We’ve completed another season of D&D Encounters. That’s 8 for those keeping track. Before we jump into season 9 and do battle with the Drow let’s take a look back at the season that was and discus what worked and what didn’t, what we’d like to have seen and what we might have done differently.

Good Introduction to D&D

I think that many of the D&D Encounters regulars forget that the program is designed as an introduction to D&D. It’s intent is to entice new players to try the game, one encounter at a time, and see if they like it enough to buy the materials and play it at home with their friends. From that perspective I think this season did a fantastic job.

The adventure was simple and straight forward. It included a lot of the typical characteristics of old-school D&D adventures. It started with people in a small town facing a problem they can’t handle on their own so they enlist the aid of the heroes. From there the PCs fight monsters and an evil cult. They fight monsters in the wild and they delve deep into an underground dungeon. There is exploration, combat, and even some role-playing along the way. It may not be particularly original for experienced players and DMs but as a primer for someone new to the hobby it was perfect.

Short Chapters

On the surface I really liked that this adventure was only 11 weeks. Chapter 1 was short, only three encounters, but they were action packed and put the characters in real danger. It was just long enough for the players to get to know their character before leveling him up. Chapter 2 and chapter 3 both had four encounters. In my opinion this is perfect for public play. It’s long enough to demonstrate the importance of resource management while not so long as to make things impossible if the group had one bad encounter along the way. Even PCs with only six healing surges can usually make it through four full encounters without getting killed.

When I was previewing the adventure three months ago I was excited that the PCs had a chance to take an extended rest before facing the final encounter. However, after playing the adventure I realized that this was not a good thing at all. The problem was twofold. First the PCs had a lot more in their bag of tricks when playing through encounters 8-10 since they knew they only had to budget for three fights which gave the PCs a huge edge. Second was that the monsters in the final encounter had to be uber-tough to actually challenge a party of fully rested PCs. The result was a lot of PCs getting killed in an unnecessary encounter (more on that below).

In my mind the perfect D&D Encounters adventure would be 3 chapters with each chapter having four encounters each. I could also live with chapter 1 being only three encounters (like it was in The Elder Elemental Eye). I would not allow the PCs to take an extended rest at any time except between chapters. Following this model each season would be either 11 or 12 weeks long. Any longer and the inexperienced or carless players run out of healing surges too quickly and their PCs die. This ends up hurting the entire party including those who didn’t take unnecessary risks or worked as part of the team.

Abyssal Plague

I liked that in the very first week there was a really good chance that some PCs would contract the Abyssal Plague. If they were unfortunate and failed their saving throw subsequent encounters would prove more difficult. Things could get even worse if they failed their saving throw after the next extended rest. However, I don’t think it’s fair to penalize a party for rolling poorly (which is really what a failed save represents), and the author obviously agreed with my thinking. As part of the loot earned after week 1 the PCs found the material components required to cure one character.

If the PCs were not infected (because they were not hit or because they made their saves) they could earn good will and donate the residuum to the local priest to cure the infected Knight of the Purple Dragon. At the end of the first week none of the 12 players at my FLGS were infected. Only 6 were hit and they all made their saving throw.

I’m of two minds on using the Abyssal Plague as a plot hook to infect and entice the PCs. The regulars at D&D Encounters already played in an adventure (March of the Phantom Brigade) that featured the Abyssal Plague and its spawn. Bringing it back again could seem too repetitive. However, as the PCs only faced plague infected at the beginning and the end of the adventure it seems that Wizards felt the same way. On the other hand with everyone at my table saving successfully after week 1 there was no real threat from the plague to provide additional motivation. In truth the players only took on the adventure because it was the right thing to do. Had they faced off against more infected monsters before the end of chapter 1 there would have been a greater chance of someone being infected and thereby adding that missing drive to complete he quest.

Return to Easting a.k.a. The Bad Dream Encounter

This is where I think I’ll have to agree to disagree with a lot of people. In my opinion this was one of the best encounters of the season. It was especially fun and interesting if the players had participated in week 1. In my case we’d had very consistent attendance so five of the six PCs clearly remembered the events from week 1.

Assuming the players took the opportunity the first week to actually explore and role-play, the dream encounter had tremendous potential. Each player in my group was able to draw on the details they remembered from the first week to spot difference this time around. We spent more time role-playing the dream encounter than fighting the monsters. As the author explained on the Wizards’ Forums he was asked to create another encounter using an existing map, so although this might have felt unnecessary and tacked on to some, I thought it was brilliant. It really let the player get into their characters and do something other than fight and kill monsters. At my FLGS this was the stand-out encounter of the season.

Skill Challenges

Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I’m a huge fan of skill challenges. So I was glad to see a couple of structured skill challenges used in this adventure. The investigation in Easting (both the fist time and during the dream) worked really well for our group. The checks weren’t that difficult and I gave the players a considerable amount of leeway when it came to which skills could garner successes. The checks were there to add information and the only consequence for failure was ignorance.

And then there was the skill challenge that was the maze. Again, this is one of those areas were I think I’ll have to agree to disagree with a lot of other people. I liked the way this skill challenge was set up. It certainly required some imagination and visualization to work well. I think the real pay-off would have been if the party split up, but I’m willing to bet very few parties did. Wizards has hit us over the head with “Don’t split the party” for so long players are absolutely opposed to even considering the possibility. In this case it would have made things a lot easier.

In my all-Genasi part they each had an elemental resistance. If they’d split up it would have made the group checks easier and it would have let them avoid more of the harmful effects if they failed those checks. But the idea that there was a maze that messed with their minds and required them to use a variety of skills to navigate worked, in my opinion. I did think that some of the checks were so difficult that untrained PCs had almost no shot of making them successfully (a DC 21 Insight check, really?), but I think this was a good way to emphasize that importance of a well-rounded character.

Maps

In general the maps were fantastic. However, I did see room for improvement. In week 1 the PCs fought the Plague Changed Demons in the barn. This was designed as a 2-story combat (a great idea). However, it required a lot of imagination to get the players to see a second level. I would have made this map half the size and provided the second story on the other half (similar to how the library was pretended in Dark Legacy of Evard). I know that the DMs at my FLGS simply made it a one story building and didn’t bother with the second floor.

