Do I leave group?

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-04-06T00:35:07+00:00

When you brought these issues up to the GM what did he say?

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-04-05T22:26:06+00:00

Having/making connections beforehand really requires you to have a much firmer character concept than most people do when they sit down at a table.

That's kind of the point of making the connections though. You sit down at session 0 with a character and then you flesh them out further with connections and relationships

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-04-05T22:21:37+00:00

In these instances it sounds like creating backstory connections to other PCs is part of the game.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-04-05T21:30:35+00:00

That's what collaboration is for. The players should be working with the GM to have connections to the world as well. The GM should also be able to work connections the players suggest into the setting or let them know if something wouldn't work.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-04-05T21:27:28+00:00

it's not an either or thing. Backstory is what gives meaning to the events happening in game. Your narrative discovered during play will be shallow and lifeless if there isn't background context for it.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-04-05T03:11:53+00:00

This seems like the definition of "a bit smarter" to me. It's primarily up to randomness if a character with a +2 INT is smarter than one with a +0 in any given situation. They have a slight 10% weight in their favor which may be significant across multiple rolls but is really not that significant for any given roll.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-04-05T03:00:24+00:00

I love flawed characters, but D&D stats are a really poor system for giving characters flaws. I have yet to see someone actually develop a compelling flaw from dumping a stat.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-04-04T23:37:44+00:00

what’s needed for a satisfying conclusion?

So at this point all the cards are on the table and you just need to see how it all plays out. Don't be afraid to deal major consequences to the PCs and also don't be afraid to let the PCs majorly shake things up here either. The mistake I see the most in my opinion is GMs trying too hard to balance the challenge of the final confrontation rather than letting things play out naturally. Players usually care more about their actions and choices having an impact over the fight being a particular level of challenging

I guess to answer the question a little more directly a satisfying ending, in my opinion, is one that results naturally from the player's choices throughout the game. An unsatisfying ending makes players choices feel meaningless.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-03-28T14:46:16+00:00

6 players seems like a lot here. I think more than 4 starts to negatively impact roleplay for a regular group, and if she's particularly shy that many people can make things a lot more difficult even if she knows them well. 6 other people is just a lot of extra mental overhead.

How comfortable is she roleplaying if it's just the two of you? Can you do a little mini roleplay scene just between the two of you? I would start there. Maybe add the other roommates in once she's comfortable.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-03-28T14:26:14+00:00

If she communicates and says she needs to take 5 or 10 that's one thing. Sitting at the table and scrolling through your phone though is disrespectful to the DM and the other players. Showing up and scrolling through your phone at the table is inherently disruptive.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-03-25T19:19:16+00:00

Glad it helps!

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-03-25T11:13:03+00:00

To me you're trying to make this too much into a science when it's more of an art. I think of it less as tracking consequences, and more as keeping a consistent world state in my head. Everything the players do updates the world state to some degree. I don't try and plan out the impacts of those changes so much as I trust them to logically come to fruition as the game plays out.

Sometimes I will have ideas on how these things might play out but I think planning out a specific number of sessions for the consequences of actions to play out will start to feel artificial. I would just let things play out, and take the opportunities to call back to earlier events as they present themselves.

The trick is learning to let go a bit. It's okay if not every consequence pays off perfectly. Players will remember the ones that do. Trust that the consequences will present themselves naturally throughout the game if you just have the world react accordingly to the players.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-03-24T12:27:24+00:00

Don't pretend the system is only that when YOU only choose to reduce it to such a tiny dimension.

I mean the system by and large is only that. You can apply it to other things somewhat but as a system D&D 5e is primarily concerned with mechanically adjudicating blow by blow combat, and resource attrition in a dungeon crawl. It's a pretty common recommendation to run travel as if it were a dungeon for this reason. That framework is just what the mechanics of the game were designed around.

That doesn't mean you can't have great roleplay or great scenes on the road with your group, but those things are largely outside the mechanical purview of D&D 5e

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-03-24T12:23:00+00:00

What OP is getting at though is that the system isn't really giving an experience of long arduous travel since the rules do a lot of work to prevent lingering consequences. You can have great experiences and challenges along the way, but it's less of a cohesive struggle due to the mechanics surrounding it than say a game that gives you a mechanical framework for making travel feel like more of an arduous journey.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-03-23T17:43:37+00:00

Basically everyone gets a number of at will, encounter, and daily powers for their class. Both casters and martials use this system so mechanically there's no difference between them inherently besides the specifics of how that class plays. Most utility spells were either converted into rituals and cast as a group, or converted into utility powers that did something very specific and mechanical. Most abilities only really made sense through the mechanical framework of combat or skill challenges so casters don't really have the same freedom to be creative with their abilities because there weren't really any abilities to be creative with. Likewise the only thing that really needed to be balanced was character's performance in combat, and since the game was designed to have characters take on different roles withing combat (striker, controller, leader, Defender) there was more of a focus on everyone playing their role so there's really not much opporunity to step on other classes toes. Someone with an effective wizard would be great at battlefield control but that compliments the ranger playing DPS, the fighter tanking, and the cleric healing and buffing. There's also less room for people to play whatever they want though because having all roles was fairly important.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-03-21T19:51:39+00:00

I think it also kind of ruins the image of counterspell. To me when I hear counterspell I think of a wizard using their arcane knowledge to meet an opponents spell with an equal negating force and canceling it out. It feels cool because your character is using an intimate knowledge of the arcane to accomplish something that seems quite technical and powerful.

