Poll of the Day > DnD players, does it actually take "week of planning" to...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Add someone to a campaign.

my Housemate has guys over every week, and Ive asked, more than once, to join, and every single time, for the last few months, he looks at me like Im stupid and tells me Do you know how much WRITING I have to DO just to add you in?????? I have to lay in BED at night writing this entire campaign down!!!! I cant just ADD a new person in!

But... cant you? Isnt that the whole point of the game? That you can drop in or out as you please? I dont think itd be that much work to add someone into a DnD game.

---

Nope, should not be a problem at all.

He clearly just does not want you in the game and he should just be up front about that.

---

Tbh, he makes every single task seem like this Herculean effort. He emptied his storage space back in September and a lot of that stuff is STILL sitting in the living room (my fault, Im usually better at pushing these guys to clean up, but havent with this particular thing). Every time I tell him to clean his shit up, hes like Dude!!!! I just got back from home yesterday????? Im tired??? You know how long cleaning is going to take???? (Ive offered to help him.)

---

It depends, It shouldn't be THAT hard. But if he has a long drawn out arch with set monsters/enemies it might. Lets say he based the store arc on the BBEG to be an adult red dragon. The challenge level is 17, meaning four players at level 17 would be the minimum suggested party. now, if he would need to add a fifth, that dragon wouldn't really be a good BBEG. Granted, I don't see why him changing it up would be a problem though.

---

It takes no time at all if done right. I went to watch a game at my local store. And like 5 minutes into the game, they asked if I wanted to join and gave me a character sheet. And I became part of the group instantly. Nichtcrawler_X is right. He just doesn't want you to join for some reason. Or he's bad at being a DM/GM...

There are some games that require a little more effort. But he could literally add you in pretty easily. I've never played a game where if the number of players changed, everything is ruined...
---

hypnox posted...

But if he has a long drawn out arch with set monsters/enemies it might.

In the many months hes been playing this game, and the hours Ive spent just watching/passing through, I have NEVER seen them fight anything. It always seems to be You are in a new town... this town looks like this... here let me play some village/tune to fit the atmosphere.

LinkPizza posted...

Or he's bad at being a DM/GM...

Tbh, Im gonna go with this. My housemates are both SO stubborn and set in their ways. The one thinks that because the Switch is such a huge hit, that it doesnt represent a change in market interests, and show a company diving into a niche that was previously unfilled and benefitting as a result. No, 6 out of 10 of the top selling games on Amazon being on the Switch means that taste is dying and people are stupid.

The other didnt get Ring Fit Adventure and said it was a dumb idea doomed to fail even after I told him it actually sold very well and Nintendo made another good choice investing in that idea.

And they still think its nonsense when I tell them the Switch is also popular because you can play it on the shitter

Sometimes I feel like Im crazy, based on how they react to me saying anything.

---

Our campaign picks up random NPC's as party members all the time, and our DM just rolls with it and builds character sheets for them pretty quickly. I think it just depends on the DM, but the #1 rule of DMing is you need to make the game fun for the people playing it. If the DM can't do that, they probably shouldn't be the DM.

---

Dikitain posted...

Our campaign picks up random NPC's as party members all the time, and our DM just rolls with it and builds character sheets for them pretty quickly. I think it just depends on the DM, but the #1 rule of DMing is you need to make the game fun for the people playing it. If the DM can't do that, they probably shouldn't be the DM.

I agree. Our DM was like that. At the end of the day, she just wanted to make sure we were having fun. And we always did. Also, a DM should be able to think in the fly. I listen to a podcast where they play different games. And when the DMs talk about it, they explain how they have to change the whole story most of the time because of how the players reacted to certain things. Haha.
---

PK_Spam posted...

Isnt that the whole point of the game? That you can drop in or out as you please?

No? I mean that works fine in larger groups, but in my experience people not showing up in smaller groups often means the game gets cancelled. I've been in groups that fell apart entirely over this.


---

PK_Spam posted...

D&D players, does it actually take "week of planning" to add someone to a campaign.

Depends on the DM. Some will plan like 20 minutes ahead of a session, others might spend the whole week coming up with ideas, statting things out, and pondering variables.

When I used to run games on a regular basis, I'd wind up thinking about future sessions in the shower, constantly be jotting notes down while doing other things, and devoting a lot of brainpower to what I was going to do. I also know GMs who would sit down at a table with absolutely no ideas and completely wing an entire session quite well.

Different GMs have different styles, different skill levels, and different methods they're comfortable with.

That being said...



PK_Spam posted...

my Housemate has guys over every week, and Ive asked, more than once, to join, and every single time, for the last few months, he looks at me like Im stupid and tells me Do you know how much WRITING I have to DO just to add you in?????? I have to lay in BED at night writing this entire campaign down!!!! I cant just ADD a new person in!

This mostly sounds like bullshit to me. It sounds like he doesn't want you in the game, but felt like he needed to come up with an excuse because you live together and he doesn't want to just outright tell you no.