My other suggestion would have been to provide online maps of 1) Easting and the surrounding area, and 2) the complete dungeon. I’ll admit that the Easting map wasn’t necessary but would have helped some of the newer players visualize the town a bit better. A full dungeon map was provided in the adventure for the DM to reference. However, as only select areas of the map were provided at 1-inch scale the players didn’t get to see the full layout. This became problematic when the PCs faced the “random encounter” in the kitchen and dining room area.

What do you mean that’s not the end?

OK, it’s time to address the elephant in the room – what was up with that ending? In week 10 the PCs finally faced off against the evil cult leader and stopped the source of the Abyssal Plague in this area thereby curing everyone infected (possibly even some of the PCs). It was a great encounter and ended with the PCs returning to Easting where they were heralded as heroes. Now that’s a satisfying conclusion to all their hard work. What? It’s not over? Huh?

At the end of week 10 everyone at my FLGS left scratching their heads asking what could possibly be in store for the final encounter? They’d defeated the villains and cured the plague. Now what?

As it turned out the final encounter saw the PCs return to Iriaebor to report on the happenings in Easting and collect their 50 gp (which seemed meager now). They had plenty of down-time and got to role-play the celebration of a job well done. OK, I must admit that this was actually kind of fun. Despite the fact that none of these characters would ever be used again after this encounter most players got into it and had fun doing so. And then we moved on to the combat part of the final encounter.

If the PCs spared either or both Drow from week 3 then one of them tipped off the PCs to a potential ambush. Apparently there was a Drow in service to the Elder Elemental Eye who was ticked off with the PCs for stopping the Abyssal Plague. Now she was planning to kill them. So the final week saw the PCs battling a Drow they’d never heard of until this week. Lame!

The Drow and her followers were tough. They had to be since the PCs were back to full everything. The Drow could attack 4 times as a standard action. Although this was no doubt intended to allow her to face multiple foes simultaneously, most DMS had her unload on one PC at a time. That’s what I did and it resulted in a lot of unconscious PCs and even one PC death at our table. To add insult to injury the villains didn’t die when you killed them. When they reached 0 hit points they popped back up the next round at their blooded value. In the context of a normal encounter this might seem like an interesting mechanic to keep a monster alive a little longer, but until now I’d only ever seen it work with undead and usually minions at that.

I understand that this encounter was added to hint at the upcoming Drow-themed adventure in season 9, but as none of these characters will be playing in that adventure it really deemed unnecessary and tacked on. It was a really anti-climatic way to end an otherwise decent adventure.

Final Thoughts

Looking at this adventure on its own I’d say it was decent. When comparing it to other D&D Encounters adventures I’d say it falls somewhere in the middle of the pack. It had its up and downs; there was a lot of great stuff in there but there were also some areas that could have used some improvement. As I mentioned at the beginning, this is supposed to be an introductory adventure and from that standpoint it really works. However, I know that a lot of the more experienced players felt that it was a rather bland experience.

The Elder Elemental Eye: 7 on a d10.

I’d like to thank Harry Tarantula North in North York and Dueling Grounds in Toronto for hosting D&D Encounters every week. If not for their support we wouldn’t have a place to play or the material needed to run the games. Remember that your FLGS doesn’t make any money for hosting D&D Encounters. So the next time you need a gaming resource be sure to purchase it from your FLGS as a way to thank them for supporting the D&D Encounters program.

What were your thoughts on The Elder Elemental Eye? How do you think it compared to previous seasons? How many new players did you see this season? What was the stand-out encounter in your opinion this season?

Visit the Dungeon’s Master D&D Encounters Archive for all of our ongoing weekly coverage as well as other great D&D Encounters articles and resources.

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!

How often does a player at your table want to do something – in character – that is morally apprehensible and blatantly evil? It doesn’t happen often in my games, but it does seem to come up every once in a awhile. When it does and the action is questioned by the DM or the other players, the player whose character is taking the action usually says something like, “I would never do this, but my character has no issue with it.” I realize that fantasy RPGs provide an escape from reality and you can play any kind of character you want, but I think it’s important to know where to draw the line.

Over the years I’ve come to realize that there are some things that are deemed acceptable in the context of D&D even thought most players would never condone or support such actions in real life. For example, slavery in the context of D&D isn’t usually seen as a big issue. Killing is also given tremendous latitude if the creature or person on the other end of the sword is evil. Theft is perfectly acceptable and is essentially what the majority of adventurers do to earn their loot. I guess it really comes down to the context of the situation and the justification for these actions. If killing an entire tribe of Orcs will make the nearby city safer for “civilized people” then the act of genocide is seen as acceptable and even heroic.

Lately the despicable act that has reared its ugly head in my games is torture. In a lot of the encounters during public play the PCs had the opportunity to ask NPCs questions. In some cases the NPCs are friendly and will cooperate with nothing more than a polite request or a few gold pieces. But when it’s a villain or monstrous NPC, someone who clearly does not want to share information with the PCs, a lot of players have their character get violent and resort to torture to gain the information they seek.

I think the problem is that many players believe Intimidate is the torture skill. They think that if an Intimidate check is required they have to follow it up by inflicting bodily harm. If the check fails, if the person provides information the PCs don’t believe or if they simply don’t know the answer, the PC using Intimate will more often than not proceed to torture the respondent.

When I’ve had this happen at my table or I suspect it’s moving in that direction I often remind the PC asking the question that they should act according to their alignment. Good PCs are unlikely to resort to physical abuse to solicit information. If the interrogator is evil or unaligned I will then look to the rest of the party. After all, they’re a team and the action of one will reflect on the actions of all. I find it hard to believe that any good aligned PC would knowingly let the less scrupulous members of the party beat a prisoner senseless just to get information out of him. Yet I’ve seen this happen more and more in recent months.

Intimidate is a Charisma-based skill. It’s about imposing fear and often about subtlety. The threat of violence is an acceptable way to use the Intimidate skill, but the actual act of striking or stabbing someone to get information out of them is not. When a character begins crossing that line I will increase the DC. If the act clearly conflicts with their alignment or the party’s overall alignment I will again increase the DC. I don’t believe that Intimidate (or any skill) should be an automatic failure just for trying it, but I do think that sometimes the DC can be out of your reach.

