Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 29, 2023, 01:02:46 PM

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 29, 2023, 12:56:01 PM
So again, we're talking about advice in front of a preprinted 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons game that's about to be run.  There's no world building task to be done here.  If anything you'd better hope you don't accidentally contradict BG3.

And while I'm making that point, let me also point out that character creation is not "roll in order and make one decision".  It takes about three hours for you to get back into the game after you die.

All the more reason not to take stupid decisions.

Or switch to a game that allows you to roll a character in 15 minutes tops.

I have never seen three hours for generating a new 1st level character in 5E. About 15 to 30 minutes is typical -- and that's similar to my experience of AD&D1 using Method I. 5E has two other mechanical choices (namely, picking a background and picking class skills), but it is faster with equipment because it has simplified equipment options by class and background. With character generation software, that time is cut in half.

In any case, for "Peril in Pinebrook", character creation is grabbing a premade character template and filling in a few (A or B) choices - which is less than a minute - similar to some PbtA games. There's no rolling dice or copying down anything from a rulebook. It'd be fairly trivial to just add a few more pages to give some more character templates, if one wanted a deadlier scenario.

That said, when I was an adult and ran for younger kids (under 10), I did go more on easy mode and didn't kill off characters for stupid moves. I ran more kidsy games like Faery's Tale or Monster Island where at most characters were defeated and/or got into trouble, but they weren't killed. I introduced more deadly games for kids around middle school age (11 to 13).

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 29, 2023, 12:50:12 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 29, 2023, 09:34:38 AM
One of the bigger issues with the emphasis on the GM as a storyteller or a curator-of-fun which no one talks about, is that it creates a kind of "cult of the GM" by painting GMs as these brilliant auteurs that can improvise the Lord of the Rings while herding a group of players into following the story, but also incorporating them into the creative process. Firstly it's just annoying to me to see people hero-worshipping their GMs like they're gods among men. More importantly, it's one of the bigger reasons why newer players are so often scared to run their own games. Phrased that way, GM-ing is a pretty daunting prospect. Gauging your players' engagement or curating the difficulty level on the fly requires a degree of social adeptness that some people find very difficult. Telling the prospective new GM that "all you have to do is set up a plausible scenario and then reasonably adjudicate how it responds to the players' actions" is a lot less demanding.

While this may be true, we don't need to solve for it as this advice appears before a preprinted adventure put out by a company that pretty much exclusively provides those.  Their advice need not worry about building your writing skills, because that's not helpful towards their "under monetized" problem.

Sure. I was moving beyond the scope of the OP with what I was talking about there. Circling back to that original quote, I would happily concede that a TPK on the first session might give a bad impression to first-time players (particularly, as JHKim mentioned, if they are children), though IME it's equally likely to be something they find funny. At any rate, it's worth recognizing that this is presumably intended to be someone's first introduction to the concept of DM-ing, and might therefore have an undue influence on their attitude going forward.

There, I would echo the sentiments in kindameh's comments above, and take issue with the way the advice is framed. If WOTC gave me the quote to edit, I'd probably rephrase the first paragraph to something like:

"A Dungeon Master's first responsibility is to make fair and impartial rulings on the results of the PCs' actions. Failure to do this can cause your to players feel cheated and care less about the game world. However, there may be times when in order to keep the game fun, you want to tip the odds a little in their favor."

I would then keep the second and third paragraphs substantially similar, strip out the 4th paragraph (because it's dumb), and replace it with a reminder that while you can do this kind of thing, you should be very careful about how often you do it and how much you let it affect outcomes.

EDIT: Various spelling and grammar corrections.

For those who haven't looked it over, "Peril in Pinebrook" is a kidsy adventure where a patrol happens on a newborn baby silver dragon, and they have to help it back to its mother. Getting through the caves, they have a fight with "living icicles" - then three tricks/traps - then a fight with some "egg snatchers".

It's intended to be played in 60 to 90 minutes for complete newbies to D&D. (It's technically 22 pages, but most of that is introductory material and character sheets.)

