One Game, One Campaign

The wife (inadvertently) woke me up around 3am with her nightmare/thrashing. While I comforted her and she quickly returned to sleep, I was once again left lying awake in bed. Just too many thoughts in Ye Old Noggin.

*sigh*

One thought was this recent post over at Grognardia. Yes, I still read the old man, on occasion. I already expressed my specific thoughts on his post in the comments, but I figured I'd go into more depth over here.

I've loved RPGs for a long, long time, and over the years I've collected an absolutely huge number...of which I've played more than a few. Dozens, probably...Boot Hill, Top Secret, Gamma World, Star Frontiers, Marvel (and Advanced Marvel) Superheroes, Stormbringer, ElfQuest, James Bond 007, BattleTech (MechWarrior is the RPG), ShadowRun, Teenagers From Outer Space, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Heroes Unlimited, Ninjas & Superspies, Beyond the Supernatural, Rifts, Vampire the Masquerade, Werewolf the Apocalypse, Mage (the Awakening?), The Hunters Hunted, Ars Magica, Over The Edge, Fantasy Wargaming, DragonQuest, DragonRaid, Traveller, Guardians, Star Wars, CyberPunk 2020, Risus, InSpectres, Spirit of the Century, The Dresden Files, Cadillacs & Dinosaurs, Maelstrom (and Story Engine), Fiasco, Warhammer Fantasy Role-Playing...probably (definitely) a few more that I'm forgetting at the moment. 

A lot of games...many in multiple editions (learning a new edition is often akin to learning a new game). And, of course, a few of my own games (Cry Dark Future, Five Ancient Kingdoms, War of the Mecha, DMI and its variations, etc.). Yeah. I've played a LOT of games.

But the vast bulk of these games...with the exception of my own stuff...were played before the age of 30. Which is to say: more than 20 years ago. Since entering my 30s, I'm either playing some one-off (usually a demo or con game), or I'm playing something of my own ("play testing"), or I'm playing D&D. And mostly, it's just D&D. 

And since 2020 it's solely AD&D 1E. 

It's not that I'm not (still, continuously) enchanted by RPGs and amazed at the creativity, artistry, and design I see on display every time I walk into a local game shop. I LOVE games...I do!...and I'll buy the occasional RPG these days just to marvel at its beauty and throw some financial support at the industry. But most everything I've purchased in recent years...unless it's D&D related...simply goes on the shelf. If I bother to buy a print copy at all. I have a lot of digital RPGs stored on the ol' laptop, and those never get played (I only play games out of a printed book)...those are, generally, purchases for 'research purposes' only. 

But I don't have any need or use for most of the hundreds of game books I own. I can't, for example, see myself EVER playing 3E again, and yet I must have a literal dozen volumes of that game sitting on my shelf. I keep it for reference, for occasional inspiration, and as a constant warning against nostalgia and the danger of impulse buying (i.e. if I got rid of it, there's always the chance I'd run out and re-purchase the damn thing on a whim...that's happened to me multiple times over the years). 

No. The only books I need...and the only books I use with any regularity...are the PHB, DMG, and the three Monster Manuals. Pretty much the same books I used to carry around in my backpack when I was 12 years old (minus the UA and the DDG). 

I now play ONE game and, since 2020, I've run only ONE campaign. That's all I need: just a single world. Truth be told, due to my other priorities, I only have time for a single world (and barely time for that!). But even if I were to re-order and re-organize my life to prioritize gaming, I still wouldn't need more than that...I'd just spend MORE time in my world. 

Whereas in years past, I'd break my head, starting up new games from scratch with new systems and/or new genres (hell, even in the early days of this blog, when I was only running B/X, I was constantly "starting over" and tweaking my game...)...NOW, I simply work on building the world I have. I can add layer upon layer. I can pile depth upon depth. I can detail it down to the Nth degree, if it suits my fancy. Any and all work I decide to do...whether a little or a lot...is an investment into my campaign, making it richer and richer over time.

It is the great, not-so-secret Secret that all the great world builders have discovered: spreading your imagination thin, defusing your energies over multiple works and worlds, does not lead to satisfying fantasy. In fact, satisfaction is a false carrot to chase at all...we receive satisfaction ONLY when we pause and look back over what we have wrought...what our investment of time and effort has yielded. Like a master gardener checking out the fruits of their labor. And after that pause, we simply go back to work...again...adding more depth, adding more investment to our project.

And when we pause again, we look back at what we've wrought and we feel MORE "satisfied."

And the process repeats. Those of us who scatter our energies (as I did myself...for years) seldom look back at our "works" for they are naught but a wasteland...wasted time, wasted effort. Looking at all that waste...campaigns started and abolished, games played and discarded...can be disheartening. Few of us want to take the time to sit and reflect given just how sad  the could have beens can be; few of us have the courage for self-assessment of a wasted life.

Which sounds harsh, but only if one chooses to dwell on the superficial "first pass" of squandered potential. The FACT is that every moment you've spent in your life...gaming or otherwise...has led you to the exact present moment in which you currently stand. And even if you can't find it within your heart to feel a profound sense of gratitude for your gift of life (I assume none of my readers are undead) and the blessings you have in that life (whether few or many)...well, at least you've acquired wisdom. And with wisdom, you can change what you're doing so that the next time you pause and reflect at what you've wrought (whether with your life or your gaming or both) you can feel some degree of satisfaction.

If you're reading my blog, chances are that gaming is an important and valued aspect of your life. Assuming that is the case, then how you approach your gaming should hold some importance to you. If you, like me, are a habitual Dungeon Master, the world you build should be the single most vital part of your gaming life. 

Why wouldn't you want to focus your attention and energy on a single world? Why wouldn't you want to make the world in which your fantasy adventures take place as wonderfully detailed as possible?

And lest you think I'm being rhetorical, I think there are only two possible answers to that last question:

1. You are fearful of committing to the art and process of being a Dungeon Master, OR
2. You dislike the world/setting that you would otherwise be creating.

And IF the answer is the second one (as opposed to the first, which is perhaps more common among those not having accepted their vocation...as was me for many years), then the next question is: why are you bothering to game in that world at all? If you are not whole-heartedly on-board with the genre or IP of the setting (whether it is your own homebrew or the pre-published 'grand design' of someone else), then why are you wasting your time with it? Take the parts you like, build them into a world you can commit to for the long haul, and rock that as the foundation for your game.

I cannot expound enough on how liberating it is to operate in this way. By settling on ONE system...one that requires no expansion rules like B/X, no curating like OD&D or 5E, and one that had been vigorously play-tested long before I got into the hobby...I cut out so much worry and stress from my gaming and can just run the thing. By settling on ONE campaign setting, fit for the system, I can spend any free time and energy I have in drilling down different bits and crafting adventures based on that setting. Scenarios, not plots, not "capers." Simply opportunities that players can choose to explore...or not.