In order for a subject to reveal informant following an Intimidate check there needs to be a plausible reason for them to give in (at least plausible in their own mind). This is where fear plays an important part in any Intimidate check and the Charisma part comes in. A threat to do something awful if they don’t talk is a way for them to avoid potential torture (which I hope few PCs would actually carry out anyway). If you’re already torturing them they have no incentive to reveal what they know since it’s safe to assume you’ll kill them anyway. A person under duress will often tell you anything to make the pain stop, usually incorrect information or what they think you want to hear. In fact using torture to solicit information may reveal bad intel which could lead to other problems down the road.

If a PC does resort to unnecessary acts of violence and torture to try and garner information from a suspect, there should be in game consequences for this PC and the party. Heroes gain a reputation and if your party is known for mistreating and torturing prisoners then others will start to treat you differently. People who might normally help you with an easy Diplomacy check may become tight-lipped. The more you torture your prisoners and the more brutal the acts, the less others will want to help you. All social skills will become harder. If one PC is the torturer he’ll likely face the worst of it, but everyone in the party will be painted with the same brush and find checks more difficult.

Fantasy games are supposed to be a fun way to escape reality and become a character unlike anything you could possibly be in real life. From the Wizard who hurls fireballs to the Knight who slays Dragons, your imagination is the only limitation. So if you want to play a character that is cruel and gains perverse pleasure from inflicting pain and torturing the helpless who am I to judge? I’m the DM – that’s who I am and I will judge. There needs to b a line at the gaming table and as the DM it’s up to you to make it clear where the line is. Treading it on occasion may be acceptable but crossing it at every opportunity is not. So the next time players decide that they want to use Intimidate and feel that cutting off fingers or stabbing out an eye is the way to accomplish this, strongly discourage such behaviour even if it’s deemed to be just in character, and remind them that Intimidate and torture are not the same thing.

Have you run into similar issues at your table when PCs want to use Intimidate? How have you handled it? Where have you drawn the line? How would you deal with a party who resorts to violence and torture (basically extreme brutality and violence) whenever they have to question prisoners?

Related reading:

• Skill Focus: Intimidate
• Does Alignment Matter in 4e D&D?
• Skill Challenge: Information Gamble

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!

Can you imagine creating a 4e character without using the character builder? I can’t. It’s become such an important and integral part of character creation that I don’t know what I’d do without it. And that got me thinking about how D&D Next will handle character builder? Will it be revamped to work with the new rule-set? Will Wizards support 4e and D&D Next versions of character builder concurrently? Or will character builder be scrapped all together? If such decisions have been made by the brass at Wizards they’re not sharing the secret with us. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t look at the possibilities and make recommendations.

If you’re like me you have a subscription to DDI. I’ve got to think that the majority of us who play 4e D&D are subscribers. Between the character builder and the compendium I think that the subscription is well worth the money. Of the seven regulars in my gaming group six of us have been subscribers since day one and the seventh guy pays for a few months a year as his wallet allows. Each player may not buy every book, but pretty much every player pays for a DDI subscription.

As Wizards continues crafting and refining the rules for D&D Next they have to realize two very important truths: 1) DDI subscriptions generate significant revenue, and 2) character builder provides them with a wealth of information about the people playing their game. Knowing these two things I’ve got to believe that Wizard will keep character builder alive in one form or another.

So when D&D Next is finally released what’s going to happen to character builder? I guess it really depends on how complicated character creation becomes. My group is currently participating in the “Friends & Family” play testing for D&D Next. When we sat down to begin on that first night we realized that for the first time in years we had to make characters using a pencil and paper. After all, there was no character builder for a game that’s still in development. It was both thrilling and frightening. We forgot how much fun it can be to actually get together with buddies and spend an entire gaming session just making characters.

Ever since character builder was released character creation has become a very solidarity experience. Sure we talk about who’s playing what kind of character and ensure we have all the roles covered, but we all make our own characters in isolation. And even if we did come together it would just be six guys with six laptops individually creating their PCs.

Without character builder, creating new characters took a long time. We had to read through everything to ensure that every option was reviewed before a decision was made. We’re used to character builder where it shows you all the available options and none of the extraneous stuff that’s irrelevant for your PC. Without character builder we had to become pretty familiar with the printed materials in a hurry to know which parts were applicable to each character. We also realized in a big hurry that it’s a lot more work to create and run a character that can use magic (divine and arcane characters) than one who cannot.

Without character builder the players running spell casters need to copy down a lot of information onto their character sheet. They need t know what the spells or power do and that information needs to be at their fingertips. We take for granted how much having character builder do this for us speeds up character creation and game play in 4e. For example, when a 4e Cleric wants to use a healing power he doesn’t have to look up what it doesn’t, it’s all right there printed in easy to read text on the power card. But without character builder it’s up to the player to make sure he knows what the Cleric’s power can do. This either means copying down all the details that we currently get on the power card, or having the appropriate page of the appropriate book handy so it can be referenced as needed. It only took one combat encounter during the play testing to remember how cumbersome it can be to play a character that does more than swing a blade and the tremendous amount of work required to accurately copy all those little details spell casters need to have at their finger tips on their turn.

Although D&D Next promises to be a simplified and streamlined version of the game, every character in every edition of D&D that has access to magic spells will come with the need for a considerable amount of record keeping. Character builder has taken care of this for us for years now and we’ve become lazy and complacent. I think a lot of people will be upset if they lose the tool that makes playing spell casters easier and faster.

Releasing a D&D Next character builder seems like the right thing to do for many reasons. It will practically guarantee that everyone playing D&D Next will continue subscribing to DDI which will in turn generate additional revenue for Wizards. Having all the options and details at your fingertips will make character creation fast and easy (not that it isn’t already, but after using character builder for so long anything non-technical seems like a huge step backwards). Allowing us to print our characters with all the relevant powers detailed in their entirety will speed up game play, or more importantly won’t slow down game play, one of the biggest criticisms of 4e. And finally as long as we’re all using character builder to make our character Wizard can continue to review the data and see what kind of characters we’re playing. They can use this data to provide materials that target the needs of the majority.