It's a free download here: https://media.wizards.com/2023/downloads/dnd/Peril_in_Pinebrook_COMPLETE.pdf

Quote from: jhkim on December 29, 2023, 03:08:38 PM
In any case, for "Peril in Pinebrook", character creation is grabbing a premade character template and filling in a few (A or B) choices - which is less than a minute - similar to some PbtA games. There's no rolling dice or copying down anything from a rulebook. It'd be fairly trivial to just add a few more pages to give some more character templates, if one wanted a deadlier scenario.

Yeah, true, fair point.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 29, 2023, 12:44:47 PM

It's because the bell curve is only guaranteed over infinity.  Any sample smaller than that will not perfectly follow the curve.

Belief that it will is faith, ergo religion.

I didn't say anything like that and we are talking about a D20 roll so there's no bell curve anyway.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 29, 2023, 12:56:01 PM
  It takes about three hours for you to get back into the game after you die.

Why?  It takes 5-10 minutes to make a 1st level 5e character.

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 29, 2023, 06:45:40 PM

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 29, 2023, 12:56:01 PM
  It takes about three hours for you to get back into the game after you die.

Why?  It takes 5-10 minutes to make a 1st level 5e character.

As mentioned in the post you just replied under, yes, that's the case with a premade.  Pick one, decide what you want to name it, customize it a little, and go.

Most characters are more than this in 5e land.  They almost invariably have:

1) Some kind of pre-planned multi class progression...

2) ...sourced from at least three books.  The most recent ones have the juiciest options, especially if it's MTG.

3) A detailed backstory.

If you have a backup character made you could well be good to go in five minutes.  If you don't care about using more than the PHB or care how the character will "build" then sure.

I haven't known anyone who plays 5e that way since about 2015.

Quote from: jhkim on December 29, 2023, 03:49:24 PM
For those who haven't looked it over, "Peril in Pinebrook" is a kidsy adventure where a patrol happens on a newborn baby silver dragon, and they have to help it back to its mother. Getting through the caves, they have a fight with "living icicles" - then three tricks/traps - then a fight with some "egg snatchers".

It's intended to be played in 60 to 90 minutes for complete newbies to D&D. (It's technically 22 pages, but most of that is introductory material and character sheets.)

It's a free download here: https://media.wizards.com/2023/downloads/dnd/Peril_in_Pinebrook_COMPLETE.pdf

Ok so that does add quite a lot of context, particularly the following passage:

"DM Tip: A character that reaches 0 hit points falls unconscious and remains unconscious until they regain hit points through healing. At the end of the encounter, any unconscious player characters regain 1 hit point automatically."

....which pretty much moots the entire question of character death.

But I now have new questions, chief among which being "Who is the target demographic for this?" The plot hook (return a cute baby animal to its mother) is the kind of thing you'd put in a book for toddlers. Obviously the game is too complicated and abstract for that, even this simplified version of it. It might be understandable to kids in the 6-8 year old range, but that seems a stretch to me, and honestly some of the material in the adventure is verging on being too violent for them.

A bit of googling got me to this somewhat disturbing website: https://dnd.wizards.com/resources/educators.

The site describes the adventure as being for "players of all ages" which is useless. However, it also claims that it offers resources for the 4th-6th and 6th-8th grade ranges. From context, I'd guess this is intended for the upper end of that range. If so, then I suspect they've hilariously misread what appeals to the target demo. Age 11-13 was around around the time I started playing D&D, and the chief appeals for my friends and I were making badass characters, slaughtering goblins, and looking at the dryad's boobies in the monster manual. Obviously that's boys, but the few girls I knew at that were into roleplaying at that age were still not into this kind of twee-ness. They wanted to play mysterious witches and tomboy assassins. 

Frankly, I think that education website answers my question. It's not a product aimed at children at all. It's aimed at middle-aged (probably female) teachers, and what they think adolescents should be interested in.

Making this kind of safe, morally prudish first impression does not strike me as a well-considered means of getting rebellious teenagers interested in roleplaying.

EDIT: On top of that, the module really doesn't showcase the strengths of roleplaying. There's no map to explore, no decisions to make, no puzzles to solve or hostile NPCs to deal with. I'd expect a kid having this as their first impression of D&D to come away with the idea that it's a less interesting version of a board-game.

