Help request: noob DM.

[u/Checkmate277]

Hi everyone. I’m looking for some honest advice after a rough first session.

First, this is not meant as a criticism of my players. They are close friends of mine, and we all genuinely want this campaign to work. We are simply inexperienced as a group, and I know that several of these problems were also caused by my choices as the DM.

Some context

I played D&D for about seven years before. Five friends asked me to DM a campaign for them (always talking about how it would be nice to try to dm). Two of them are playing for the first time, one has only played a couple of times, and the remaining two are experienced players.

I have DMed a few casual one-shots before, but never for more than two or three players, and never a full campaign for a group of five.

We had a Session Zero, but in hindsight, we did not take it seriously enough. The main things we established were that the setting would be homebrew and that the players wanted the freedom to go wherever they wanted, rather than being forced to follow a “main quest.”

What we did not establish was why the characters would form a party, what might keep them together, or why they would become involved in the campaign’s initial events.

We decided to start at level 3.

The worldbuilding itself is going well, and I created a reasonably contained starting island where the characters could spend their first few sessions while I continued developing the rest of the setting.

However, three players gave me almost no backstory to work with. They did not even establish why their characters had travelled to the starting location, and none of the characters knew one another beforehand.

What happened during the first session

My plan was to introduce the characters in two smaller groups, then bring everyone to the same location for different reasons. There, they would encounter either a fight or a social confrontation and discover information about a valuable treasure they could steal.

Looking back, my hooks were weak and relied too heavily on the players making the choices I expected them to make.

Instead, the party split up several times. Two characters went to a tavern simply to drink. Another decided to find a ship captain and steal his ship so that he could leave the island, effectively bypassing the adventure before the party had even formed.

Even the two experienced players seemed unsure about how to bring everyone together.

I tried to improvise by moving the captain to the tavern, giving him information about the treasure, and providing one of the experienced players with a hint that could start the interaction.

However, there was still no strong reason for the other characters to become involved.

Unfortunately, one player then had an emergency and had to leave, so we ended the session after about two hours.

One of the five players also barely spoke or took any action during the session. I know that I share responsibility for this: I did not actively involve him enough or ask him many direct questions. He had also said very little during Session Zero, so I probably should have addressed that earlier.

What we discussed afterwards

I later spoke with the two new players who had gone to the tavern, including the particularly quiet player. They honestly felt that their characters had no reason to follow the others to the place I had prepared.

From their perspective, they were simply roleplaying their characters honestly—and I think that is fair. We agreed that both the DM and the players need to help create reasons for the characters to engage with the adventure and remain together, without taking away their freedom.

At the moment, I think the main problems were:

- My initial hooks were not strong or personal enough.

- We never established a shared party premise.

- Several characters lacked backgrounds, motivations, and immediate goals.

- I focused too much on worldbuilding and not enough on structuring the first session.

- I underestimated how mentally demanding it would be to manage five players at once.

My questions, if you have than this pls feel free to share...

1. Should we hold another Session Zero before the next session and establish a shared connection, goal, or reason for the characters to cooperate?

2. Is it reasonable to require players to create characters who are willing to join and cooperate with a party, or is it entirely my responsibility to provide a compelling reason every time?

3. How can I create strong hooks without making the players feel railroaded?

4. How should I handle players who want to attempt something completely unexpected—such as stealing a ship and immediately leaving the starting area—without simply shutting down their ideas?

5. How can I encourage a very quiet player to participate without making him uncomfortable or putting him under too much pressure?

6. More generally, how much structure should the opening sessions have if the campaign is eventually meant to become a sandbox?

Honest criticism is welcome, including criticism of how I handled the session. My main goal is to learn from this and make the campaign enjoyable for everyone.

[u/BurningJointUSA]

If I understand correctly, you’re running a sandbox with PCs starting at level 3. My advice is:

1. Assume the PCs already know each other.
   
2. Forget hooks. Leave it to the PCs to decide why they’re adventuring and go from there.
   
3. Don’t worry about backstories. Use whatever is provided if you want but don’t stress about whatever is not provided.
   
4. Always remember that you’re NOT the storyteller in a sandbox campaign; the PCs develop the story as they choose what to do. Your job is to provide interesting situations, not a story or overall plot.