And if they don't, those opportunities continue to exist in my world (until they don't) adding to its depth (until they vanish, to be replaced with different opportunities). 

I was considering addressing another "Dear JB" letter before writing this post, one about liar DMs and cheating dice rolls (i.e. "fudging"). However two things stayed my keyboard. One was that most of the responses were adamantly anti-fudge/cheating (from 5E aficionados!) which is, frankly, a welcome change from older Reddit posts. The other, though, was one particular response, which said (in part):

I think the problem here is in the "players losing = death" forced narrative.

In the older editions of TTRPG, like the original D&Ds, the game was a wargame with a unique premise. The expectation was that your characters would die and you'd have to reroll and that was part of the game. You could pick between a martial character like a fighter and level faster, getting up to speed more quickly, or you could pick a wizard and be intentionally weaker and level slower, but with huge pay off if you reached higher levels. Retrieving equipment to pass it down was expected, and dungeons sometimes had mechanics to specifically prevent this. The focus wasn't really on a wider campaign narrative or character story arc.

As TTRPGs matured, however, the role-playing elements started to see the spotlight, and gradually the expectation shifted towards one of collaborative story telling with a wargame aspect that meant random chance still played a role in narration.

Overtime, however, we start to run head-long into the central problem with this set up: your character becomes tied to the story and character death removes you, rather jarringly, from the plot. There's no longer an expectation that players will be at disparate levels, and trying to introduce a level 1 character into a campaign already 5 levels deep will result in you being useless. So your new character is shot up in levels without ever earning them, has a backstory forcibly integrated without ever really experiencing it, and is shoehorned into a plot that never expected to handle them. It creates a terrible dissonance that's difficult to work around and will never be as satisfactory as your first character that was there every step of the way.

This isn't always the case, of course. Sometimes there are really great moments where a character death feels right and adds a lot to the gravity of the story. Sometimes there are new characters that can naturally integrate themselves into the plot to replace the old.

However, those tend to be exceptions, not the rule, when death is left to random chance.

So, it should come as no surprise to regular readers that I have some serious quibbles with this person's analysis; however, I want to focus on specific elements with regard to what they mean to my post this morning.

First off, I'll go ahead and AGREE that there has been a shift in D&D gaming to "campaign narratives" and "character story arcs" and "collaborative story telling." I'll also go ahead and AGREE this makes the issue of character death a "problem" from the perspective of derailing the "narrative" being told (and, yes, that's a significant part of what leads to cheating/fudging at the modern day table). 

Here's the thing, though: ALL THAT IS A FUCKED UP WAY TO PLAY D&D.

Leave aside, for the nonce, that this idiot seems to have forgotten that dead PCs can be brought back to life...fairly easily!...in the D&D game. We had plenty of "main (player) characters" that were raised from the dead MULTIPLE TIMES back in our long-running campaigns; my own PC must have been raised or wished back to life at least a half dozen times. 

But (as said) leave that aside. Tell me: why O why do you play Dungeons & Dragons at all? Is it because you want to tell stories of the 'fantasy' genre in collaboration with other people? Because, you can do THAT a lot easier without restricting yourself to big books of rules and the random whims of dice rolls.

Personally, I think most PLAYERS (i.e. non-DMs) play D&D to experience the spills and thrills of being another person participating in adventures in a fantastical land of might and magic. Full stop. And the BEST WAY for you, as the Dungeon Master, to provide that experience is to craft a deep, rich world chock-full of opportunities (scenarios) that the players have leeway and agency to explore. Sometimes dying, sure (danger is part of adventure) but always with the option to make a new character or raise the dead one (i.e. always with the option to "get back in the game"). 

Your best path, then, is to pick ONE system you can live with and master (possibly tweaking to taste), and then spend ALL your world building efforts on ONE setting that you love and are committed to. Thusly, you will be able to provide the best experience to your players, such that they will want to keep returning to your campaign...regardless of whether or not it has a "narrative story arc" in it. Players want to LIVE their D&D; they can't live it if there's no world in which to live. Focusing just makes it so much better.

I might write a series of posts about my own campaign world, something that...to date...I've hesitated to do (though don't mind mentioning it in passing). For one thing, much of my world is amorphous, the subject of wild rumor and speculation (at least, in areas the players haven't visited) and therefore subject to change. For another thing, I think a DM describing their campaign world is about as boring as a player talking about how kewl their character is, i.e. pretty darn boring.

But maybe it would be helpful to some people. And "helpful" is something I'm really interested in being these days (far more than being "interesting," which was my M.O. for most of my life). Maybe this can be the subject of the personal A-Z challenge I was thinking of doing in June? I'll have to see if I can come up with 26 subjects for discussion...shouldn't be too hard.

ANYway.

I'm running out of steam. I think I'll go lie down for a bit; I've said pretty much all I want to say at the moment.

[published after dragging my sorry ass out of bed and getting the kids up and off to school]

Drafting For Orks (Blood Bowl)

Welp, had a lovely four days on Orcas Island with the family, and missed the bulk of the 2025 NFL draft, so I've been spending much of today catching up on the new Seahawks that will be competing for roster spots in training camp.

My oh my...how things change.

Seattle started the draft with ten picks (for seven rounds)...they ended up with eleven picks by the end. Here's what they got.

Guard

Safety

Tight End

Quarterback

Defensive Tackle

Wide Receiver

Fullback

Guard

Running Back

Guard

Wide Receiver

A lot of beef in that draft. The QB lacks accuracy but he's as fast (or faster) than Lamar Jackson and built like a linebacker. The running back is a straight ahead bulldozer who runs with the ferocity and violence of Marshawn Lynch (though not the elusiveness). The safety has been compared to Kam Chancellor in terms of size and strength, but has the speed of Earl Thomas. And the last wide receiver on the list won the special teams player of the year in his conference, making a name as a kick/punt blocker. 

Size. Beef. Toughness. Three guards? A fullback? There ain't no "finesse" in this draft class...this is just orks getting back to being orks. 

I kind of love it.

Of course, it is stupid to fall in love with rookie draft picks. They are nothing compared to the veterans in the league...most of these guys won't even see the field during the regular season, unless catastrophic injuries occur. Or the season falls apart. Or both. 

But in a couple years? 

Interesting that seven of these guys were captains on their college squads. Eight of them finished their college careers at the same schools they originally declared for (and one moved solely to follow the coach that recruited him). In today's NIL world, this is unusual if not unheard of...the first round selection turned down huge deals to finish his college career in North Dakota State. North Dakota State?!

Dedication. Loyalty. Leadership. Plus solid athleticism.

Wonder if the coaching staff can turn them into professional football players. That's always the challenge.

