Adventure suggestion for newbie players

[RealMarkP]

Soon I will be DMing a bunch of newbies to d20. I'm looking for a 2-4 session adventure (~10-14hrs) that could I could run that will showcase most aspects of D&D. What would you recommend? What level would you start the players off as?

[Azremodehar]

I can't recommend any adventures - I always write my own - unless you meant a general style or outline? As for level, start them at first level. I think newbies should always begin at the beginning; it allows for the most thorough understanding of the game.

Keep it simple, be patient, and don't throw anything too heavy at them. Running for newbies can be a lot of fun. 

[Eagle of Fire]

I agree with Azremodehar. This thing is, are you new to D&D?

Being gentle with newbies is usually what is best. For example, I too have a rather inexperienced group. I started them up at level 1 but with a greatly boosted stat generation process (roll 4 dices, re-roll the ones and keep the best 3) and made sure they understood the logic behind the mechanic of the game when needed. Especially the part that they are playing kind of elites of their races/classes and that it is normal that they can do a lot of things way better than the common folk.

Since they are newbies and that level one chars can die rather easily, "nudging" some really high enemy damage dices might also be in order. Try to make it dramatic without them dying at their first try of ever trying D&D. Unless you know them well and know they can handle it.

[Azremodehar]

I agree with the enhanced statgen for newbies. My first DM did something similar, and I'd completely forgotten about it until now; I was only six at the time though, so, uh, yeah.

Alternately, use a point-buy system, if you want to keep things more balanced between the players. 

[RealMarkP]

This thing is, are you new to D&D?

I've DM'd quite a bit, but mainly with experienced players. Luckily, the newbies are gun-ho about D&D and are reading into the rules and lore. What I specifically wanted to do was to run a quick adventure that gave them experience with the trickier sides of D&D, such as grappling, certain skill checks, and so on.

As for level, start them at first level.

I was actually thinking of starting them off around level 3-4. That opens up their characters to a plethora of wonderful abilities, spells, and skills. The down side is obvious - they are getting a large amount of data/new concepts thrown at them.

[veekie]

3-4 is a good place to start. 1 is just WAY too squishy, you can trivially die for no mistake at all. Unless they're playing a fullcaster, its not really a lot of options.

[Azremodehar]

This thing is, are you new to D&D?

I've DM'd quite a bit, but mainly with experienced players. Luckily, the newbies are gun-ho about D&D and are reading into the rules and lore. What I specifically wanted to do was to run a quick adventure that gave them experience with the trickier sides of D&D, such as grappling, certain skill checks, and so on.

Actually - can't believe I didn't think to ask this to begin with - you said they're new to D&D, but are they new to tabletop gaming?

And on a related topic, do you know what classes they're interested in playing? Because that would give you some idea of tailoring a campaign to the abilities of a given class.

[Eagle of Fire]

It all depend of what your players can absorb in such little time really. Already stating that they are actively reading into the player book is a great step IMHO. I had two players out of 4 who didn't want to read anything short of needing it on the spot when they started. Now they seem to have understood that they need to know more than "I can hit this once per turn" kind of knowledge.

If they have trouble grasping the mechanics of the game then starting them up to level 4 is a bad idea. You get a bonus stat a that level, you also have a bonus feat at level 3 and if you're a fighter you have a plethora of feats to choose and of which they'll have no idea about and what to get. If it is really their first time I still think starting level 1 is best. The work will be on you to keep them afloat and prevent them from doing stupid mistakes and dying instantly instead of giving them some leeway they won't be able to use anyways.

As a DM, as long as you keep your rolls and decision secrets, they won't know better. It will all fall down on your skills to keep them entertained instead.

[kurashu]

With my current group, the very first campaign I ran was The Sunless Citadel. It has made the biggest impression on them; to this day I still get requests to say, "Raaaaaats!" in my white wyrmling voice or to place Meepo (a kobold they took a liking to, even the gnome) back in the game or about the Gulthias Tree Battle (Totemist, Dread Necromancer & Crusader instead of Druid, Sorcerer and Crusader).

Showing them the ropes of grapple, flank, trip, et cetera is a matter of putting them in those situations. My newbie rogue barely knows how to play but knows how to move to set up his sneak attack because after he got comfortable with combat, I said, "Move your gnome here to a flanking position, and you get a +2 to hit -- and so do you, other player -- but, more importantly, you can use your sneak attack to deal an extra d6 of damage." It was that simple. Now he's a sneak attack master. My paladin understand smite (and spells, maybe, soon). My ranger knows shooting into melee is bad. My barbarian knows how to rage and what bonuses and penalties she gets. Now, as long as none of them ask me, "How do I grapple?" I won't have to kill anyone.

As for starting with level 1, give them full HP for their Hit Die and walk them through character creation and explain why some feats are good, some are really good and some aren't worth spit.