SECOND EDIT: I went and asked my wife, and she said the whole saving the baby dragon plotline would probably appeal to most 11-13 year old girls, so I guess there's that.

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 29, 2023, 06:52:25 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on December 29, 2023, 06:45:40 PM

Quote from: mcbobbo on December 29, 2023, 12:56:01 PM
  It takes about three hours for you to get back into the game after you die.

Why?  It takes 5-10 minutes to make a 1st level 5e character.

As mentioned in the post you just replied under, yes, that's the case with a premade.  Pick one, decide what you want to name it, customize it a little, and go.

Most characters are more than this in 5e land.  They almost invariably have:

1) Some kind of pre-planned multi class progression...

2) ...sourced from at least three books.  The most recent ones have the juiciest options, especially if it's MTG.

3) A detailed backstory.

If you have a backup character made you could well be good to go in five minutes.  If you don't care about using more than the PHB or care how the character will "build" then sure.

I haven't known anyone who plays 5e that way since about 2015.

Which noob, playing in a baby-GM's first adventure, has a pre-planned multi class progression, mapped out from at least three books?

As I have already acknowledged, this one has premades.

Typical 5e does not.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 29, 2023, 08:52:14 PMIf so, then I suspect they've hilariously misread what appeals to the target demo. Age 11-13 was around around the time I started playing D&D, and the chief appeals for my friends and I were making badass characters, slaughtering goblins, and looking at the dryad's boobies in the monster manual. Obviously that's boys, but the few girls I knew at that were into roleplaying at that age were still not into this kind of twee-ness. They wanted to play mysterious witches and tomboy assassins.

All modern media is created by middle aged wine aunts, who think they are young and hip, so what they produce actually only appeals to middle aged wine aunts.

Imagine if, when a kid learning D&D, you mom had decided to chaperone, and re-write anything in the books that she found problematic. That's the modern D&D intro experience.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 29, 2023, 08:52:14 PM
EDIT: On top of that, the module really doesn't showcase the strengths of roleplaying. There's no map to explore, no decisions to make, no puzzles to solve or hostile NPCs to deal with. I'd expect a kid having this as their first impression of D&D to come away with the idea that it's a less interesting version of a board-game.

I 'member when an introductory module was a half finished dungeon and the instructions to "finish it yourself, ya lazy shit".

Quote from: jhkim on December 29, 2023, 03:49:24 PM
For those who haven't looked it over, "Peril in Pinebrook" is a kidsy adventure where a patrol happens on a newborn baby silver dragon, and they have to help it back to its mother. Getting through the caves, they have a fight with "living icicles" - then three tricks/traps - then a fight with some "egg snatchers".

It's intended to be played in 60 to 90 minutes for complete newbies to D&D. (It's technically 22 pages, but most of that is introductory material and character sheets.)

It's a free download here: https://media.wizards.com/2023/downloads/dnd/Peril_in_Pinebrook_COMPLETE.pdf

I would describe it more as "female-y" than "kidsy."  It's designed to appeal to girls and women so they can go "awwwweee, so cute."

I cannot think of a worse thing to do to a young boy just getting into RPGs than to cheat, even on their behalf, and have them find out about it.  It would absolutely crush them and any feeling of meaning or accomplishment they got from the game.  Little boys I run for would rather have a hard game that has meaning rather than to always win.

There's a thousand ways you can give players an out without cheating.  Remember, all your monsters and bandits are NPCs as well.  You can have a winning monster or bad guy offer a Faustian deal, have them snatch something from the player and run off laughing, get called home by his wife while saying "you're dead next time." 

You can also handle PC death in a way that improves player engagement too.  Give the young player a new PC sheet and tell him to quickly roll up a new PC "so you can avenge your father's death."  Tell them that because of their selfless sacrifice that lives were saved.  Make up a quick song about the heroic death about the PC that all the bards are singing now. 

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 29, 2023, 08:52:14 PM
But I now have new questions, chief among which being "Who is the target demographic for this?" The plot hook (return a cute baby animal to its mother) is the kind of thing you'd put in a book for toddlers. Obviously the game is too complicated and abstract for that, even this simplified version of it. It might be understandable to kids in the 6-8 year old range, but that seems a stretch to me, and honestly some of the material in the adventure is verging on being too violent for them.

