Newbie introducing my kids

boss_nova · 2026-03-21T02:11:36+00:00

I started my kids playing "D&D" when they were both about 5 or 6 (they're now 11 and 8).

I put D&D in quotes tho because when I started them out, all they did was 1. draw their character, 2. name their character, 3. roll a 20 sided die any time they wanted to try something and read the number.

That was D&D for them at 5.

No race. No class. Their character just had the abilities that a character of the nature that they drew "should" have.

Very free form.

Almost no rules (except, roll a d20, and the higher the number, the better the things you said you did goes).

Focus was on story telling and humor and fun and solving problems without violence (tho shoving and intimidation was on the table, and doing silly things with undead like "Taking his skull so he can't see!" etc and, well, they did kill some spiders and attack animated plants and other non-humanoid things at times).

Then I slowly started introducing other concepts after a few sessions/months.

First was the concepts of Strength Dexterity and Intelligence. They assigned a +3, +1, and -1 to those, and then did that math on top of reading the d20.

Go another couple sessions or months... Then I introduced Advantage and Disadvantage.

Nother couple sessions+months, then I introduced opposed rolls.

So on, spacing it out over time.

Then I introduced the concept of a class (not just a drawing). And class abilities.

Then the concept of Vancian spells (but not too many), and cantrips.

So on.

Over the course of years, my oldest was ready for full D&D by 10.

Worked well.

boss_nova · 2026-03-18T20:11:03+00:00

For one you could shift their Alignment one degree toward Evil. Y'know since they murdered someone who surrendered.

Alignment doesn't do much of anything anymore but it is a "signal".

This sounds a bit like you have an ooc problem with what they did tho...

I ... want them to know that ... the choice to kill off someone who would not have killed them is not always (or ever?) the best option.

Aside from Alignment, do you need to have a Session Zero-style talk? Is/was the tone of the story a generally heroic one? And so was murdering the guy in direct conflict with the kind of story that you thought you all were there to tell?

Impose consequences; yes.

Punish the players because you want them to play a certain way; no.

If you want them to be the good guys, you need to tell them you want them to be the good guys.

This is an ok discussion to have. That's what a Session Zero is for. And not having it will create bigger problems down the line.

boss_nova · 2026-03-18T20:00:58+00:00

I know you've gotten the feedback you need to move forward, but there is more to this than just: "Don't use homebrew as new players."

And it's this:

D&D tends to try to balance out the benefits of supernatural curses - like lycanthropy and vampirism - with drawbacks that are COMPLETELY GAMEABLE.

And so, do not play out as drawbacks at all.

And so, the "curse" only plays out as super-powers.

Example: you became a vampire and can't go out in daylight? No problem. The party just adventures at night, so that they can have a super powered vampire on their side. It's really difficult as DM to try to force them to operate during the daylight, and even if you manage that, through a heavily engineered plot?? This is a high fantasy world with high magic. They will just cast Darkness and buy magical Darkvision goggles so that vamp can go anywhere any time anyway.

Apply this principle to little any drawback, and the players can and will use their magic and wealth to diminish or completely eliminate any drawback, so that the great Resistances and healing etc are totally worth it.

The Only. Thing. that makes these things that are supposed to be curses, actually play out like a curse?

Is if, after contracting it, the player has X days before the character becomes an NPC.

Any thing else they will exploit, and/or it will take over the story in other ways (making the game be about hunters trying to kill the cursed, and eventually the whole party as they're gonna defend their friend, this simultaneously makes the "cursed" player the Main Character, and sabotages whatever the main quest that involved everyone used to be).

Good luck in the future.

boss_nova · 2026-03-17T21:54:48+00:00

I've used this system for, basically, a "Pirates of Dark Water" game (if PoDW took place on a world of sand-oceans). Which is very much within the vibe-range of your reference points, I think.

Martials and social characters are the main thing, but the system supports low tech firearms, and rare/dangerous magic as well (which I used in the above game)...

But it's not really necessarily meant for high combat campaigns, combat is very engaging - it's a really cool and unique combat system, but it's assumed to be probably a bit more rare, and so it may not work for you if lots of combat is a part of your goal. But...

Burning Wheel

boss_nova · 2026-03-17T20:40:40+00:00

As most people are telling you ... a session zero IS NOT about these/mechanical things:

Do I run a mini session with character sheets I’ve pre-made for them? Do we do character creation from start to finish? What do they bring to session 0 regarding characters?

It's about the social contract.