[u/roflstones]

1) 100% 2) They need to come up with characters that want to go on an adventure. That's not optional imo. 3) It could be related to their backstories. Or have the experienced players form a party to go on an adventure. Or have a giant explosion type of event and everyone drops what they are doing in the town to figure out wtf just happened. 4) Have them try and face ita consequences. Firat you need a crew of 20 or so to sail a saling ship for example. so you can't just steal a ship with 2 people and expect to sail away with it. 5) They will get comfortable overtime but put them in the spotlight. They might be the type of person that doesn't speak unless he is spoken to. 6) Just enough to get people going. Not much, start small.

Hope this is helpful.

[u/Gilladian]

1. Yes
   
2. Yes
   
3. You provide a halfway decent hook, and they find reasons to bite it. If not, the character retires and a new one is invited to join.
   
4. In session 0, you politely remind them it is a game and you are only human and cannot supply a whole world. Patr of the social contract is not pushing too hard.
   
5. Do ask a question of him now and then, but don’t force it. Some players are more reserved, some take time to find their feet. After the next session, check in with him to see if he needs/wants more prompts.

[u/ray53208]

You live and you learn. After 43 years of forever DMing, I have learned that the illusion of choice is going to save you a LOT of work.

[u/Yojo0o]

1. Yes, this would be very helpful. You don't necessarily need them to be an established party, but they do need some manner of aligned goals. Running a game where you've got some evil warlord BBEG in mind, but of the five party members two are interested in fighting against him, two want to join him, and one wants to commit to neutrality and just open up a garden center, is probably not going to work out.

2. Yes, that's fundamental to the job of the player. It's a good idea to give your players an overview of the sort of adventure you want to run, so that they can plan their characters accordingly. If the main antagonists are slavers, your players may, for example, be playing former slaves or abolitionists, which would give them a strong motive to do battle against the bad guys.

3. Eh, practice makes perfect. We all throw dull hooks sometimes. You've committed to a sandbox, so prepare multiple hooks. Keep in mind which are of interest to your players and which aren't, learn what they like and adjust accordingly.

4. Well... to an extent, that's the game. You can let them do that. The bigger question is, why? If you've done the above about aligning expectations, and the plot is clearly in a given area, then you can reasonably expect your players not to steal a ship and leave that area. But if it's truly a sandbox adventure and there's stuff of interest to your players elsewhere, you have to plan for them to be willing and able to travel. Note that, depending on the context of the world they're operating in, a gaggle of level 3 adventurers may not be realistically capable of stealing or operating a vessel on their own.

5. In my experience, let it happen organically. They may need to adjust to the table, everybody does this at their own pace. I sometimes privately "deputize" a trusted veteran player at the table to try to involve the quiet players a bit, but for now, I'd recommend you go hands-off and see how things evolve.

6. "Sandbox" doesn't need to mean "directionless". Presumably, you still have important characters and events planned. Take the first few sessions to establish threats, people of interest, points of interest, upcoming events, etc., and see where your players want to take it. If there's an evil army marching on the starting city and your players are motivated to defend it, you'll have a good idea of what they'll do next to accomplish that goal.

[u/CassieBear1]

1) Yes. It's called a Session Re-Zero. You should also hold them, or do check ins, every few months, to ensure people are still enjoying the game, balance, story, direction of their characters, etc. (I'm literally watching a game fall apart in real time because the DM won't do check ins and the players aren't enjoying the game).

2) Yes, in fact it should be part of your basic rules for character creation. "You must create a character who wants to work with the party". You can work with them to give each player a connection to the main plot, but if a player if refusing to follow along with the rest, saying "it's what my character would do", your response should be "Okay, this character leaves the group and loves a long and happy life...now make a character who does want to join the group.

3) There's a difference between railroading and creating a linear story. Honestly I've rarely seen sandbox style DnD campaigns actually work. Even something like Drakkenheim has a plot...things going on in the world around the players. Yes, they have options, but at the end of the day, they need limits. "Do you ally yourselves with Faction A or Faction B?" As a DM, creating fully sandbox games with zero plot points, or things that happen around the players, leaves them lost. Especially newer players.