A bit of googling got me to this somewhat disturbing website: https://dnd.wizards.com/resources/educators.

The site describes the adventure as being for "players of all ages" which is useless. However, it also claims that it offers resources for the 4th-6th and 6th-8th grade ranges. From context, I'd guess this is intended for the upper end of that range. If so, then I suspect they've hilariously misread what appeals to the target demo. Age 11-13 was around around the time I started playing D&D

I would guess it's aimed at age 8-10. Cutesy Pokemon have been popular in that age range, among both boys and girls. It's the age when they'll still enjoy stuffed animals, but are starting to read more complex books - but animal-themed books like Warriors or Redwall are still popular. When I first ran Faery's Tale for my son he was around 8 or so, and I had a similar scenario, actually. I don't think the scenario is too violent for 8-10.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 29, 2023, 08:52:14 PM
EDIT: On top of that, the module really doesn't showcase the strengths of roleplaying. There's no map to explore, no decisions to make, no puzzles to solve or hostile NPCs to deal with. I'd expect a kid having this as their first impression of D&D to come away with the idea that it's a less interesting version of a board-game.

SECOND EDIT: I went and asked my wife, and she said the whole saving the baby dragon plotline would probably appeal to most 11-13 year old girls, so I guess there's that.

I don't think it's a particularly good scenario - but there is three tricks/traps including one puzzle - a riddle where the answer is saying "silver dragon" in Draconic using to the vocabulary sheet provided.

Greetings!

Well, Leftists in particular seem to believe that everyone in society is a hopelessly ignorant child in desperate need of Leftist supervision and "education." As a trickle-down from that dynamic, then there are the hordes of garden-variety Feminists. Toss in the "Wine Aunts" I guess. *Laughing* It all goes hand-in-hand with the helicopter parent thing, being over-protective, and creating a life-bubble where young people--especially kids--are constantly coddled, and ultimately they are mentally and emotionally crippled into a state of being perpetual children, or adolescents at best.

Cue the research on universities providing classes to college students on ADULTING. Yes, there are college classes now for teaching college students basic skills and knowledge in managing to function as adults.

I started playing D&D with groups of friends when I was 10 years old.

All of the groups I played with were into Lord of the Rings, Conan, Excalibur, the Crusades and the Knights of the Round Table. Everyone enjoyed slaughtering whole trainloads of Orcs and evil humanoids, looting monster lairs, and bringing death, fire, and destruction to everyone that opposed them. Along the way, of course, having some big-boobed barbarian chicks was also welcome.

Burning evil cultists alive. Staking vampires through the heart. Having enemy spies and assassins crucified. Ruthlessly hacking down all of the Orc tribe--male, female, young. They all got the sword and maybe a fireball.

There is definitely a weird disconnect and dissonance between what lots of these "adults" involved with gaming think kids like--and what I experienced as a young kid playing D&D. ALL of my friends were the same way, too. "Murder Hobo's" may be a term the kids think is original to now, but my D&D groups were hip-deep in blood, fire, and gold, starting at a young age.

Adventures saving a baby dragon. Hmmm. Ok, that's a fine enough main plot, but why is the adventure module otherwise so sugar-coated and sweet? Where is the blood and screaming? Where is the HATE? Where is the vengeance? The GOLD and TREASURES! Where is the drive for conquest and triumph?

If I got this module, I would have to heavily modify and change it, even if I was DMing the module for kids. Lately, these kind of modules remind me of the Barbie dolls and doll house play that 7 and 8 year old girls enjoyed playing when I was a kid. Definitely not for kids interested in playing Dungeons and Dragons though, for sure.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

As I was out on deck doing my morning rounds, I was thinking about this adventure and chewing on why I don't like it. 

I think this adventure was specifically designed to not appeal to male players.  It's the D&D equivalent of the MSheU movies being put out by Marvel Studios.  They have a formula for sucking:

1. put out a product that geared towards a demographic that's not the core audience
2. tell the core audience "it's not for you" when they complain
3. call the core audience a bunch of bigots when they don't buy the product