I can almost understand if his group is a bunch of long-time friends who don't really know you well, and he doesn't really want to mess up the group dynamic. Or if he feels like he's already got the maximum number of players he can handle, and adding more might overcomplicate things. Or if he's the sort of DM who plans overarching storylines in advance and tailors them to each specific player, so dropping a new character in would disrupt that (though if that's the case, he might be bordering perilously close to the "I am an auteur storyteller and the players are all simply actors in my grand drama" mindset, in which case you probably don't want to play in his game anyway).

But yeah, probably he just doesn't like you.



PK_Spam posted...

But... cant you? Isnt that the whole point of the game? That you can drop in or out as you please? I dont think itd be that much work to add someone into a DnD game.

Depends, honestly.

As a player I've never been able to just "drop in" to a game - I usually need at least a few hours to come up with character ideas and stats, and more often than not it can take me an entire week or so. If you sit me at a table, put me on the spot, and demand I play, I'm going to hate whatever character I make and not enjoy whatever story you're telling. Nor do I really feel comfortable dropping in and out of games once I've started - if (this is a large part of what I hated about the D&D game nudo ran here on PotD via Roll20 - the bullshit tech issues meant I couldn't be around half the time, and it felt disruptive as fuck, like I was more of an impediment than anything). If I want to play in a game, I'm going to try and keep my schedule clear so I can make every session, barring emergencies.

As a GM, I'd probably boot any player who couldn't maintain a consistent schedule of play. Dropping in and out ruins verisimilitude, makes it hard to plan around your character, and can ultimately wind up being disruptive. I also tend to see it as a sign of disinterest - if you can't be bothered to make it to the game, it tells me you don't really want to be playing the game. As for "dropping in" initially, I'd almost certainly be against it if I was running a long-term game that had been going for a while - you sitting down at the table with no clue what you were doing, potentially rolling up your character in the middle of the play, and then having to be shoehorned into the group would be really disruptive. If I was going to add you at all, I probably would take about a week or two to integrate you - first I'd probably have you sit in on a session as just an observer, to see how the group plays, so you get a feel for what sort of game it's going to be (and if you even want to be in it). Then, if you're still into the idea, I'd have you come up with a character concept that fit the setting/campaign so far, and have you roll stats/figure out abilities in advance. I might even play out a solo "Session Zero" for you so you could get a bit more comfortable in your character's headspace before bringing you into the group. On my end, I'd also have to plan (which could easily be a lot of work for the week prior) how to introduce you to the group, and present you in a way where it makes sense for you to integrate into their dynamic, rather than just going "Well, this is a new PC, so obviously you'll all travel together now." I'm a narrative-heavy GM, which means "You all meet in a tavern and see the magical PC beacon over each others' heads, so immediately decide to be hero friends forever" really, really doesn't work for me. I like players who wind up being siblings, or childhood friends, or war-sworn blood brothers, or have some sort of reason to be together long before the campaign starts. That takes more work to set up, but it also helps make the game more fun (in my opinion).

And if at any point in this process, you seemed to be half-assing things, or going "Oh, yeah, well, I don't really have a backstory or personality, I guess I'll just wing it when we start playing", I'd probably politely uninvite you.

All that being said, I've never seen a new player wanting to join as as bad thing (unless I actively disliked the person asking). If the player is excited to play and has ideas about what sort of character they want to be, and are willing to be flexible to fit into the existing dynamic, the extra work is almost fun. You get a sort of manic energy (or at least I do), as you start brainstorming up new ideas, new concepts, new potential interactions. Working with someone to come up with ideas for their character, you start to feed off their excitement, which get them more excited, and you can have awesome moments.

On the other hand, there are also GMs who would read everything I just wrote, scoff, and say it's easy to drop any character into any game at any time for any reason, because their playstyle is radically different from mine, and they don't mind doing things that way. But that's what's great about D&D (and other RPGs) - there isn't necessarily a wrong way to play, as long as everyone at the table is having fun.
---

Dikitain posted...

but the #1 rule of DMing is you need to make the game fun for the people playing it. If the DM can't do that, they probably shouldn't be the DM.

Yes, I'd argue this is the actual "whole point of the game".

That being said...



Dikitain posted...

Our campaign picks up random NPC's as party members all the time, and our DM just rolls with it and builds character sheets for them pretty quickly.

It is a lot easier to stat out NPCs after the fact and run them as party support than it is to fully integrate new players/PCs into a group. Mainly because the NPCs aren't going to have expectations of what's fun and what isn't, and can always be treated more as plot elements than people (and you can always kill them off for drama when you need to - players tend to be a bit more annoyed about you doing that).



LinkPizza posted...

It takes no time at all if done right. I went to watch a game at my local store. And like 5 minutes into the game, they asked if I wanted to join and gave me a character sheet.

To be fair to the DM, I would never, ever be able to do this. Especially if I didn't actually know you beforehand.