But I'm more excited and curious than ever to see what next year's season has in store. The home team seems to be getting back to the kind of football that's helped them (in the past) to championship games...championship games we haven't been to since we traded away our last Pro Bowl lineman (Max Unger) for a tight end that couldn't block (Jimmy Graham). 

Ork football. I dig it.

6'4", 275# fullback...my new
favorite ork: Robbie Ouzts.

"Dear JB" Mailbag #28

Huh. An actual "Dear JB" letter (via email), rather than something snagged from Reddit. Here you go, man...

Dear JB:

I have been reading the core AD&D books and some classic AD&D modules in hopes of running the game for my group. I noticed that, unlike B/X modules, AD&D modules omit morale entirely from stat blocks. This is something that persists into modern day modules, for example Guy Fullerton's modules. Why isn't having morale in statblocks standard in AD&D? 

Sincerely, 

Mystified About Morale

Dear Mystified:

Morale, as a game concept/mechanic has been around long before D&D...in fact, while it is made mention of in OD&D (see page 13 of Volume I, Men & Magic) no specific mechanics are provided. Instead, readers are referred back to Chainmail, the foundational wargame that provided a "jumping off point" for D&D...although the text (as is often the case with OD&D) is far from explicit.

Morale in Basic D&D, especially B/X (an edition which is...essentially..."streamlined OD&D"), is based off the Chainmail model. Chainmail was a d6 based rule system...all game mechanics in Chainmail are resolved with the use of six-sided dice, and morale...an essential part of wargaming...is no different. Specific units are provided with a target number (requiring a 2d6 roll), but the thresholds for requiring a morale check varies by troop type. "Elite heavy foot," for example, need only roll a 6+ (on 2d6)...and, then, only if sustaining more than 1/3 casualties (either in missile or melee combat). Peasant levies, on the other hand, need to roll an 8+ and are required to check morale at only 25% casualties...they panic more quickly and are easier to break.

All the various fantasy troop types listed in Chainmail have a "morale" rating listed: from the "5" of orcs and goblins, to the "10" of wraiths and wizards. These form the basis of the morale ratings in Basic editions of D&D (like B/X and BECMI and their derivative OSR retro-clones).

AD&D is a little different. Unlike the Basic editions of D&D, AD&D is not designed to introduce basic concepts of dungeon delving and skirmish-level wargaming to the new player. Instead, AD&D is a robust system designed for maximum playability, versatility, and verisimilitude while still maintaining the parameters of play. This leads it to having some more "fiddly" game mechanics, in comparison to the cut-&-dry systems found in B/X.

Still, morale is a large part of a game that places combat as a premium feature of the system. Rather than assign morale based on monster type (as does B/X), monster morale in AD&D is based on hit dice: 50% + 5% per HD over 1 and +1% per hit point adjustment. Thus an ogre (HD 4+1) would have a base morale score of 66% in AD&D. However, unlike the B/X edition, AD&D morale checks are slightly more subjective (is the enemy faced with "an obviously superior force?") and is adjusted by many more modifiers (friends killed or deserting versus enemies slain/routed, for example).

All these numbers are outlined on page 67 of the DMG. 

I'd speculate that the reason there are no morale ratings listed in the "stat blocks" of AD&D modules has something to do with allowing the DM to consider all the possible variables carefully, especially given Gygax's stipulations (see page 103 of the DMG) that NPCs should be played by the DM in an "appropriate" fashion (i.e. as based on a particular creature's intelligence, bravery, or lack thereof). The absence of morale scores in stat blocks doesn't equate to all encounters being "to the death" fights; rather, the DM of an AD&D game is supposed to be thoughtful about how to handle said encounters. 

For me, I tend to only use the morale rules (conveniently re-printed on the last page of the DMG) when dealing with groups of monsters/troops, i.e. when the NUMBER of creatures involved might bolster the amount of courage and "mob mentality" that the group has. For animals or individuals (even a handful of bandits), I tend to make decisions based on actual circumstance and how I feel the NPC in question would respond to the press of battle (based on personality), without rolling the percentile dice every couple rounds. But that's just me, and the mechanics are there, for those who want to use them.

[also, please note that stat blocks in modules serve DMs by giving them one less thing to reference during play...specifically, the Monster Manual. And "morale score" is not part of the the MM description of monsters (unlike the monster write-ups in the B/X bestiary)...thusly, the module author is not losing anything by omitting something that isn't already there]

Hope that's de-mystified things a bit.

Sincerely,

JB

Top 100? Huh.

Sad news today that Pope Francis has passed on. I barely missed out on meeting the Pontiff when I lived in Asuncion (my wife got to), but I did have the opportunity to hear him speak from about 10 feet away. To me, he seemed a good man and a good Pope; I will miss him.

ANYway...I received an email from a blog database company called Feedspot that Ye Old Blog here is one of the "100 best D&D blogs and websites of 2025." Curious about how exactly I got on this list (I certainly didn't throw my name at them), I emailed the company asking for their criteria for their ranking. Here's what they told me:

Feedspot editorial team extensively searched on Google and social media websites to find the best DND Blogs and ranked them based on several factors such as:

1. Blog content quality
2. Blog consistency
3. Age of the Blog
4. Average number of shares on social sites for your
5. Blog Traffic to your Blog and more.

So, there you go. I mean, I had to admit I was pretty curious, especially considering all the posts about volleyball and Reddit bashing I've been writing this year. "Best D&D blogs of 2025?" Hmmm...

Anyway, I came in at #26, which is kind of cool because that's a number that has personal significance to me (though I'm not going to go into my goofy woo-woo New Age stuff at the moment). Alexis is #24 (appropriate...it would have been a sham if I'd ranked ahead of him), and Grognardia came in at #14 (showing the OSR guru still has some juice), while Dyson Logos, mapmaker extraordinaire, sits at #12.

The bulk of the other sites in the Top 25 seem to be the usual slough of BS, 5E money-making schemers, shills, and sycophants. #1 is D&D Beyond (duh). #2 is that Sly Flourish ("Lazy DM") dude. D&D Sage Advice, DND Wizard News, and ENWorld all crack the top 20. Most of these sites feature substantial advertising and hundreds (if not thousands) of followers across multiple platforms: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.

Which makes it somewhat amusing that I'm even ON this list, as I use none of those things.

I suppose I would care more if I was actively trying to optimize this blog, or if it provided me some sort of financial incentive. I remember being proud of cracking the Top Ten of "old school" D&D blogs, back when Cyclopeatron used to put out his regular lists of the same, but such accolades mean O So Little to the fractured blogging "community" these days. Just continuing to hang around and make regular posts is a testament of sorts...so many blogs and blog authors have given up the keyboard or fallen by the wayside. Are you still writing anything related to the topic of D&D? You probably deserve some sort of medal if you are...and give yourself a trophy if you can come up with any insight that's new, original, or actually useful. 