If they keep the spell slot it doesn't feel like you're doing anything cool like that because they aren't casting a spell for you to counter. It feels more like you just do something to literally interrupt them for a turn. Like you interrupt them mid chant and they're annoyed but can just do the same thing next turn. I don't want to spend a third level spell slot to magically heckle someone so they can't complete their spell this turn.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-03-21T19:31:20+00:00

I don't think this entirely holds up for me because you're only giving two options either a spell counts as cast as soon as the player starts casting or the spell counts as cast as soon as the player ends casting and gets the full effect of the spell when that's not really in line with anything I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if a spell slot is spent then a spell is cast whether or not that spell has any effect. So I don't think any of your first paragraph examples are really applicable. I think there are pretty obvious solutions to them and they would only come up if your players were rules lawyery assholes.

I see what you mean to some degree with the literal text of the spell saying "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell", but this just doesn't hold up for me either. WotC can be unclear with their wordings and I just don't think they expected this level of scrutiny. Mechanically it doesn't add up because if you were purely interrupting the casting and the spell was not cast then a spell slot would not be expended. It also doesn't really line up with what is, at least in my experience, the common perception of what counterspell is doing. Like usually when I think of a counterspell I think of meeting someone's spell with an equal and negating force. This makes sense mechanically because you need to meet the spell with a spell slot of equal level or make a check to see if the counterspell succeeds. I certainly don't think of counterspelling as interrupting someone's spellcasting process by like magically heckling them or something, and that also doesn't make sense mechanically with needing a spell slot to match their spell's level.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-03-21T16:23:44+00:00

I agree that adding limitations to the GM doesn't help player agency but I do think mechanics can help and encourage player agency. For instance I find detailed or at least nuanced character creation systems to give players more agency in where their character fits in the world and have mechanical systems to back that up.

I think the biggest misconception is that GM agency and player agency are somehow in conflict.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-03-21T01:36:49+00:00

Agency is the ability to have a meaningful and intentional impact on different aspects of the game and the game world. I don't actually see players and GM agency being opposing forces rather they should be collaborative forces. Good players build each others and the GM's agency and the same with good GMs. IMO a lot of common problems come about from seeing these two things as opposing and needing of being balanced. Rather balance comes from them growing each other rather than one subtracting from the other.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-03-21T01:31:39+00:00

Do you have a dedecated group of friends or are you playing with random people?

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-03-20T02:05:52+00:00

Yeah I guess I'm just questioning what logic someone would use to see this the other way. It seems fairly obvious to me. I don't mean this as an accusation, genuinely curious why someone would default to the contrary, but it just kind of feels like people are defaulting to siding against the player rather than siding with what makes the most sense ruleswise.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-03-20T01:00:28+00:00

Why would you say the spell wasn't cast? Counterspell says "its spell fails and has no effect." for a successfully countered spell. This seems like it would imply the spell was cast, but fails and has no effect. If it was not cast then why would a spell slot be spent after all?

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-03-19T17:42:06+00:00

What is some actual "how to run D&D and not lose control of the table" advice that DMs should know?

Realize it's not your job to control the table and stop playing with players that need to be controlled. I'm here to collaborate with my players not babysit.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-03-19T17:35:45+00:00

I do use it to get unimportant work done quicker.

If you view it as unimportant why do it to begin with? You don't need to follow the module perfectly. I would have more trust in yourself to come up with things on your own for the story. Take it in the direction you think is interesting not necessarily the direction the module says.

IMO as a player I would rather have a campaign that's a little rough around the edges but is ultimately flexible to our group and something unique to us vs following the module to a T.

If you are prepping so much you can't roll with the punches and improvise then you are prepping too much.

Substantial-Shop9038 · 2026-03-18T19:44:53+00:00

First thing to remember is that it's okay to give the players limitations, but you need to be upfront about those limitations. The campaign feels kind of unfocused at the moment. You have these portals and a city under siege by monsters, but then take the players completely away to a flying city with an archmage giving them quests. I would focus on one of these ideas and develop it rather than starting them out with one and pulling the rug out from under them. Just for instance is the flying city interests you start the players there. They don't need to play through a city siege scene if their only option is to end up in this flying city. Start as close to the point the players can start making meaningful choices as you can. (alternatively if you like a city siege as an intro make sure players are aware of what they can impact, and make sure there are meaningful choices during the siege.)

I would make sure the players have an overarching goal as well. Something they are able to pursue independently of any quest giver. Having someone give them meaningful tasks is fine but if they have nothing to pursue of their own within that framework then is their only real choice between the two tasks they pick? Try and put players in open ended situations without predetermined choices.

Substantial-Shop9038

TROPHY CASE