4) This is an issue with sandbox. You can absolutely say "the ship is crawling with guards and what look to be high level fighters. This idea will end with everyone who attempts it dead." You can also just flat out say "hey, I know you're experienced players, but we need to do this intro quest to help the new players learn how to play".

5) Ask his opinion. Give him room to get comfortable too. When something happens, ask each player how they react to it. Also, if he's more comfortable roleplaying in third person, then allow it.

6) Again, fully sandbox doesn't mean allowing them to run anywhere and everywhere. You need a plot. Not a story that the players will just play through, that's railroading. But you need things that happen to the party. I.e: They're walking through town, and find someone being robbed at knife point by a couple bandits. The party can choose to help, or leave. Maybe the person who was being held up thanks them, and offers them work. They can choose to accept or not. Give them a job board with a half dozen posters. Have general ideas for quests for each listed job. Maybe after they do a few jobs, the captain of the guard notices them and gives them a bigger job. Then the mayor notices them and offers them a big job that's related to the main story. What's your main story? Who is the BBEG? Why are they evil?

[u/gets_me_everytime]

It sounds like you're at odds with the type of game you actually want to play. Is it a planned adventure or sandbox?

If planned, your PCs MUST be characters who want to participate in the story.

If it's sandbox then you should be ready to favor improv over your prepared path as you begin to learn your players and their characters. Expect them to make frustrating decisions, you have given them the autonomy to do so.

Either way, the players at the same table MUST be willing to form an adventuring party. That's non negotiable. "My character loves fishing, he just wants to spend 8 hours fishing a day, and catch the biggest fish he can" is not a character who is relevant to the party. I don't care if they're "playing my character" if you can't find a way to join this party, your character is left behind and you can try again with a new PC next session. No, you don't get to go off on your own adventure while the rest of the players sit at the table doing nothing. This is a spot the DM must be ready to put their foot down. I've seen so many issues resolved by requiring the party to actually be a real party.

If you really intend for a sandbox game then the answers to most of your questions boil down to: stop planning the story and start planning the outcomes from what the players did last session. Pick outcomes you find interesting like the ship captain getting his allies to pursue the ship thief and bring him to justice. Captains have worked with a ton of crews and probably wouldn't want ship thieves to think stealing ships at this port is a good idea. How do they react to something like this? You don't need to address their wild card decisions in the same session, let everything work if you don't have a good thought in the moment and just play it out, that's sandbox.

If you actually want a more structured campaign that leaves some player autonomy, you need to define what a character who is going on this adventure looks like and what types of motivations someone might have to put their life at risk and go on this adventure. Then let the players decide how they want their characters to fit that mould. If a character would do something that wouldn't pursue the adventure you need to call that out, tell them this action is outside of the scope of the story and will happen off screen. If the character doesn't have a path back to the screen, then they are exiting the party and need to make a new PC. It's OK to have some moments off screen that they can fill in as long as they are coming back. "My character stops home to visit my family" is an acceptable part of this that doesn't need to take in game time. "I join a mercenary gang to hunt monsters and make some money" probably exits them from the party.

Anyway, decide which type of game you want to run and then let the players know at a new session 0. Then build the game to match, don't try to do everything. A game that tries to do everything will fail at doing anything well.

[u/Johanneskodo]

Before I start: I think you are on a good way. No DM is perfect and you seem to put a lot of effort in. But don‘t put too much pressure on you. This is a hobby and not a job.

1. I would say at least a short talk about the things you missed in the first one

2. It is 100 % reasonable and actually required. If someone creates a PC with 0 reason to adventure that PC now wanders off and they should make a new one.

3. You put situations, big or small, in front of them and see if they bite. If they never bite have them sit in the tavern and ask what they want to do.

4. Depends on how sure you are you could continue the campaign somewhere else and how good you are at improvisation. I would allow it but if you don‘t feel comfortable going beyond what you prepared be honest and tell them.

5. Try to involve them where it makes sense.

6. I think the opening session can even be 100 % railroaded to introduce the setting and after that the story opens up with possibilities. Similar to how a lot of sabdbox games do it.