Anyway.

Working on re-working I3 today. My opinion of the adventure has diminished from when I last wrote that it was "pretty close to right" with its treasure totals. Nah. I'm re-writing it for levels 3rd - 5th and it STILL needs something more in the realm of 200K given the sheer size of the adventure. Also, I hate the Hickmans' propensity for stocking their adventures with normal humans of 4 and 5 hit dice (Thune Dervishes in I3, "gypsies" in I6, etc.). There's this little book I'd like to introduce them to called the "Monster Manual;" it already has an entry for "dervishes" that work perfectly well in the setting. Just...ugh. They were so young when they were writing these modules...it's hard to be too mad at them (we all make boneheaded decisions in our 20s). 

All right, that's enough. It's my daughter's birthday today and she finally woke up (kids are on Spring Break). Have a good week, people.

They sent me this badge. Yay.

Happy Easter!

Best wishes to all. May you all be blessed with a profound feeling of renewal...renewal of health, renewal of purpose, renewal of spirit.

Peace be with you all.

: )

"Dear JB" Mailbag #27

I just realized (yesterday) that I missed the the April A-Z blogging challenge for this year, something I had been considering doing. Ah, well...maybe I'll do my own A to Z thing in June (you can still get 26 days, if you skip Saturdays in place of Sundays). Just an idea.

Oh, also, this blog was listed as #26 on the Best 100 D&D Blogs & Websites in 2025. Which is...odd? For multiple reasons. But...well, that's a subject for another day.

On with the show...

Dear JB:

I'm part of a community group that runs multiple TTRPG games at our FLGS with rotating GMs and systems. One player signs up for every game, but at the table they’re often distracted, rarely engage, and occasionally interrupt with random rule questions. Sometimes they'll take big risks and then get upset when things go poorly. But mostly they just sit there and look at the rule books, or very often, rolls dice loudly when it's not their turn (I guess because he's bored?)

They’re very active on our group Discord, especially when it comes to system discussions and collecting rulesets, so it’s clear they’re passionate — just not always at the table. They're younger, socially awkward, and likely pretty lonely, which might explain why they sign up for everything.

Other GMs have noticed and voiced concern. I imagine this must be a common problem, I am curious what approaches others have taken to similar circumstances? What’s worked for you — or not worked?

How Do You Handle Low-Effort Or Awkward Players In A Public Group Setting

Dear DM:

The question of how to handle players at the table is very similar to the question of how a coach should best handle players on a team. As with a team sport, the Dungeon Master must recognize that every player is a unique individual...however, they must also recognize that there is a "group objective of play" that it is their responsibility to direct; one cannot cater to the needs of a single individual at the expense of the team/group as a whole.

It's an age-old question, and one of the many things a DM/coach will work on over the course of their career, gradually (hopefully) getting better at that balance with time and experience. 

But I get that you're looking for some concrete advice. Here's my two cents:

First off, I'd ignore everything this player...let's call him "Bill" for convenience...I'd ignore everything Bill posts on social media platforms like Discord. Social media in general (and Discord in particular) is its own activity, separate from the activity of gaming. It carries its own "signals" and "posturing," functions by its own rules, and has its own "objectives of play." A person can be the greatest poster on Discord or BlueSky or whatever and be absolutely worthless at the gaming table. The mental muscles needed to troll or do witty repartee or post pix of your collection or make funny memes, etc. are very different.

Do NOT conflate passion on social media with passion for the game. Passion on social media just means the person is passionate about social media.

SO...once we cut that out of the equation, what do we know about Bill? Well, he's "young" and "socially awkward"...both phrases which could mean a LOT of different things. I mean, a dude in their 20s seems "young" to me...but to a DM in their 20s, this could mean a teenage kid. And socially awkward has a broad spectrum of possible definition; do you mean he has problems interacting in a mature fashion? Or that he's shy in general? Or that he makes inappropriate comments around women? Or that he wears a MAGA hat and brings political discussion to the table? Or what?

So, what else? You say he's "often distracted?" How? Is he surfing his phone at the table? Is he constantly checking out the hot customers that come into the store? Is he habitually daydreaming or doodling rather than paying attention? Is he showing up to the able stoned off his ass?  All of these types of "distraction" call for different methods of resolution, so it's hard to give you a specific answer without knowing specifically what's going on.

Finally, you say that Bill rarely engages, occasionally interrupts with rules questions, sometimes takes big risks (getting upset when those risks go poorly), and "mostly just sits there looking at the rule books rolling dice loudly when its not his turn." Okay, great...that is some actionable material to go on.

At my table, we have some "house rules" that I politely (but firmly) enforce. These include:

• no screens at the table during the game (I don't use them either...I print up my material before play)
• all dice rolls are done in the open and in a box top that I use for the purpose
• players may freely consult the PHB at any time

[we also have the house rule "no PvP," but that's not pertinent to your issue]

Players being players they...of course!...play with their dice at the table, stacking them and whatnot. But dice rolls only occur when called for, and players are asked to refrain from dice rolling when not. I do not mind players reviewing the PHB, especially if they need a refresher on their character's abilities...generally they know when they need to put it down and pay attention (their fellow players will call them on it if they start drifting). At convention games, you sometimes find players have only brought digital copies of their books and thus MUST consult a screen for information, and I am generally more relaxed in a con setting; however, in my "home game" (i.e. when not traveling) I usually have multiple PHBs to pass around (I think I own four or five at the moment?), so it's never "necessary" for someone to pull out their tablet or phone, unless they're getting an emergency call. 

Oh...and I never worry about players "interrupting with rules questions."  I am the Dungeon Master after all...as the de facto referee and Final Word on rules arbitration, I'm supposed to know the rules and be able to provide those rules (as needed) to the players. The players cannot play the game to the best of their ability without full knowledge of the rules, and I want them to play to the best of their ability. 

So, what do we have left? Bill rarely engages but sometimes takes "big risks," getting upset when things go poorly. Okay, well, I LIKE my players to take "big risks;" fortune favors the bold, and it makes for an exciting game at the table. However part of growing in experience as a player is learning to take calculated risks (i.e. not taking DUMB risks)...and that's mostly something that's only learned through 'trial & error' (or observing the trial & error of others). For a "young" player, failure is part of the learning process, and it's okay to let players fail...even losing their characters (they can quickly make a new PC and rejoin the game). Upsets can be managed, by making stakes clear before the player attempts something risky ("Well, Bill, you can try to jump over that lava river, but if you fail your roll the PC is going to plunge to a fiery death...just know that up front.")...but tantrums over failure generally decrease as players mature and build resilience through successive failure. It is just a game, after all.

And as for engagement...well, DM, that part's on you, not the player. 