[ksbsnowowl]

I'm running a 10th level gestalt game, but we just got a new player who has only played a couple of low-level sessions with a group at college.  So while I've got a few of my regular players gone on vacations and such this summer, we took their same 10th level characters and scaled them back to 2nd level.  I chose second level because it's basically the same as first level (no 2nd level spells, no 3rd level feat), except they have two HD, and are thus much more able to endure a fight.  And having an extra spell slot or two isn't a bad thing either.

I really think 2nd level is the sweet spot for teaching someone the game.  They're not overwhelmed with too much, but they have decent HP's.  The only "extra" thing to account for is skill synergies kick in at 2nd level.

BTW, I gave them full hp's for the first HD, and 3/4 (minimum) hp for the second HD.  So a d6 HD would get them 6 hp for first level, and 5 for second level, etc.

[Azremodehar]

I really think 2nd level is the sweet spot for teaching someone the game.  They're not overwhelmed with too much, but they have decent HP's.  The only "extra" thing to account for is skill synergies kick in at 2nd level.

Actually, I do really like starting a (low-level) game at 2nd level. It allows for so much more flexibility in character builds. I'd just be wary of starting off complete newbies there. ...Possibly, I'd have them make first-level characters, walking them through the process, so they could get a feel for it, and then have them level their characters to second, and use it all as a teaching opportunity.

[RealMarkP]

Actually - can't believe I didn't think to ask this to begin with - you said they're new to D&D, but are they new to tabletop gaming?

And on a related topic, do you know what classes they're interested in playing? Because that would give you some idea of tailoring a campaign to the abilities of a given class.

They're not strangers to video game RPGs, such as Neverwinter nights, Skyrim, Diablo, WoW, etc. They know that many of the mechanics that the computer calculates for you are done via dice and brain power. But, they are new to tabletop gaming and role playing in general. I'm also following another thread about encouraging role playing (my friends are math and computer science nerds).

I gave them an option of trying a short adventure first, like the Sunless Citadel which was mentioned above, or starting into a grand campaign. They voted for the campaign. This gives me a bit more flexibility in tailoring a tutorial session.

Showing them the ropes of grapple, flank, trip, et cetera is a matter of putting them in those situations.

I had an idea this morning on my commute. If I was to give the group an NPC, who claims to be "an expert tactician from the grand army", I could use him as a in-game commentary on tactics. After each battle, he can approach each character and teach them about flanking, grappling, tripping or full withdraw. As an example, he could say:

"I saw that both of you were having trouble with that one Orc. May I offer a suggestion? If one of you would flank him from behind, he would have a hard time countering your attacks."

I can easily get rid of the NPC once the party gets a hang of combat. The flip side of the coin, the non-combat (socializing, persuasion, skill usage) portion to D&D, might be hard to guide. I could use the NPC to teach the group but at the same time they might become reliant on him.

[Azremodehar]

Actually - can't believe I didn't think to ask this to begin with - you said they're new to D&D, but are they new to tabletop gaming?

And on a related topic, do you know what classes they're interested in playing? Because that would give you some idea of tailoring a campaign to the abilities of a given class.

They're not strangers to video game RPGs, such as Neverwinter nights, Skyrim, Diablo, WoW, etc. They know that many of the mechanics that the computer calculates for you are done via dice and brain power. But, they are new to tabletop gaming and role playing in general. I'm also following another thread about encouraging role playing (my friends are math and computer science nerds).

I gave them an option of trying a short adventure first, like the Sunless Citadel which was mentioned above, or starting into a grand campaign. They voted for the campaign. This gives me a bit more flexibility in tailoring a tutorial session.

Well, that's good at least.

Showing them the ropes of grapple, flank, trip, et cetera is a matter of putting them in those situations.

I had an idea this morning on my commute. If I was to give the group an NPC, who claims to be "an expert tactician from the grand army", I could use him as a in-game commentary on tactics. After each battle, he can approach each character and teach them about flanking, grappling, tripping or full withdraw. As an example, he could say:

"I saw that both of you were having trouble with that one Orc. May I offer a suggestion? If one of you would flank him from behind, he would have a hard time countering your attacks."

I can easily get rid of the NPC once the party gets a hang of combat. The flip side of the coin, the non-combat (socializing, persuasion, skill usage) portion to D&D, might be hard to guide. I could use the NPC to teach the group but at the same time they might become reliant on him.

While it may seem like a good idea on the surface, something about the concept makes me feel kind of leery. It is, as you said, too easy to have them become reliant on the NPC; likewise, it's very easy to fall into the temptation of having the NPC cover all their shortcomings, depriving them of the incentive to learn.

I think it might be better to explain the mechanics OOC, to help prevent confusion. The flip side of the coin, as you say, is actually a lot easier, in some ways. Remember that they're still learning; while I wouldn't offer such suggestions to a veteran player, for newbies, I think it's perfectly okay to say something like, 'Now might be a good time to make a Sense Motive check', or 'You remember how I said Diplomacy is a great skill? Here's a chance for you to find out why'.