit with a hostile stance that anyone not agreeing with the proffered opinion is an outright bastard. Facebook does love the lowest common denominator....

Thankfully Ramtrap has done an excellent job of framing the question.

I outline what is allowed and not allowed in my campaigns. This ranges from disallowed classes and races, to any mechanics I am changing from RAW in whatever ruleset I'm using. This would include changes to any classes or races (i.e additional Human sub-races with specific RP flavour or every Wizard getting Prestidigitation, Read Magic and Detect Magic free above and beyond starting spellbook stipulations). This would also include character generation method (i.e. 27 point buy or roll 4d6 drop lowest 3 times and 3d6 4 times and take the best 6 results). I work with players who choose classes where religion is important - Clerics and Paladins serve a deity - here's a list of setting appropriate ones for a PC to consider. Also, what source material is being used - just the PHB or additional... (?).

Beyond this, if a player wants something outside the above, the onus is on them to make the case to me that allowing it doesn't shatter the reality of my campaign or the essence of the style and feeling I'm trying to accomplish. This might include a rationale or an interesting backstory to explain why Out Of Bounds Idea 45 is actually a good idea. There's a slippery slope here and over 37 years of DMing I've learned not only what *I* want in a game that I'm putting my time and effort into, but also that exceptions to that are going to be rare. Want to play a CG Drow trying to live in exile on the surface in Greyhawk... you're gonna have a bad time....

I also outline my philosophy of the game to players - the fact that "look, nobody needs to create an uber min-maxed character to survive or be successful in my game... in fact, if you do that, you're actually probably going to be farther behind because your enemies which are intelligent will be played as such, meaning they will exploit the min side of your ability to survive while taking steps to hinder your maxed abilities, so you're much better off looking at a well rounded approach". Not everyone listens, and that's OK. Some people have to take the lesson the hard way, which also drives home things to the rest of the group.

I'm usually present one-on-one with the player when they're creating their PC. Saves a lot of questions and clarifications and back/forth later on. Also extremely helpful if the person is new. Before a character enters play, I do a once-over. I do an out of game review after every level advancement, and I do a review if something happens in play where well let's just say bonuses look like they're getting out of the realm of what seems likely. Thankfully, this isn't an issue very often.

[vodokar]

I usually enter and set up all pc's and keep them updated.

The reason I do this has nothing to do with player knowledge of the rules of the game or trusting them, it is because most players that I have dm'ed for don't have the experience with the Fantasy Grounds software to set everything up for themselves, including all the bells and whistles that make FG work efficiently during play.

For those that do, obviously, I let them do it.

But, I would rather spend the time entering a pc that the player has sent me, thus ensuring it is entered properly and all the things set up and ready to roll, than to see a bunch of downtime happen once play has commenced. From there, I spend some time training them how to use Fantasy Grounds and all the things on their character sheet. When they feel comfortable enough to enter or modify things for themselves according to the methods I have shown them, I start letting them do more of it. This process yields players that have a greater knowledge of what Fantasy Grounds can do and ensures that things run speedily and efficiently at the table. Nothing more is disconcerting to a DM, who is responsible for maintaining the pace at the table, keeping the tension of the story going, and not to have all the other players sit idly waiting, to have to sit and wait for a player to muddle through doing some action that should have been set up properly prior to the game starting.

It's the DM's job to train them how to use the software and to play the game if they don't have that experience. If you don't do that, you should definitely expect to have players who show up with nothing but a half filled out or even completely blank character sheet and aren't ready to play. There are a lot of new people showing up all the time. They might be new to the game, and most certainly are new to the software.