Unless a player is being forced to play (and I have had one or two of those over the years), no person sits down at the D&D table unless they want to engage with the game play. Don't tell me there are some people who "just like to watch"...that's bullshit. You can watch (i.e. observe) the game being played without siting down and making a character, especially in a public space like an FLGS or con setting. Anyone who sits down wants to play...no ifs, ands, or buts about it. 

But the D&D game doesn't "go" without the DM. If you, DM, simply say "You're in the town of XYZ, what do you want to do?" How are they supposed to engage with that?

Player 1: What can we do?

DM: What do you want to do?

Player 2: Um, is anyone offering a job or a quest?

DM: Where are you looking?

Player 1: Is there a tavern nearby? Maybe with job postings?

DM: There's a tavern...the Lusty Lad...you can go check it out.

Player 3: Okay, we do. What do we find there.

DM: Well there's no "job board." There are some dwarves at a table. The bartender is a bearded half-elf. A few rowdies seem to be fighting over a card game they were playing. A serving wench asks if you're here to eat, drink, or both.

Player 2: We ask the woman if she's heard of any adventure around here.

DM: She says, no, but maybe Old Bartleby might know of something. She says he's an old wizard who lives on the outskirts of town and is always getting up to strange things. 

Player 1: Can we get directions to Bartleby's dwelling? 

DM: Sure, but she wants your food order first.

Player 2: Okay, we get....

Meanwhile, Bill has been reading through his PHB and stacking dice. You know why? Because he's bored. I'm bored. I'm bored reading that, I'm bored writing that, I'd certainly be bored running or playing it.

And yet, many DMs waste precious time running D&D in this fashion. Or worse...detailing an encounter with some shopkeeper for players just looking to buy supplies. Maybe the DM is tarting things up with funny voices and accents...it's still poor game play. 

Yet THIS ain't the answer either:

DM: Your food has arrived and you're just digging in when there's a CRASH! as something huge smashes through the wall just behind you...it's a bulette! And it looks hungry! Declare actions and roll for initiative!

There's no meaningful choice being given here, nor is there any player agency being exercised. How can ANY player (let alone a young, socially awkward one) engage with a game that is purely reactive?

Short answer: they can't. 

For players to engage with material, they must be presented with situations that offer choices, and then be allowed the agency to make meaningful decisions that address the situation. Here's a (simple) example:

DM: You guys are low on cash. You've come to the town of Fulz because you've heard rumor that there's a tomb in the foothills nearby that stuffed full of loot, but the locals won't mess with it because it's also supposed to be full of death traps.

Player 1: How would we even know where it is?

DM: A local man is willing to take you there for a hefty fee...or he can offer you a hastily scrawled map for a lower price. However, finding the place without a guide will probably take longer (and incur more wandering monster rolls).

Players (consulting): Okay, we'll pay the guy to take us there.

DM: Great. Now is there anything you want to buy from the town shops in preparation for the adventure?

Look at that! Right off the bat you've got meaningful decisions to engage the players. Do they want to go loot the tomb (they might decide they don't want to)? Do they want to pay for a guide or a map (they could have chosen neither and looked for a third way to find the tomb)? What adventuring gear are they going to encumber themselves with (and spend their dwindling resources on)? After that, it's just roll a couple of encounter checks and deposit the group at the entrance of the creepy tomb...adventure awaits!

As the DM, you need to be presenting the players with situations and scenarios that forces them to make decisions...meaningful, pertinent decisions. This is what creates engagement in the players...this is what causes them to invest themselves (time and energy) in the campaign.

And these situations don't all need to be as simplistic as the tomb example (though simplistic is good for newer, less experienced players). They can be things like:

DM:  Bishop Eustace, the town's patriarch has died. There are ugly rumors around town that he was assassinated at the behest of the local magistrate (with whom the bishop had been feuding lately over matters both spiritual and temporal). To profess his innocence (and not cause a riot) the magistrate has offered 30,000 gold coins to anyone who can determine solid proof that he had nothing to do with the good bishop's death (and, yet, brings some other culprit to justice).

Or how about:

DM: War has recently broken out between the kingdom and the nearby Duchy of Albion. Towns along the border (about 15 miles from where you are) have been pillaged and burned; rumors say the raiders are orc mercenaries wearing the Duke's livery. The burgermeister is mustering the militia in anticipation of an attack, and all able-bodied men and women are required to take up arms...this would include your party members, if you decide to stay in town.

Immediate situations requiring the players to make meaningful choices. Do they stay and fight? Move on to another town, hoping to keep ahead of the advancing forces? Offer their abilities to one side or another? Throw a monkey-wrench into the whole affair by looking for their own means to profit off the situation?

If Bill is only "rarely engaging" with the game, chances are you're not giving him situations with which to (meaningfully) engage. Without something in which to invest his time and attention, how and why can you expect him to engage? Just because he likes to pretend he's an elf?

So, then, DM, here's my advice with regard to poor awkward, young Bill: design adventure scenarios that require the players to make meaningful decisions. Adopt some house rules that cut down on distraction (no screens at the table, no showing up stoned, etc.). Accept that a young player has some growing to do with regard to maturity (dealing with losses) and learning the game (asking questions). Be patient, be firm, be fair. The player will come around, eventually. And you'll be a better DM for it.

Sincerely,

JB

"Fifteen Years"

It's 3am and I'm awake...again.

The part of insomnia that's really miserable these days is the state of my eyes. Once upon a time, I'd wake up in the middle of the night and just read a book until my eyes got tired again and get back to sleep (this didn't always work, but often enough). Now, my eyes are so bad, I can't even read my computer screen...it's just a big, bright blur. Fortunately, I don't need to be able to read to type...although I imagine my typos are fairly horrendous.

White on black text, however is easier to decipher (probably a way to change my blog settings, if I could read them...), and so I skimming the latest Reddit mailbag to see if there was anything "juicy." And I came across a player complaining about her DM "hating" on her characters because they're too effective (*sigh*) and he keeps introducing house rules to nerf their effectiveness.

[what kind of characters, you ask? how about clerics. how about rogues. Like...the basics. Just another shitty DM who can't handle the game mechanics of D&D...]

Anyway, she was writing that perhaps this is perhaps on her, not the DM, because she's been playing since elementary school and has some fifteen years of experience, mostly as a Dungeon Master, and...

Fifteen years?

Fifteen years?!

Fifteen years is a long f'ing time. The last time I worked a regular job-type job, I worked there for fifteen years, and that was (perhaps) about five years too many. Hell, I was there long enough to be vested in the pension plan (this was back when companies still offered pensions...). Fifteen years was definitely the longest I'd worked at ANY one place....

Fifteen years ago, I had no children. I've packed a lot of living, a lot of life experiences into the last fourteen years of being a father...so much so that remembering my child-less life before is just...ancient history or something.