Regardless of what happen with character builder for D&D Next I’m curious about what’s going to happen to the current 4e character builder? Experience has taught us that whenever a new iteration of D&D is released there are going to be some people who won’t want to switch. It might be because they don’t like the new direction of the game or it might be because they simple enjoy the current version and see no reason to make the switch. But as we’ve already said above, it’s pretty much impossibly to make a decent 4e character without the character builder. There are just too many options and too much detail to write out by hand to make the experience worth while.

Assuming that most of the people who are currently playing 4e have DDI subscriptions and assuming that some of them won’t want to stop playing 4e, why not leave a working version of the 4e character builder online? Assuming that there will be a D&D Next character builder where’s the harm in running both versions concurrently. It will keep the 4e-lovers happy and it will keep them renewing their DDI subscriptions. It will also give any new players a chance to start with D&D Next but still try 4e. Obviously there wouldn’t be any expectations of future updates to the 4e character builder once D&D Next is officially launched, but there’s already so much content available for 4e I don’t think that will be a problem. After all, my group has been playing 4e since it was first launched and we’re just now moving into the epic tier. Having the 4e character builder stick around after D&D Next comes out will allow us to keep playing our epic level adventures in the old system while trying new character in the new system.

Character builder has become just as important to D&D as the PHB, DMG and Monster Manual in my opinion. I’ll admit that I’m lazy and need instant gratification when it comes to character creation. I don’t want to spend hours pouring through the books, I want everything organized in an electronic database so I can find what I want on my laptop or mobile device. If Wizard decides to leave character builder behind when it moves to D&D Next I think they’ll be making a huge mistake. There have been a lot of criticisms about 4e since it first came out but one thing people seem to agree on is that character is a fantastic tool. They may not be in love with the interface, but the idea of character builder is something that many games will miss if it goes away. Wizards has the opportunity to get a few easy wins by keeping a final version of the 4e character builder up after they move on to D&D Next and by providing a brand new D&D Next character builder simultaneously when they officially release D&D Next.

What would you like to see happen to character builder? Do you think character builder should evolve with the game and become exclusively a D&D Next tool? Do you think that if D&D is trying to go back to its roots it should abandon online character creation all together and leave character builder behind? If a 4e and D&D Next version of character builder were both available would you be any more or less inclined to play 4e vs. D&D Next?

Related reading:

• Does Character Builder Limit Creativity?
• Move Over Character Builder
• Character Builder: Is It REALLY That Bad?

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!

Experience teaches player to never split the party. However, there are times when it doesn’t make sense for the party to remain together. This might be because there are many tasks to complete in a limited amount of time or it might be because some party members have skills or powers that make them uniquely qualified to handle a task alone. Yet when presented with any opportunity to split the party, no matter how logical it might seem to do so, a lot of players insist on staying together. It’s a knee-jerk reaction that is not founded in any rational assessment of the situation. It’s an instinctual response based on a previous disaster and a slogan ingrained into them by the Wizards marketing department. Players need to take a deep breath and repeat after me: Sometimes it’s a good idea to split the party.

My gaming group has actually had a lot of success when splitting the party. It’s not something we do very often, but we are certainly open to the possibility when it makes sense. Most often when we split up each group or individual ends up with their own mini skill challenge, but every so often the DM has something else in mind and combat occurs while the party is separated from each other. We’ve found that there are ways to make combat with a split party work. It’s definitely challenging, but our approach to these situations are always fun and rarely result in anyone being left out while their character is off screen.

Splitting into two groups

I’ve playing in many adventures when it’s made sense for the party to split into two groups. The intent is to complete objectives that have minimal likelihood of leading to combat. After all, the main reason PCs don’t want to split the party is because they know combat is more difficult with three PCs than six; especially if the leader is in the other half of the party.

Yet there are times when the course of events leads to combat when the party is divided. In some cases it’s because the PCs have made poor choices, in some cases it’s because they made poor rolls, and in some cases it’s because that’s what the DM had planned all along. Regardless of the reason, don’t panic when this happens. Unless the DM is trying to make a point about the dangers of splitting the party you should have a chance of surviving.

When a group is divided combat can be problematic. Not only is it dangerous for the smaller than usual party, but it can be boring for the players whose characters are not present. When this happens at my gaming table any player whose PC is not present is drafted as assistant DMs and gets to help run monsters. This is a chance for the players to basically fight one another. It’s a great way to keep everyone involved and in some cases it’s a good way to elevate tensions that might be mounting within the group. Having the PCs fight one and other is usually a bad idea, but letting the players run monsters and than having those monsters beat up on the party is perfectly acceptable.

After the combat is over and the scene shifts to the remaining PCs it’s time to switch hats. These PCs who just got clobbered by the DM’s assistants should now have an opportunity to return the favour. This also reminds everyone that what goes around comes around. The players running monsters may focus on the PC run by the guy who, in the previous fight when he was running a monster, was particularly brutal on the PCs. This is the one time when us vs. them mentality is actually encouraged.

All PCs on their own

In the rare circumstances when everyone goes in a different direction to do their own thing only a particularly vindictive or sadistic DM will initiate individual combat. However, if the circumstance demands combat happen while everyone’s separated there are ways to make things play out smoothly.

In my recent home campaign the PCs were enjoying some down time after the end of the last adventure. They’d all gone their separate ways and were enjoying a well deserved vacation. Unbeknownst to the PCs, one of their enemies hired assassins to carry out a coordinated attack on each of them simultaneously. The result was all five PCs engaging in their own individual combat.

Playing this out in the traditional way would be long and boring. So instead the DM decided to try something different. Each PC faced three assassins which meant the DM had to keep track of 15 monsters. However, rather than run 15 different monsters over five different combat scenarios, the DM wrapped everything together into one fight. Rather than have each PC’s Assassin #1 make separate attack and damage, the DM attacked once, rolled damage once and then moved on. This one attack represented Assassin #1 in each of the 5 encounters. The DM still had to keep track of hit points for 15 monsters, but he was only rolling three attacks per round instead of 15. Each PC faced his own set of assassins and as they started killing them off those PCs could ignore the DM’s corresponding attack rolls.