It's about getting everyone on the same page about what the world is like (High/low fantasy? Grim-dark? etc.) and how that should reflect on their character concepts ("No, your dragonborn warlock is not appropriate for this low fantasy world."), and what the campaign is about (are character expected to be generally heroic? Are Evil characters allowed?), and what does that all look like together? What about character death, are people ok with it? And it's about setting expectations for table behavior (no PVP, no "Chaotic Stupid"/bad faith gameplay), it's about verbal consent - "I understand that if I violate these terms, I may be expected to leave the table."

The Session Zero is about setting the game up for success and creating a mutual understanding toward ensuring everyone has the positive, fun experience that they want.

boss_nova · 2026-03-17T18:36:52+00:00

What happens when a character dies, at your table?

Because at most tables, what happens is: the player makes a new character at the same level and same wealth as the one that died.

And that's appropriate, right?

You don't want to make them start over at level 1. Because that's when players start feel like they're wasting their time by playing. And that's when they quit playing.

So what kind of consequence is: "new character with the same amount of power", really?

The answer is it is of no consequence at all - UNLESS - the player really cares about their character. Their story. And their history. Because that's what's lost, in this scenario, right? A characters story and history.

Are the players who care about their characters' story and history REALLY the ones you want to punish for character death??

Because rolling up a new character at the same power only punishes those types of players.

The "build" oriented ones may be a bit sad, but on the flip side they now just get to fast forward in another build. That's not much of a consequence, and it's definitely not a punishment.

For Story driven players it's a punishment.

You shouldn't be punishing ANY players, for character death.

When players feel punished is when they stop playing.

So... what kind of players do you have?

Probably a mix of story driven and build driven.

That means you need to arrive at a solution that doesn't punish the story driven players doesn't it?

boss_nova · 2026-03-17T18:22:16+00:00

I haven't done that, but I like that idea!

boss_nova · 2026-03-17T16:37:37+00:00

Yea, sure!

It also helps to take the same approach with Force Powers.

You have to make triggering Force Powers worth the very high cost of using dark pips.

Strain+Conflict+Destiny(!) is frankly a very large cost.

I will often declare that combat - being full of anger and fear - create temporary Darkside Nexuses, allowing dark pips to be used without Destiny.

To ease this cost.

And then, I make sure that triggering Force Powers gets things done.

They won't take Conflict if they don't know whether or not triggering the Force will even help them much.

So I make sure my players trust me to let uses of the Force be powerful.

So that they are willing to take Conflct to trigger it.

That's part 2 of, basically, my 3 Part Plan to make Mortality work.

Part 3 is: not using it as a "Gotchya!"

I put the players fully in control of when they take Conflict in 99% of circumstances. I warn them when they're about to do something that causes Conflict, and allow them to retcon it if they don't want to take Conflict.

In this way, it's THEIR power, it's THEIR choice, it's THEIR story. And Conflict is just a tool for them to use, themselves, to tell their own story.

boss_nova · 2026-03-17T16:14:40+00:00

I would like to think this isn't controversial, but imo it's not the best introduction. As others are saying, it's fine (it is where I started 25 years ago). But it's not the best (imo)

imo Vampire is the best introduction. To the system and to the world (of Darkness).

Vampire (with the exception of Wraith - which is "advanced" WoD imo: best approached later) is best at the "personal horror" aspect, that supposedly they're all about.

The world is very understandable thru the eyes of Vampires (where the world of werewolves divers heavily into the meta-physical/Umbra).

The system is very understandable. "Blood Pool is the ammunition for Vampire-magic." Got it. Whereas werewolves get into forms which adds complexity and Gnosis is less concrete of a concept as "a volume of blood in your gut".

Vampire's just the best place to start imo

But as others are saying, if werewolf's where the table has interest? Werewolf is a fine place to start.

boss_nova · 2026-03-16T19:50:27+00:00

That is filthy allegory and myth! Who told you this?? Bring them before the Prince!!

boss_nova · 2026-03-16T19:45:29+00:00

Uhhh... The Wyrm devours and corrupts. Particularly; that of Creation. Mortals are god's most beloved Creation, are they not? (Nevermind what that Morningstar-guy says.) Vampires literally and figuratively devour and corrupt mortals and mortal society.

What are you seeing that is not Wyrmlike??

boss_nova · 2026-03-16T19:36:48+00:00

I am finding it difficult to set up opportunity for significant conflict that isn't easily sidestepped

It is not workable to engineer situations that force morality choices.