Fifteen years. Fifteen years from now, my son will be almost 30 years old. Hopefully long graduated from college and having a career of his own...maybe even working on a second career. Possibly having a family of his own. Hell, in fifteen years, I might be a grandfather (still won't be retirement age...assuming Social Security is still around  in fifteen years...).

Fifteen years. The person writing this Reddit letter is probably closer to 30 than 25. Can you imagine? A person with fifteen years of D&D experience under her belt, almost 30 years of age, and the only D&D she knows is 4E and 5E? Because they started publishing 4E in 2008, seventeen years ago. And yet, after fifteen years of regular play...especially regular play as a Dungeon Master...I'd daresay ANYone qualifies as a "seasoned veteran" of D&D gaming. Regardless of the editio played.

Yes. Regardless of the edition being played.

Yesterday, I actually wrote that someone was playing D&D wring (because they are), something I've tried hard to avoid putting down in print for years (I've been writing this blog for more than fifteen years, just by the by). Oh, I'll belittle and berate and bully and happily write there are better ways, smarter ways, more effective ways to play the game...sure. But I try really hard not to just put my foot down and say "you're doing it wrong." Because A) who made me the damn expert and B) if they're enjoying their game play, aren't they de facto doing it "right" and C) even if I am right and even if they are wrong, who cares? Will me writing it down stop them from playing how they play?

So I try not to come right out and say "you're playing wrong." I've done it a couple-four times over the years, but I generally have to be pretty worked up. And I often feel "low" after doing so.

NOW...can I even imagine telling a person with fifteen years of solid experience "you're doing it wrong?"

No. I really can't. Because fifteen years is a LONG ASS TIME. And if your passion and love for the game has lasted a decade and a half, to the point that you are still playing, in an age when almost NOTHING lasts fifteen years (aside from familial relationships and our closest friendships)...a fifteen year vocation/hobby is nothing to sniff at. You're not doing something "wrong;" you are doing something very, very right...at least, you have proven that it's "right" for you.

I am...and have been...possibly/probably too hard on these 'young whippersnappers' (30 year olds). It's just tough for a geezer like me to treat people who've never not known the internet with the degree of seriousness and respect that they (probably?) deserve. For that, I apologize...although, I'm sure that 20 years from now, they'll feel much the same about "kids" in their mid-to-late 20s who've never not known A.I.

It is what it is. 

Anyway...it's getting on towards 4am. I'm going to try to get some sleep...we've got a really huge day ahead of us, celebrating Sofia's birthday and such before kids skip town for Easter (Spring) break.

Happy Good Friday, folks. Sorry for the typos (I'll edit this later...when I can see more than a blur).

"Dear JB" Mailbag #26

Dear JB:

Simple question. You have a story, there's a BBEG, a world, stuff happening. You have planned various things. And one of them (not the whole story, but not something insignificant either) turns out to be, well. Not well liked. Not that anyone became rude/unpleasant over it, but you could tell that the affected players weren't happy. None of them. Not because they didn't succeed, but because, say, the reveal recontextualized who they are in a way they don't find fun. Like. They thought they were a poor orphan rising steadily and making a name for themselves, but aha, it turns out they're a long lost prince and know a kingdom wants them. Or, the church they thought they were doing good deeds for is actually ran by a demon who is empowered by all the bad guys the paladin thought was smiting in the name of justice.

Assuming said reveal, while not making things unplayable for the player, clearly made things less fun for them and assuming that retconing it out wouldn't destroy the campaign's story.

Would you consider retconing it? Would you talk to the affected players you suspect are unhappy to ask them if they're okay with how things went down? Would their input affect your consideration on retconning it?

Would You Change A Plot Point That Wasn't Well Received?

Dear Plot Point:

This is not a "simple question." A simple question is the one I almost pulled from the mailbag this week, namely Advice For Running A Shopping Session? I mean, that question is so simple I could have just answered it with a slap across the face. 

Your question, on the other hand, requires a bit more unpacking.

First off, let me start by saying YOU ARE PLAYING DUNGEONS & DRAGONS WRONG. Yes, yes, I am a jerk who just lives to crap all over peoples' "fun." Sorry, but I'm getting a little tired of beating around the bush on this stuff. The fact is, this wouldn't even be an issue for you if you were playing D&D in the correct fashion. 

But don't worry, I'm going to help. 'Cause I'm a helper (in addition to being a jerk).

And, NO, just by the way, this has NOTHING to do with needing to create more "dungeons" for your game. I've written before that dungeons (i.e. static adventure sites) are only the most basic (read "elementary") building block of the game. Players will of course want to come out of the dungeon...at some point...and do 'different things' besides just delving. And fortunately D&D facilitates that kind of play, too.

SO...let's get down to it. Let's first talk about the linear dimension of TIME. From our unenlightened human perspective, time is composed of three parts: the past, the present, and the future. Even narrowing our perception to these three pieces, in the real world we are pretty frigging limited in our ability to view these things. Not only are we NOT omniscient, but our memory of the past is often flawed, our ability to predict the future is a crapshoot (at best), and our perception of the present is colored by our current emotional state and influenced by those hazy past memories and our hopes and fears about the future. Limited is, perhaps, an understatement.

But at least we have clocks.

Now when it comes to the imaginary game world, our perception gets a LOT more crystal clear. We can pause the action at any moment to explain EXACTLY what is going on in the present: as DM I ask what the PCs are doing, the players tell me, and this is it. Likewise, I can clarify EXACTLY what is going on in the environment: my descriptions for the PCs are considered The Facts and, again, I can pause the game and repeat or reiterate those facts so that the players can make decisions with as close to perfect information as possible. 

And the past? The DM has perfect control of "everything that happened before" the time the campaign started. And the PLAYERS have perfect control over "everything that happened before" the campaign started with respect to their characters, though all within the parameters set by dice rolls, game rules, and (at times) the say-so of the DM...although this latter bit mainly has to do with campaign-specific house rules which are the DM's purview. 

SO...excellent perception of past and present. The future, however? Still a crapshoot...a literal "roll of the dice," more often than not.

Which is how we like it! This is (part of) WHY we play D&D...to be surprised and astonished by the emergent play that develops in unforeseen ways at the gaming table. Yes, yes, D&D also allows us our escapist fantasy into a world where we cast magic spells or swing an axe with 18/99 strength...but for those actions to matter, we can't know the outcome beforehand...the future must remain a mystery until it becomes the present. There is no risk, when the future is known...and without risk, there is no excitement. No adrenaline/dopamine high. Which is the chemical reason for why we play the game, even if there are plenty of other great reasons to do so.

[other reasons include: human contact, increasing empathy, building knowledge, practicing literacy, organization, and math skills, fostering cooperation and creativity, improving focus and attention, etc.]