The result was a really interesting and fast-paced combat encounter. Not what you’d expect when you split the party. The encounter still played out like a regular encounter. Normally when you split the party some players sit around while others are in the spotlight, but by combining the mechanical aspects of the five individual combat encounters no one was left out. It still felt like a normal encounter, but each player still had the thrill and danger of individual combat.

Story first, mechanics second

It’s unusual to split the party in D&D because it’s unusual for DMs to create situations where the PCs would even consider splitting up. But when those situations do arise remember that there are ways to split the party and make things work. Don’t tie yourself down because you’re worried about how the mechanics will play out. If there’s a compelling reason to split the party, consider the possibility and don’t just should out “Never split the party!” when the DM dangles multiple options in front of you.

I’m sure a lot of us have horror stories about splitting the party but I’m interested in hearing about times when splitting the party worked for you. What did the DM do to make the situation a success? Did players not in the scene participate or did they wait patiently for their time in the spotlight?

Related reading:

• How To Handle A Split Party In 5 Easy Steps
• Split the Party
• Skill Challenges On The Fly

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!

Oil. In the real world it is one of the most precious resources on the plant. Those who have it are rich for possessing it. Those who don’t have it are willing to buy it and kill for it. In an industrial world run on oil there’s nothing more valuable. But in D&D oil isn’t important. After all, very few game worlds are mechanized and those with any industry use a more abundant resource: magic.

In fantasy role-playing is there an equivalent to oil? Something so precious and integral to society’s prosperity and advancement as oil is in the real world? Again the most likely answer is magic. But magic isn’t a limited resource. After all, magic is, well, magic. It doesn’t have any real tangibility and certainly doesn’t have to follow any rules or logic. It can be whatever the game needs it to be. But that’s not to say that a campaign world couldn’t be made more interesting if magic was a finite resource.

In this context we’re looking more at magical items rather than spells like the ones Wizards and other arcane characters use during combat. We’re looking at a tangible, physical embodiment of magic. Using what’s in the rules as written for guidance I suppose we’re actually talking about Residuum. In D&D Residuum is basically magic dust (or as we often joke in my home campaign, Pixie dust). It’s the byproduct left over when magical items are disenchanted. Residuum can be used to make new magical items and perform rituals. So in the fantasy settings of D&D Residuum is probably the closest thing we have to oil in terms of physical valuable commodities.

I have yet to see anything that suggests Residuum is in limited supply. I’ve always made enough available in my campaign to advance the plot. But if we assume that there is some kind of limit to the amount of Residuum out there it could open up a whole new set of motives for adventurers. As today’s real-world super-powers send troops to parts of the world where oil is abundant, so to can DMs send PCs to those areas of the campaign world where Residuum is abundant. The only problem is that none of these details are documented.

Have you ever thought about where Residuum comes from? Is it a mineral that is mined like ore or gold? Perhaps it’s grows naturally like a flower or plant? In a world with magic any explanation is possible, but for Residuum to take on the importance in a campaign world to the extent that oil is important in real life these details need to be fleshed out.

I’ve actually give this a lot of thought and I think that in a fantasy world Residuum should be in some way connected to the elements that make your game world fantastic. I’m talking, of course, about Dragons. Like the mythical Elephant Graveyard, I think a Dragon Graveyard should be the source of Residuum. Raw Residuum is created when the scales and bones of dragons decompose. Dragon scales have always been coveted, but now there’s an even better reason to collect them after defeating a wyrm.

By tying Residuum to Dragons you eliminate the possibility of any lesser beings stumbling upon a random field or Residuum plants and suddenly becoming a power base in your campaign. That’s not to say that some ingenious kingdom hasn’t found a way to capture and breed dragons to harvest Residuum, but it makes the possibility highly unlikely.

Dragons are intelligent enough to set aside petty differences to protect the remains of their ancestors. I just don’t see Dragons allowing the races of men to ravage their graveyard and claim Residuum. If Dragons understand the value and power that is literally in their bones they’re likely to keep their final resting places secret and will protect them from would-be thieves and common adventurers.

Tying Residuum to Dragons is just an idea. If your campaign world doesn’t have Dragons or such creatures are exceptionally rare (Dark Sun, for example) then this idea would need to be adjusted. I still think that it should be tied in some way to the organic aspects of the fantastic elements of your games. Perhaps anything that is not found in the real world will break down into residuum when it dies – everything from Elves to Goblins to Unicorns to Beholders. However, looking back to oil as a comparative resource, it should take a considerable amount of time for any of the more common elements of fantasy to produce any useful amount of Residuum. This is why I liked the Dragon example. Given their rarity having their remains become Residuum more quickly (if not immediately upon their death) doesn’t seem like it would break the game mechanics.

Of course, Residuum isn’t the only magical commodity in D&D. In Eberron Dragonshards are already as important as oil. Everything that we would use oil to power in the real world is powered by magic, mostly dependent upon Dragonshard, in the Eberron campaign setting. Wars are already fought over Dragonshards, but imagine how much more bloodshed would happen if the Dragonshards became even rarer.

By creating a physical, tangible commodity that powers your game world you provide new motivation for the PCs adventuring within it. The aimless wandering by random adventurers can be focused towards more significance aspects of the campaign setting. If Residuum is your game-world’s oil then everyone will want it. If it’s tied to Dragons then these fantastic creatures will become even more revered than they would be otherwise.

Changing the way an entire campaign setting works by making magic tangible is a serious proposition and shouldn’t be taken lightly. I see this more as an idea for experienced DMs and players looking for a way to add something new to their game. It opens the door for a lot of political intrigue and open conflict. DMs running campaigns in such a world need look no further than recent real-world history for adventure hooks and plot arcs. Each adventure can easily be “ripped from the headlines” replacing conflicts for oil with battles for Residuum.

Do you think that having a resource as valuable as oil in your D&D campaign would change things for the better? Do you think that Residuum is the right choice for such a resource or should magic just be unlimited?

Related reading:

• No New Magic Items
• Stop Abusing Dragons!
• Should Dungeons & Dragons Deal With Social Issues?
• Make Magical Item Identification Harder

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!