Ironically, it depends on how seriously the GM takes a game. If they're willing to just half-ass everything on the fly or run out of a module and not really add much of their own personality to things, or if you're playing D&D more like a combat sim, it's a lot easier to add new players into the mix, or to just hand someone a collection of stats and say "Okay, here, you're in now." But not every GM is going to be comfortable that way (and whether or not a GM is introverted/extroverted as a person can play a huge role as well).



LinkPizza posted...

Also, a DM should be able to think in the fly. I listen to a podcast where they play different games. And when the DMs talk about it, they explain how they have to change the whole story most of the time because of how the players reacted to certain things. Haha.

The entire art of GMing is that you come up with a grand eloquent plan for the entire narrative, and then the players derail literally everything 5 minutes into the first session and you have to improvise everything from then out.

The very first RPG I ever ran in my entire life (Marvel Superheroes RPG, when I was about 10 years old), I was running a pre-written introductory adventure for my players (because I wasn't confident in my own storytelling skills yet), and they cheated. One of them had read the adventure before, so straight off the bat, in the very first scene, they "randomly" decide to search the place where the Big Bad has their evil headquarters. Just "randomly" pointing to the map, saying "Hey, let's check this place out", which would cut out like 80% of the story in the middle. And, because I was an inexperienced GM (or "Judge", in that game), I straight up panicked. Ultimately, I was forced to improvise.

I basically learned the most important lesson a GM will ever learn that day. Your players will sabotage every plan you ever come up with, so, to paraphrase Sun-Tzu, don't spend all your time coming up with the perfect plan. Spend a little bit of your time coming up with a plan, and the rest of your time thinking about contingencies for when that plan inevitably fall apart.

The alternative is to become a railroading GM, and railroading GMs are assholes.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Ironically, it depends on how seriously the GM takes a game. If they're willing to just half-ass everything on the fly or run out of a module and not really add much of their own personality to things, or if you're playing D&D more like a combat sim, it's a lot easier to add new players into the mix, or to just hand someone a collection of stats and say "Okay, here, you're in now." But not every GM is going to be comfortable that way (and whether or not a GM is introverted/extroverted as a person can play a huge role as well).

I guess that makes sense. For us, it was just easy because they had a basic outline of a plan. But it didn't rely on it being specific people. Except for story arcs for certain characters. But we could usually finish each part in either one or two sessions before moving onto another story arc. Plus, our ship had plenty of rooms. So, we even ended up having extra characters that we could use different ones for certain missions.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The entire art of GMing is that you come up with a grand eloquent plan for the entire narrative, and then the players derail literally everything 5 minutes into the first session and you have to improvise everything from then out.

Yeah. That happens like every episode. So, they said instead of planning out everything. They basically make outline and have a bunch of contingency plans like you mentioned. And the players don't even know sometimes. They felt that the DM/GM planned it out that way...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

railroading GMs are assholes.

Yeah. I feel I wouldn't have as much fun...
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The entire art of GMing is that you come up with a grand eloquent plan for the entire narrative, and then the players derail literally everything 5 minutes into the first session and you have to improvise everything from then out.

Weirdly enough, in my experience, even CR is a big part of that improvising. With a team of tactic minds that work well together, the recommended CR quickly becomes a cake walk for most parties.

hypnox posted...

Lets say he based the store arc on the BBEG to be an adult red dragon. The challenge level is 17, meaning four players at level 17 would be the minimum suggested party. now, if he would need to add a fifth, that dragon wouldn't really be a good BBEG. Granted, I don't see why him changing it up would be a problem though.

Which in my experience, per the above, simply would not hold up. Yes, I know who or what they are going to fight for most of the arc, does not mean I make those statblocks months or years in advance.

---

I wouldn't want to play with him if he said that

---

JOExHIGASHI posted...

I wouldn't want to play with him if he said that

Yeah, I'd just play with myself.

---

He's either lying or would be insufferable as a GM, either way you guys wouldn't be a good match.

---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Weirdly enough, in my experience, even CR is a big part of that improvising. With a team of tactic minds that work well together, the recommended CR quickly becomes a cake walk for most parties.

It also works in reverse. If you're dealing with a party of blatantly sub-optimal "role"players who barely pay attention to their own abilities and don't mesh tactically to create expected synergies or exploit turn economy, going with the "expected" CR is going to get them TPKed in very short order.

It also doesn't help that CR is supposed to be calculated for a balanced party of four characters, so if your balance issues are wrong, or if you're playing with fewer or more players, you kind of have to feel your way through things as you go anyway. You may have to add a few more minions here, toss in a lair action or special ability there, or go the other way and scale the enemy CR back so the players don't get overwhelmed.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It also works in reverse. If you're dealing with a party of blatantly sub-optimal "role"players who barely pay attention to their own abilities and don't mesh tactically to create expected synergies or exploit turn economy, going with the "expected" CR is going to get them TPKed in very short order.

And sometimes they come up with a tactic that just bites them completely in the ass. At which point you start wondering how long before they actively give up and go into "run away" mode.

---