Anyway...that's the way the game is supposed to be played. That ain't what you're doing.

D&D PLAY IS NOT STORYTELLING. I know I keep saying this (in different ways) but it is so difficult to drill this through the calcified ignorance of the thick-skulled modern gamer. A storyteller (for example, an author or playwright) has PERFECT INFORMATION OF THE FUTURE. Because they are telling a story for a reason and thus need to know the final destination of the story. How does it get to "The End?" How does the situation resolve for the hero/villain? Is anything "learned" by the characters of the story? Do any of the characters change/develop...for good or for ill?  A storyteller has complete control over their story and knows both its beginning and its end. For the story's audience, the future is unknown, but the audience members are simply passengers on the ride (hopefully an entertaining ride)...there is no mystery for the teller of the tale. 

D&D is not an act of storytelling. The DM is not a storyteller; they are a participant in a game. The players are not characters in a story; they are participants in a game. We do not know the outcome of a game; we play a game NOT ONLY for the enjoyment of the game play BUT with at least some curiosity to see in what way the play of the game will resolve itself. 

These "problems" you cite, Plot Point, are only problems that come from your attachment to outcomes...they come from you wanting to be a storyteller, from wanting the future to play out in a particular fashion, and from wanting a deeper control over the past and present than what you have a right to or (I'd argue) what you are authorized to have.

Let's look at the two examples you give in your letter:

#1 A player creates a character. Let's say the character is a human fighter. The player says the character was an orphan (a good enough concept...they could have just as easily said they came from a loving household full of siblings), and you tacitly gave permission to this...as the player proceeded to act under this assumption ("rising steadily," working to "make a name for themselves") without you disabusing themselves of this notion until, "O Wait...you're a prince and your people want you back." 

Nope...you don't get to do that. I mean, you can (it would seem you certainly did) but this kind of pulling the rug out will breed distrust within your players. And without trust in the DM as a neutral referee (because, instead, the DM has demonstrated an arbitrary nature of warping reality, i.e. the game "past") the players are no longer under any obligation to take the game seriously. Certainly, they will be less "free and open" with the choices they make (i.e. you've clamped down on player agency) because they now understand that reality is subject to whimsical DM fiat at any moment the DM is inclined to make things "a better story." If the DM can suddenly say one character is a "prince" what's to stop the DM from saying another character is "demon spawned" or another PC has a "hereditary disease that will eventually cause blindness" or...whatever? Nothing, that's what.

The game has rules. Players make their characters. DMs make the world. Them's the rules. Fuck your story. This kind of shit kills players' desire to play.

#2 You have a "big reveal" that the church of good deeds is run by "a demon who is empowered by all the bad guys the paladin thought was smiting in the name of justice." First off, this doesn't make any sense in terms of D&D game concepts. Second off, it's lazy and stupid world building.

Now, a quick caveat: it is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE for a DM to create an organization (church, guild, town council, whatever) that is being influenced or controlled by nefarious actors (demons, evil mages, Russian oligarchs, whatever). Corruption and organized crime are a lot older than the Medici family. In fact, depending on how "grimdark" the DM's campaign, it might be a challenge for the players to find ANY outside group or institution worth trusting or working for...and that's FINE. Such a campaign world can foster a deep sense of camaraderie and trust in the players (which we want for a solid game) as they come to find that the only folks they can rely on are themselves. Just understand where this is going to lead your campaign (some DMs dislike the idea of a "grimdark" setting) and understand that you, DM, are creating this paranoia in your players.

However, that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. Instead, Plot Point, there's a decision to pull the rug out (again) for the sake of a "big reveal" (for effect) that makes little sense in terms of verisimilitude: why is the demon-ruled church hiring the PCs to do "good deeds?" How is the demon empowered by smote "bad guys?" How is this church even continuing to function? Do the clerics still offer healing magic? How? Why has there been no hint/foreshadowing of this before (in terms of clerics losing spell casting ability, weirdness among the church hierarchy, parishioners being "disappeared," temple losing its feeling of "sanctity," paladin detecting evil, etc.)? 

And perhaps the answer to all those questions is "it's a new thing;" the demon JUST took over, the process of corruption has just begun, and the church is going to be WAY different now that there's 'a new sheriff in town.' And if that's the case, then this new development represents NOT a "plot point" but just another SITUATION to occupy the attention of a hearty group of adventurers. 

And that is "normal" D&D. And, as such, there's NOTHING to "retcon:" as with any and all "normal D&D" scenarios, players are free to take it or leave it...they have agency; they have choice. There's nothing to complain about...either they'll say "Boo! Hiss! We need to stop this demonic entity for the sake of getting our goody-goody church back!" Or they'll say "Eh, not worth the effort" and move on to a different town with a different church/patriarch (while the demon-corrupted shrine continues to grow and fester and become a bigger problem to the campaign world). 

SO...if I were to give a "simple answer" to your "simple question," I'd (simply) say: there's never any reason to retcon. Keep your hands off PCs' personal histories (i.e. "backstories") once the PCs are in play. And don't undermine verisimilitude and basic game tenets in the name of "cheap thrills" (i.e. reveals, plot twists). Stop worrying about the integrity/continuity of your campaign's precious "story;" D&D is not a game about telling stories.

How many ways do I need to say this?

Sincerely, 

JB

Quick Tuesday News & Notes

Spent all of yesterday doing my taxes, so I'm taking a bit of a day for myself. Apologies. Hope to post something later this week.

For the curious: our volleyball season is over. We lost in the semi-final to a very good team that received some very questionable line-judging calls from the parent/volunteer. By my count we won the first set 25-21 (rather than lost 21-25), and if that's judged differently, we go to a third set with our strongest players and a good chance to win. Maybe. They were still a very good team.

And you can call it sour grapes, but we did go to the championship on Sunday (by "we" I mean myself and half the team), and watched a game with neutral (i.e. official league ref) line judges and watched them play extremely mediocre and get beat in straight sets. To a team that (I think) we also could have handled.

Ah, well...it is what it is. We had a very good, very successful season with a group of kids (most of whom were new to the sport) who had a great time. Losing is a part of sport...a valuable part, as it helps build resilience. You don't die from a loss: you pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and move on to the next challenge, hopefully taking a moment to glance over your shoulder at the road you just navigated for the length of the season (12 weeks for us, and a lot of victories under the belt). There's even some discussion about a couple/few of our players moving into club volleyball. Diego's one of them...though he intends to see how his soccer try-outs go first.

Volleyball. Such fun.