“The clothes make the man.” It’s a pretty common expression. It quite literally means that you can draw a conclusion, and usually a fairly accurate conclusion, about a person’s personality just based on what they’re wearing. In D&D, the type of clothes (or armor) a person wears will usually indicate with great accuracy what class he is but it’s less likely to accurately indicate what kind of a man he is – for that you have to look at his weapon.

During character creation most players I’ve gamed with will equip their character before they determine his personality. I know that’s how I usually do it. But I’ve noticed over the years that the personality of a PC is very often directly related to the type of weapon he carries. It’s like the weapon imprints a specific personality type on the characters wielding them.

So I’ve put together a list of my observations. This is simply my first-hand account of how I see things. It’s not based on any scientific method or precise sampling, it’s just what I’ve seen over and over again in the many years that I’ve played D&D. I think that despite my rather loose methodology the results are surprisingly accurate.

If you think I’ve really missed the mark on any of these I encourage you to leave your feedback in the comments section below. I also welcome new additions to the list. After all, there are a lot of weapons in D&D and my list just scratches the surface.

Sharp Weapons

• Dagger – A simple weapon for simple characters. As one of the cheapest weapons it’s often favoured by those who can’t afford anything better. If you use a dagger it’s because you like getting your hands dirty and prefer to get up close and personal.
• Long Sword – By selecting the most common sword on the market you announce that you’re practical and logic. You prefer to take the tried and true path. You believe that if something works, there’s no reason to change it.
• Short Sword – It’s rare for a character to use a short sword in one hand and nothing else in the other. You’re always trying to do many things simultaneously because you like to keep both hands busy all the time.
• Scimitar – Since most choose the scimitar because of its high crit property, that suggests that you’re an optimist who’s willing to take chances. As a glass half full kind of guy, you strive to see the best in everyone.
• Greatsword – Two hands on your sword at all times means that you’re focused. When a situation or problem comes up you want to do it right and you certainly only want to do it once.
• Bastard Sword – If you use the bastard sword with two hands then you likely share a lot in common with the adventurer who wields a greatsword. If you wield the bastard sword with one hand then you’re a show off who wants to be the centre of attention.
• Axe – You dislike subterfuge and prefer to cut to the heart of problems. You likely get along well with those who wield hammers.
• Pole Arm – Clearly the size of your weapon is just your way of compensating for other shortcomings.

Blunt Weapons

• Club – Your weapon if choice is a big piece of wood. You clearly don’t care what others think of you. You have a sense of adventure boarding on chaotic tendencies and will happily accept almost any challenge.
• Hammer – You lack finesses. You’re thick-headed and like to tackle problem directly and head on. You and the axe wielders generally have a lot in common.
• Mace – When it came to choosing a weapon you just wanted something heavy that you can smash with. This suggests that you’re opportunistic and rarely plan ahead.
• Quarterstaff – You call a long branch you likely found in the woods your weapon (or implement). You’re cheap. You never pay for a round. You’re likely frail and probably use the quarterstaff as a walking stick as often as a weapon.
• Fist – You don’t like to rely on others for anything. You want to handle all problems by yourself so that you know it’s done right. You’re not a good team player and have trust issues.

Ranged Weapons

• Bow – You don’t like people or gatherings. You’re not interested in meeting anyone new. You prefer that strangers keep their distance.
• Crossbow – You are the ultimate expression of the lazy adventurer. All you have to do is point and shoot, the weapon does all the real work. This weapon is favoured by overweight adventurers and old ladies.

Implements

• Holy Symbol – You’re exceptionally needy. You prefer to let someone else, someone in authority, make the hard calls. Once someone sets a plan in motion you’re the first in line to support them and make sure everyone else does too. You’re a yes-man.
• Orb – You have a short attention span and like shiny things. You’re easily distracted.
• Wand – You’ve lived a privileged life, you’re soft and consider yourself better than others, but you likely lack the confidence to tell your companions that this is how you view them.

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!

I’ve heard a lot of people say that 4e is really just a video game turned into a table-top role-playing game. The game is too tactical and relies too much on the visual aid of a battle mat and minis. These criticisms always talk about the limitations and restrictions of 4e. I admit that the visual component is certainly important, but the game is certainly not limiting. D&D is so much more than what’s on the table.

When I recently ran an adventure at my FLGS a new player sat down next to me, introduced himself and told me he was blind. I wasn’t sure how to handle this news. I was concerned that I’d have to make significant adjustments to my game in order to meet the needs of the blind player. He was really good about it and just told me to do what I’d normally do but to be sure to describe things (like the map) so that he could accurately picture it in his mind.

This seemed like a reasonable request. After all, everything in the game is described in the adventure, right? Nope.

Think about how much of the game is not described. We just take for granted that because I can see the map and see the minis that I don’t necessarily have to describe the scene in as much detail. But when one of the players cannot see the map or the minis, you realize just how much of the game relies on visual input.

As the game progressed I realized that just because I wasn’t used to describing things to the extent that a blind person required didn’t mean that the details weren’t there. To be honest, I realized that I’d become a lazy DM. But as I was forced to describe those little details I quickly remembered how much more we can get out of a typical D&D adventure by being descriptive.

By adding the intangible details and really describing the scene, the players started to realize that they could get more out of D&D then just moving their minis around the map and killing monsters. Having the blind player at the table really brough the role-playing back to D&D.

Characters

Usually when I ask players to describe their characters they give me an answer like, “I’m playing a Human Fighter,” and often the player has a mini that looks like a Fighter. It may not be exactly what they imagine their character looks like, but it gets the job done. After that, we know that the mini with the big sword and green cape is Joe’s Fighter. But when someone at the table cannot see the mini it forces the player to actually describe more than the character’s race and class.

During the game with the blind player the previously sufficient description “I’m a Fighter” became “My character is an average-looking Human male well over 6 feet tall and easily 250 lbs. He’s wearing chain mail, a dark crimson tabard with a gold emblem, and a black cloak. Although his main weapon is a great sword, he’s also got a couple of daggers tucked into his belt, another one jammed into his left boot, and a crossbow slung over his back.”

Suddenly we realize that the lame mini Joe was using to depict his placement on the map looks nothing like the character he’s actually playing. But until he was asked to describe his character for the blind player he didn’t feel it necessary to add these details. More importantly none of the other players felt the need to ask for them. We were content to play on knowing he was simply a Fighter.