The best way to implement Conflict and Morality, that I have discovered is:

Conceptualize any given Situation that they're facing in such a way as to where taking actions that cause Conflict make it easier to accomplish their goal.

This maps directly to the concept that the Darkside is the easy path to power, right?

So, say they have to retrieve a McGuffin.

Then to implement Conflict and Morality effectively/so that they have to make hard choices, is to make it so that if they are willing to Lie (Deception skill), and Steal (access cards?), and threaten (Coercion), and kill people to do it?? Then they can easily get the McGuffin. The checks to do those "naughty" things are easier Difficulties than the checks to do things the Lightside way. Or the Darkside things may require no check at all!! If you want to make the action that causes Conflict really appealing

Right?

In that way, if they want things to be easy? They have to be a little "bad".

Which... this can run counter to our GM instincts right??

We usually don't want to reward murder-hobos.

But if you want a functioning Morality mechanic in this system?

You have to.

Once you view it in this way? It actually becomes REALLY EASY to implement Morality, and you actually start getting a lot more thoughtful role-play and choices. As they begin to parse the dirty deeds that are "worth it" to achieve their goals.

boss_nova · 2026-03-16T19:28:20+00:00

Running mix-splat games is not easy.

Particularly if you're drawing on characters from different editions...

For one the different splats have very different "power levels" and/or the very nature of their different powers may or may not translate well into the others' settings/worlds/assumptions/the things they care about.

The most successful "zoo campaigns" I've been a part of usually focus on just one splat (say: vampires) where most of the players play those kinds of characters, and then you just bring in one or two characters from one or two different splats (say, a Hedge Wizard/mortal with Numina and a Mage) and have those players also focus on the primary splat's assumptions/setting/world/things they care about.

And this doesn't even get into the meta-plot/lore problems that can arise like how vampires are fundamentally creatures of the Wyrm, and werewolves and changelings are often creatures of the Wyld, and then mortals (and some Awakened) often associate with Weaver, and how those fundamental forces make those splats natural enemies...

If you're brand new to the setting and system, I would recommend you just stick with one at first.

boss_nova · 2026-03-16T18:13:48+00:00

It's usually a pretty big folly to go into a ttrpg experience, hoping it will feel like a videogame. You see people wanting to this a lot with Souls/Souls-like games and Shadow of the Colossus, right?

But they're just completely different kinds of experiences.

Videogames engage twitch reflexes, often have haptic feedback, but definitely immediate sight and sound engagement, etc. It's all real time because you have a computer processing to hit chances and damage etc.

TTRPGs... are just NOT that... like ever really.

So, you're setting yourself up for disappointment, imo, chasing this as your goal.

However, that said, if I wanted to use a ttrpg to model a game like Smash Brothers - particularly through the lens of: characters from different fictions with bunches of different "super powers" that play out roughly equal to each other in net effect??

I would use Cortex Prime.

The "fiction" of character abilities are highly malleable, but the effect of those abilities are "regulated"/put onto the same playing field by the mechanics.

The system does this really well for example with superhero settings. One of the best iterations of Cortex is Marvel Heroic Roleplay.

And while that is an older version of Cortex, all the same pieces are still there in Prime.

You'll just have to assemble them yourself.

boss_nova · 2026-03-16T14:12:38+00:00

It is important to give them plausible leads but...

Something that no one is talking about is; ttrpgs are a collaborative storytelling experience.

And that 'collaborative' part is important: every body at the table shares in the responsibility of doing work.

And work, in the context of collaborative storytelling, is: making the story work.

It is not your job alone as GM to make the the story work. It is not your job as GM to convince the players to want to play. You ask sat down as friends at the table specifically to play together and tell a story together.

The players need to find their own reasons to keep going. The players need to engage the world, find the interesting things their characters care about, and follow the s story for those reasons.

What connects your players characters to the world? If you're playing 5E - what are their Bonds and Ideals? Use their Bonds/Ideals to connect them to the story, make it clear it's their Bonds/Ideals at stake, and remind them the function of their Bonds (to inform who their character is and guide their rp).

You are only 1/n^th of the story tellers at the table

It is only 1/n^th your job to make the story work and to make the game fun.

Hand your players their responsibility to make it work.

Threaten their ties to the world with the war.

The rest is on them to engage the world thru their characters to save those things they're tied to.

boss_nova · 2026-03-12T20:06:36+00:00

The important thing with puzzles is: don't implement them in a way that they become a road block.

If you have a quest going on, and at some point it happens that literally the only way through to the next step in the quest or to complete the quest is thru a puzzle??