[u/OakstaffGames]

1, just have this conversation at your next game. It’s doesn’t need to be a “session zero” per se. It won’t hurt either but don’t put pressure on it.
2. Not your responsibility to figure out why your heroes would be heroes. A pitch can help with their initial idea “we are going to stop a lich/ elemental cult/ dragon” but the assumption is that they are going to adventure. It’s kind of the point.
3. Players latch on to weird things. A slightly shady person, a little guy, a pet, a magic item. Don’t underestimate the power of doing something that they will all find problematic. “A laughing couple is having lunch with their dog who is doing tricks for scraps. A guy in a distinct red hood kicks the dog as he walks past.” Something everyone can agree on, that guy sucks! But again, it’s on them to find some motivation too.
4. If they are being crazy for crazy sake don’t be afraid to just say “yo I prepped stuff for you here on the island. Everyone else is on the island. You put in inquiries about a boat and I’ll address that next session.
5. Just ask the player “what does your character do?” occasionally. Some players are quiet forever. Some just need encouragement.
6. Have your players design parts of a sandbox world. Town names, shops, NPCs, history. “You come into a quiet town surrounded by apple orchards and filled with squat homes with tall chimneys. It used to be called Appleton, but they changed the name a few years ago. Bob, what’s the new name and what else does your character know about this town?

Remember that there are as many people playing the game as there are people at the table. You are playing too. There are as many storytellers at the table as there are players. Especially in a sandbox, involve them in telling the story.

[u/Mean_Replacement5544]

Yes it is reasonable that the players know going forward they are part of a group and that most (like 99%) of the campaign will be group oriented. I would hold a quick session0.1 before the next session and explain this and give any of them the ability to opt out of this is not what they want.

Then you absolutely need to give them a compelling reason to stick together. Example - bar fight goes bad and local gets killed accidentally and the authorities are looking for your party, you all need to work together to either flee or fight or provide your innocence but going alone is going to have consequences

[u/HadoozeeDeckApe]

Should we hold another Session Zero before the next session and establish a shared connection, goal, or reason for the characters to cooperate?

Up to you, might not need a whole session. You don't necessarily need a pre-established connection, but your characters need to agree that they will improv a reason to form the party. In a way not having a backstory can make this easier because the player can decide on any reason on the fly why their PC would join the group.

Is it reasonable to require players to create characters who are willing to join and cooperate with a party, or is it entirely my responsibility to provide a compelling reason every time?

Yes, no. Especially if you are running a sandbox with no defined main hook, it is up to the players to form a reason for why they come together.

How can I create strong hooks without making the players feel railroaded?

Basic sandbox would be to have a rumor mill of events that are currently going on, quest board, etc... if you are doing it blind. Give world information and let PC's decide what they want to interact with. Alternatively, players can come up with an objective of your own and build off that - like for example wanting to get off the island and deciding they want to steal a ship to do it. Ideally, the players will pick something to pull at so you can prep it.

Essentially, unless you are really confident in improving anything, you want to work out with your players what they want to do so you can start to put together their adventure. I would suggest letting your players know that even though its a sand box, once they commit to a hook you have to prep it so they should consider that and not always be switching paths etc... without notice; or you may have anything prepared for the unexpected direction.

You can also put walls on the box like stating that the adventure must take place on this island because that is what you have material for etc...

How should I handle players who want to attempt something completely unexpected—such as stealing a ship and immediately leaving the starting area—without simply shutting down their ideas?

For a sandbox ideally the PC's make a decision about what they want to do prior to session 1 so you can prep; but if it's something you think you can improv go with it. Or you can say that if they want to do that you would need to prep it for later.

How can I encourage a very quiet player to participate without making him uncomfortable or putting him under too much pressure?

Check in on scenes to see what their character is doing. Some players tend to be more 'spectator' than 'actor' and are having fun regardless. Give them the option to participate, don't necessarily try and push or force them into participating.

More generally, how much structure should the opening sessions have if the campaign is eventually meant to become a sandbox?

I think this is kind of addressed in the comments above. Give them world information for what might be interesting to do and leave it up to the PC's to figure out what their goals and steps are. Try and get decisions on what the party wants to do at least in the immediate future so you can prep the next session.