And of course, as soon as the first player described his character with this level of detail the rest of the players felt the need to follow suit. What really impressed me was that everyone knew exactly what their character looked like. In their mind they had all of these details worked out, but until this game they’d never felt the need to share these details.

Map and Monsters

Maps make DMs lazy. Why describe a room or the terrain when I can draw it or use dungeon tiles to depict it? I’ll admit that I often just say something like, “This is what the room looks like,” and point at the map. But when the blind player was at my table I had to remember that he needed the non-visual description. I began describing the room with its shape and dimensions, followed by the terrain features and obstacles. I made note of things like the smells and sounds because I realized that a blind person would know to use his other senses to gather information. I had each player describe their placement on the map relative to the blind player’s mini as well as to each other. When monsters entered the room I made sure to describe their placement and their appearance.

Normally when I place monsters on the map I say “These guys with yellow cloaks are actually.” This works well since I don’t have a lot of different minis. It also helps the players quickly identify the bad guys. They know that regardless of what the monster actually is, guys with yellow cloaks are the enemy. However that doesn’t cut it when there’s a blind player.

I had to make a point of actually describing the monsters. In reality the blind player had solid D&D monster knowledge so when I said Gnolls he knew what I was talking about, but I still felt it was my job as the DM to take a minute to describe them. What would usually have been “You face six Gnolls,” became “Six tall, dog-men standing almost 7 feet tall enter the room through the door on the far side. They smell of wet fur, wield clubs and yip like dogs as they move about. Three hug the east wall as they look for cover behind the crates while the other three growl and bark as they charge in a straight line towards the PCs.”

Details Bring About Better Role-Playing

By adding these little details to the description it really changed the dynamic of the game. Knowing that the blind player relied on description to better take in the scene, all the players got right into describing their actions. It wasn’t just moving the minis and rolling a d20. It was describing how they moved, what weapon they used, how they used it, what power they use and then depending on if they hit or miss the creatures, what happened.

In all of the time I’ve played 4e D&D the game with the blind player was one of the most entertaining because the group realized how much fun it was to get into the game and describe the details. They no longer assumed that any action was obvious. When they moved their mini they described it “I rush up, I sneak, I slide on my knees, I cart-wheel, I flip and roll.” Likewise with attacks “I slash at his midsection, a smash his kneecap, I shoot an arrow in his arm, I fire a Magic Missile in his butt.” Taking a few extra seconds to describe things made the game more interesting and everyone actually paid attention even when it wasn’t their turn. Believe it or not the descriptive flare even helped clarify actions in terms of standard, move, and minor, while painting the scene.

Where many players see the tactical map as rigid confinement, these players realized it was merely a guide. So many of the rules rely on precise distances, shapes, and placement that people forget how much fun D&D really is. By taking a few seconds to add some description and some flavour to your actions you become more invested in the encounter and in the greater story.

The next time you’re playing D&D pay attention to how much is described and how much is just assumed based on what you can see. Ask yourself if your descriptions would be adequate if there were a blind persona at the table? I think you’ll find that the added details will improve your game and encourage a lot more role-playing.

Related reading:

• The 4th Action: Standard, Move, Minor… Role-Playing
• What Do You Look Like?
• Adventuring Company Symbols

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!

The Iron Man streak comes to an end. Yesterday was the first time since Dungeon’s Master began that we missed a day. Until yesterday we’d published something every weekday since we began back in February 2009.

After more than three years I finally decided that it was time to take a short rest. Since September when Wimwick went back to school full time, I’ve written the lion’s share of our articles. Of the 147 articles we’ve posted since September 1, I’ve written 128 of them. With most of our articles clocking in around 1,000 words (usually more) that’s over 128,000 words in seven months. The average novel contains approximately 50,000 words. So following this logic I’ve written the equivalent of 2+ novels since September. This is of course on top of my day job and the time I spend playing D&D. Put into this context I’m amazed I haven’t collapsed from exhaustion before now.

Don’t worry, we’re not closing up shop (that’s just crazy talk!), we’re just taking a week off to rest. Despite the break, I will still provide the weekly write-up of D&D Encounters on Thursday. Next week we’ll be back to our regular daily publishing cycle. To all of our loyal readers I apologize for the unexpected break, but I think that you’ll agree I’ve earned a few days off. Thank you for your understanding and your dedication to Dungeon’s Master.

Related reading:

• Dungeon’s Master Wants You!
• Take a Break From D&D, Play a Board Game

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!

Every DM runs their home game a little bit differently, so as new players join the ranks it’s important that any house rules or tweaks to the RAW (Rules As Written) are clearly spelled out. This becomes even more important when you jump between editions or are playing in a home-brew campaign. Brendan at Untimately put together a list of 20 rules questions feeling “that it would be useful to have a list rules that often change from campaign to campaign.” By answering these questions DMs ensure consistence and rule clarity at their tables.

Many of the other bloggers who have posted their responses play older editions of D&D or use a mish-mash of various editions. The Dungeon’s Master crew plays 4e, bet even so the answers to some of these questions are not as straight-forward or clear-cut as you might think. Everyone has at least a few house rules and we’re no exception. So today I’m answering Brendan’s 20 quick rules questions.

1. Ability scores generation method?

Point buy. We’ve run into too many issues over the years when someone rolls amazing stats and there was no one around to witness them. Alternatively when guys roll really poor stats they cry because they’re not as powerful as the next guy. Point buy may be boring but it levels the playing field.

2. How are death and dying handled?

This hasn’t really been a big problem since 4e, but we’ve always played that if you die and want to come back the DM will find a way to make it happen. After all, the player shouldn’t suffer just because the PC died.

3. What about raising the dead?

Only if the party has suitable levels and resources. D&D has always been a revolving door of life-death-life and that’s a big part of its appeal.

4. How are replacement PCs handled?

If you want to play a new character that’s fine. Talk to the DM about how and when to bring in the new guy. Again our primary objective is to have fun and if you don’t like your character then change him to one you like better. We found this happened a lot with our group so now we all have character trees. In my tree are four characters. They all level simultaneously. At the beginning of each adventure I pick one and away we go.