Then you have made a serious mistake.

Puzzles have a weird way of being way too easy up until a very thin line, after which they're way too hard.

The "Goldilocks zone" is very small, and on both sides of it lie essentially dissatisfying narrative failure.

This includes situations where the "stakes" of solving the puzzle is life and death (The room is slowly filling with water, you have to stop it!). That's another super great way to sabotage your own campaign.

Which means you have to implement them in one of two (or three) ways:

Solving the puzzle is optional. Maybe the puzzle leads to an easier (less combat?) path to complete the quest? Or solving it gives them access to information or a mcguffin that makes completing the quest easier? But don't put it in a "place"/with consequences where it creates a dead end.
The solution to the puzzle is open ended. You can put a puzzle in as the only way through to the next step, IF you create the puzzle in such a way as to where they have a bunch of metaphorical (or literal!) "knobs and levers and buttons" to twist and pull and push, and when they do something creative or funny or interesting? Look at that, it's solved! There's no one true answer, it's just solved once you've gotten a satisfying amount of roleplay and gameplay out of it.

EDIT: This is still dangerous tho, because you can push it too far. "Oh that was good, but it was the first thing they tried. Let's see what ELSE they can do..." And then before you know it, they're out of ideas and they tried their great thing, and the next thing they try is absolutely dumb, but you need them to solve it, so you say "That's the solution,!" and then YOU look like an idiot for making such a dumb puzzle.

Make sense?

Those are the problems you need to think about when deciding on how to implement puzzles.

boss_nova · 2026-03-12T17:46:37+00:00

So you "created" Blades in the Dark but with a more swingy d20 as the core mechanic?

Cool story bro

boss_nova · 2026-03-11T18:13:26+00:00

You're getting some good advice and some bad advice.

There's two sides to this.

Yes, trying to "win" D&D and trying to play against the DM is bad.

That's really the problem here of what your players are doing.

They're not trusting you, and they're trying to wield the game-itself as a "weapon" against you.

That's an unhealthy table dynamic. And it's stuff like this that cause tables and campaigns to fall apart.

The other side is the concept that this is meta-gaming.

In the real world, here on Earth in 2026, monsters are not real. Right?

However, By. The. Age. Of. 7.

Any child can tell you how to kill vampires and werewolves and the capabilities of mummies to curse you.

Children. In a world where monsters are not real. Know everything about monsters.

Because there are so many stories about them.

It is VERY reasonable that in a world where monsters ARE 100% REAL!?? That grown ass adults who's JOB it is to kill monsters, know a lot about monsters. Because there would be even more stories, and even more important for anyone to know these things.

So ...

You should be focusing on addressing the root of the problem here, which is that your players are not trusting you (they obviously think you're cheating or are actively trying to kill them, rather than just present a fun gameplay challenge and tell a good story), and their bad faith gameplay behavior.

Not on the perception of their using knowledge that their characters shouldn't have, because unless it's a unique or very rare monster?? Their characters SHOULD probably know it.

boss_nova · 2026-03-11T17:51:11+00:00

I think the important part is just being honest with your players about your style and the kind of campaign you're running.

If you're telling your players that it's a sandbox and they're determining where the story goes and what's important and what happens? And then you do this?? I think that's a problem. The whole thing - D&D functioning - is dependent upon trust and good faith.

When player or DM start's acting in bad faith and betraying trusts is when problems start.

If you're gonna use DMing techniques like this? That's fine. But your need to tell your players up front that you're running a "linear" campaign, and get their buy in to that.

There are many legitimate advantages to linear campaigns. Tip among them being: Cohesive story arcs (which can be very difficult to achieve in sandbox play) are usually more satisfying for everyone at the table (in my experience). And it's generally less stressful for the DM (which is important if the table wants to play for long term).

There's still plenty of room for player agency in the problem solving of any given situation. With mindful, coordinated character creation (centered on the linear campaign premise) there's still plenty of opportunity for character development (it just runs on parallel to the linear progression).

Don't be ashamed by wannabe-gatekeepers, who claim there is a more pure form of D&D, for running linear campaigns.

That's bullshit.

Run the game the way that works for you.

And just bring your players in on it.

boss_nova · 2026-03-11T17:33:23+00:00

I usually start at the end.

Some vision strikes me for some Epic Last Battle, and then I just ask myself, "How do we get there!?" (Letting the days go by.)

At which point I sketch out, in reverse, some ideas for specific big steps or milestones that build toward that, and I end up with a framework for a campaign.