5. Initiative: individual, group, or something else?

Individual initiative for PCs, group initiatives for monsters. For really big and long fights we’ll sometimes default to just going around the table. The other option we use for big fights is flipping back and forth between team heroes and team monsters. Team heroes can act in any order when it’s their turn; likewise for team monsters.

6. Are there critical hits and fumbles? How do they work?

When it comes to crits we follow RAW (Rules As Written). So for 4e a 20 is an automatic hit, and as long as 20+ the attack modifier beats the defense (which it almost always does) then it’s a crit. Max damage + any overflow dice from a magical weapon or implement.

7. Do I get any benefits for wearing a helmet?

Nope. That’s already included in the numbers for your AC based on whatever type of armor you’re wearing.

8. Can I hurt my friends if I fire into melee or do something similarly silly?

Again we default to RAW. Your allies don’t provide cover to your enemies and you never have to worry about your allies with an attack that doesn’t target them. However, if your power says all creatures in an area burst 1 and a PC is in the danger zone the attacker must roll against him like he would against the monsters. This is especially common for Wizards and other controllers and it happens a lot in my home games.

9. Will we need to run from some encounters, or will we be able to kill everything?

I try to keep my encounters balanced, as is recommended for the 4e mechanics. However, I will push the players to venture onward without a short rest from time to time which will make things considerably harder. My players have learned that retreat is always an option although they rarely back down.

10. Level-draining monsters: yes or no?

As far as I know this is not a mechanic that’s used in 4e so my answer is no. However, I used it all the time when I used to play 3.5e, especially when running undead.

11. Are there going to be cases where a failed save results in PC death?

The only failed save that can result in death is the third failed death save. So failing a save can result in death in 4e but it’s unlikely. If you can’t work together as a party to save an unconscious ally before three rounds have passed (assuming he fails all three saves) then you really need to examine your play style.

12. How strictly are encumbrance & resources tracked?

As long as you can make your case for an item, I have no issue if you’ve got it. I don’t want to add another unnecessary level of record-keeping to the game. Buy a Bag of Holding and we’re all good.

13. What’s required when my PC gains a level? Training? Do I get new spells automatically? Can it happen in the middle of an adventure, or do I have to wait for down time?

I rarely allow leveling up during a session or even during an adventure if it’s short. I like to try to include some role-playing to explain what the characters did to represent this level increase. I don’t apply any formal mechanics. When characters level up they get whatever their class would normally allow. I wouldn’t gimp a spellcaster and not let him have access to more powerful magic while letting the Fighter swing his sword better and for more damage. I try to treat all PCs equally in this regard.

14. What do I get experience for?

I don’t track XP. You level when I think it makes sense for the story. I don’t believe in individual XP awards and it discourages party unity. Everyone tries to hog the spotlight and do his thing to get the extra XP. By leveling everyone simultaneously and not tracking numbers it lets players focus on other, more important aspects of the game.

15. How are traps located? Description, dice rolling, or some combination?

I believe that traps should challenge the characters and not the players. OK, it can challenge the players too, but there absolutely needs to be a mechanic where a PC with a really good Thievery skill or exceptional Perception or just an extremely high Intelligence should get an advantage to overcoming the problem. Just because I’m playing a Rogue who’s a master trap finder doesn’t mean that I’m a master trap finder in real life. DMs have to have some way to allow for this in the game. You’d never make a player lift something heavy to demonstrate his character is strong so why challenge the intellect of a player with a really smart PC?

16. Are retainers encouraged and how does morale work?

No retainers and no morale. Play the character the way you think he should be played in a given situation. Monsters will flee if they face defeat, but if they’re likely to be hunted down anyway they’ll fight to the death.

17. How do I identify magic items?

We follow 4e RAW, which is that you can identify an item after a short rest. I dislike this mechanic and suggested making magical identification harder, but for now we still use the RAW.

18. Can I buy magic items? Oh, come on: how about just potions?

Yes and yes. We don’t track XP but we certainly track money. If you can find it and afford it then you can buy it. Low level items are obviously more common as are most potions. Higher level items are less likely to be available but I will roll and see if it happens to be in stock.

19. Can I create magic items? When and how?

Not in 4e.

20. What about splitting the party?

There are times when splitting the party is a good idea, but sadly we don’t see it happen that often.

Be sure to check out the answers that some of the other bloggers have posted on their websites. Here are links to just a handful of other respondents.

Dak, DM | EN World | Grognardling | inthecitiesdotcom | Lord Kilgore | Lost Papers of Tsojcanth | Ostensible Cat | Tales of the Rambling Bumblers | The Grumpy Old Troll | Tower of the Archmage | What Troll?

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!

Out with the old and in with the new. Today we debut our new banner. The original banner served its purpose but after three years we felt a change was in order. The only problem was that none of the members of the Dungeon’s Master team have the artistic skill needed to create the artwork. So we enlisted some help.

Our friend Winston Lew, a regular at D&D Encounters, recently graduated from college and is beginning his professional career as a freelance illustrator. For the past few seasons of D&D Encounters we’ve seen Winston’s character sketches and they’ve been fantastic. So when we decided it was time to find an artist to help design a new banner we knew Winston was our man. We weren’t sure what we wanted but when we saw Winston’s initial treatment we knew he nailed it. The final product that graces our website now absolutely exceeded our expectations.

We wanted to thank Winston Lew for creating our new banner and to show our gratitude we’re asking our readers to visit his website. Right now he’s running a 2-week special offer to draw character portraits. The new season of D&D Encounters begin next week, so why not have a professional illustrator create a character portrait for you? For only $5 Winston will create a 2-inch x 2-inch grayscale (black & white) custom portrait of your next D&D character. For $10 he’ll do it in colour for you. If want something larger he’s willing to negotiate the price. Don’t forget to provide Winston with some details about your character. This will help ensure that you get the portrait that you want.

Visit Winston Lew: Some Sorta Artist to see more samples of his work. You can contact Winston by email directly at WinstonL85 (at) gmail (dot) com or send him a note through Deviantart.

Reminder: If you’re still seeing the old banner just hit F5 in your browser to refresh.

Looking for instant updates? Subscribe to the Dungeon’s Master feed!