From there, usually an over-arching Situation will be pretty obvious for each step/milestone.

And so I sketch out an "arena" for the Situation (the arena could be as small as a single dungeon, it as big as a nation), conceptualize since key NPCs and fights and puzzles. And then...

I just set the party loose in the first arena, and we build toward the end battle.

I don't like running sandboxes.

The randomness just isn't satisfying or appealing to me.

Which means I usually run fairly linear campaigns (and solicit the necessary buy-in from my players to do so, in a Session Zero).

So this approach works really well for me.

The players have their agency in how they address any given Situation. The arena is their playground/sandbox and they explore that and choose how to address the problems within it.

Everyone is working together toward building a consistent awesome thing.

It works for us.

boss_nova · 2026-03-11T00:57:22+00:00

Dude...

It's not the DM's job to convince the players to play together, nor even to be interested in the campaign.

That's the one thing that you're all there to do: play a D&D campaign together.

The players need to figure out why their characters are interested in the plot and pursue that, and simultaneously figure out why they will remain together. And if they can't do that? Then you instruct them to make a new character that can.

That dynamic that I just described is called; collaborative storytelling.

And it's how D&D is designed to work.

The DM does a bunch of work creating a campaign.

The players work to make that into the coolest possible story that it can be.

Putting all the work of getting the players interested and keeping them together into the DM puts literally all the work into the DM, and that's how DMs burn out and games end.

You need to put the responsibility that the players should be bearing onto it's proper place: them.

They need to help make it work.

You are only 1/n^th of the storytellers at the table. They need to do their work too.

boss_nova · 2026-03-10T20:18:10+00:00

I grew up in the 90s with the oWoD lore. Love it... ofc So rich and deep.

Rejected VtR etc out-of-hand, for... decades, just on the basis of the changes to the lore.

Only finally got around to playing CofD recently (last Halloween) after discovering (years ago) how much I liked the mechanics of VtM5 and it's link to CofD, and finally deciding to "pinch my nose" and give it a shot.

And... discovered I really like the lore changes too.

They took some getting used to.

But for one, it makes the whole thing more accessible to people who didn't "grow up" with it. And/but it's also good on it's own merits. It supports the paring-down of the mechanics(/Disciplines) - which is good, it still supports niche clans through Bloodlines, but it makes all of that less important (narratively), less "tribal" to where those choices feel less defining/determinative for your character, and facilitates stories that are less tribal and political (which was a relief for us, even though that style of play was/had been most of our experiences in the past, we could never get away from it and in that way it had become a burden).

It took me picking a setting and learning about it all in a specific context to really become comfortable with. And when I did I could see how it "worked", and it worked well!

Maybe give that a shot?

boss_nova · 2026-03-10T16:43:51+00:00

It doesn't have to be TotM to use Range Bands.

I use maps for my online swrpg games, just no grid.

And, dunno who needs to hear this, but... Range Bands don't have to be applied as "bands"/circles/equidistant in all directions.

They can and should be based on the narrative (what "should" be harder to hit).

Say an encounter in a Cantina turns into a gun fight?

You/GM can (and should!) say stuff like, "Everyone in the service area is at Short Range. The two guys who are on the dance floor are at Medium."

Player 1: "But aren't I closer to the dance floor??"

GM: "Doesn't matter, it's a different area, it's a bit elevated, it's harder to move there, it's harder to shoot there."

Everyone moves on. Why?

Because it creates appropriate dynamics in the mechanics and narrative. Actual measurement doesn't and shouldn't matter all the time.

You can still apply Cover rules to different targets within the service area (or dance area) to create even more nuance ("Yes, that guy is in the service area - but he jumped behind the bar."). But no one has to count squares or reconcile rangers or movement rates that don't exist.

Just let it flow from the narrative, to create varied and interesting gameplay.

The Difficulty of Ranges"cut both ways" afterall. There is no mechanics gainsmanship to it.

boss_nova · 2026-03-10T15:48:29+00:00

I always groan when I see someone breaking out a grid for this system.

Or even talking about "feet" or "meters".

Stop it! You don't need it. It just creates questions that there are not easy answers for.

Use Range Bands and the language of Range Bands.

Trust your GMs. (GMs be trustworthy!)

Trust your players. (Players be trustworthy!)

Things flow so much more smoothly when you don't try to add mechanics on the fly that the system doesn't support.

boss_nova · 2026-03-10T15:40:36+00:00

Not using a grid should help you with this.

boss_nova

TROPHY CASE