 

And good for the boys. Been listening to Steven Bartlett's Diary of a CEO podcast lately and I found this one with Logan Ury and Scott Galloway was really thought provoking. While it doesn't address Dungeons & Dragons or the place of fantasy RPGs in the scheme of the declining demographic of young males, it made me consider what could be the benefit of such groups (something that has been broached before by others in our community). Noisms definitely had a point with the importance of male role-models to young men...and yet, I'm NOT a humongous fan of "all dude gaming groups," finding it pretty neat/useful to have people of different genders playing/operating together in a cooperative fashion that lets all sides see others' strength and value to the collective. For me, growing up playing D&D with young women was immensely helpful...and yet, I also had the benefit of many male role models in my life (my father was around till I was seventeen, and I had male teachers, male coaches, male Scout masters, etc.). There are plenty of boys...including those I grew up with...who didn't have the same luxury. And that sad state of affairs is, it seems, becoming more common not less.

Mm. Just something I'm thinking about this week, as my own "young man" (who is now taller than his mother) is gearing up for high school. Probably I should just keep coaching.

Funny observation from coaching both boys and girls sports teams: with regard to boys, the main issue is keeping them disciplined and focused; for girls, the main issue is stoking their "competitive fire." Doesn't mean there aren't boys who are disciplined (like Diego) or girls who are fiery competitors (like Sofia), I'm just talking about "general trends." But you know what? I think one of the things that has helped BOTH my kids in this regard is the game of Dungeons & Dragons: playing D&D has forced Diego to reign back his more reckless impulses and had forced Sofia to step up and be more assertive. Yet another great reason to encourage your kids to play D&D from an early age!

*ahem*

The last thing I'll mention is that I am, indeed, working on some D&Dish stuff; ending vball, getting the taxes filed, and getting through all D's high school enrollment stuff means I suddenly have some extra "free" time. Today, I've been going through a LOT of old stuff that's been lingering in open windows on Ye Old laptop...adventures I'm writing and whatnot...and I came across this old (I mean old) post that any fan of T1 or The Temple of Elemental Evil might enjoy perusing. It's not the blog post itself, but the discussion in the comments (spearheaded by the once prolific scottsz) that is worth the read. This kind of discussion...minus all the Greyhawk-ian "lore"...is the kind of thought process I go through these days when I'm rewriting/repurposing a Hickman adventure module. Not that they don't "function" (well...) adequately for an evening's D&D entertainment. But it's possible to do a deeper dive and dig into the "why" of a thing such that it translates into stronger world building in your campaign.

Which is a VERY GOOD thing. For me, anyway. Because I'm not into superficial ("cheap") thrills when it comes to my game. Oh, it doesn't matter to me that such information will probably NEVER matter to anyone besides myself (certainly not the players!)...it helps me understand and grasp how the adventure works and how it fits with everything else going on in my game world. Which gives a comprehension of my campaign world such that I can answer any insipid questions the players come up with in a reasoned and meaningful way. Which makes me a better Dungeon Master. Hard to be a Dungeon Master if you can't even 'master' your own world.

ANYway...good post, good discussion. I'm not a Greyhawk dude, but between that, Joe Bloch, and Trent (whose new book you should take a look at if you're interested in 1E adventure material) I feel like I might want to do something with ToEE. And I have a pretty good idea what (although let me get through these other three projects first!).

Also, it may be time to revisit cosmology in my AD&D game. That should be the subject of my next blog post.  When I have the time.

; )

"Dear JB" Mailbag #25

Oh, boy...a good one!

Dear JB:

Hi I am DM who has for three years been hosting a homebrew campaign with a few friends. They have all been fantastic players and each have their own feats and flaws as characters and players. Recently however in the past few months I as a DM have been having to make multiple messages to people outside the game and police players due to disputes that start at the table that take carried resentment outside the table.

Three of my players are experienced dnd players before this campaign and are a little more causal in gameplay and all have neutral alignments as characters. One player though is a first time dnd player and has a character most similar to him in reality as they are in roleplay. This character is lawful good in alignment. The good player while still after three years has been playing the same first dnd character he has ever made and has attachment to them. The player while inexperienced is actually by far my most engaged player who takes enough notes for everyone at the table, is constantly reading creative ways to use his spells, and is always reading up on his notes and ready for each session. He has however given his character an uncompromising righteous moral compass that has very often caused issue at the table.

The party often times does what dnd players often want to do and attempt to do some morally questionable shenanigans. Most recently this was discussion about killing an orc chief for his head as part of a larger plot. This orc chief has not wronged the party in anyways the party has never met him and only knows of him through convo with other orcs. 3 out of 4 players want to do this plan. The good player has said he refuses to do this and will not allow the party to do so as well. This is not the first time the other 3 party members have had their plans cut off with no room for compromise by the good players moral compass, and the other players have messaged me outside of the table to let me know they feel like the other players morals is starting to railroad their gameplay and isn’t letting them play the fun decisions they want.

Now I as DM have tried multiple solutions to no success. I have offered good player retire his character to have someone who’s goals align more with the rest of the party. He has refused as he wants to wrap up a lot of unresolved plot points on his current character. Out of my own speculation I believe this is also his first dnd character ever that he has had for three years now and this character very much embodies the player irl. I think he’s especially attached and would really miss his current character. I’ve offered the party to roll persuasion checks against one another but this has always lead to passive aggressive roleplay that leads to passive aggressive players outside the table.

Things are finally starting to come to a head as I as a DM am exhausted of constantly having the same convo in role play that eats up valuable session time when everybody is already well aware of everyone else’s morals. Im also tired of having to feel like the bad guy as the go between about passive aggressive characters because I’m DM. I’m curious if anyone has ever had a similar situation like this or if you know of any possible solutions? We’re all friends and would like to stay that way and keep playing our dnd with as little friction as possible.

TL;DR One character’s moral compass has caused increasing table wide arguments and made being DM difficult.

Players Constantly Arguing Morals

Dear PCAM:

Before I answer your question, I want to first correct some misassumptions you're making:

• Anyone who's played D&D for three straight years in the same campaign should NOT be classified as "inexperienced." You identify this player as "the most engaged," member of your party, someone who actively prepares for sessions, knows his character's capabilities, and makes creative use of those abilities. I would therefore NOT be judging the player by the same standards as a "novice."
• players are their characters; a character's behavior is determined by a player's choice. You should never attempt to distinguish the two. A player may NEVER divorce themselves from their character's actions with the statement "that's just what my character would do." The kind of conflict you describe is NEVER an issue of players creating "incompatible characters." Keep that firmly in mind.
• Only DMs "railroad." Players cannot "railroad" a campaign...they do not have the power to do so. Only DMs are invested with that amount of power and authority.
• PvP play (including allowing players to make "persuasion checks against one another") is...in my experience...almost never good, useful, or conducive to long-term play. And when I say "almost never" I mean 99.9% of the time. Most human beings are simply incapable of not having "hard feelings" about this kind of thing.

Okay, we got all that? Then let's move onto your quandary.

The issue you have is that one player's approach to D&D is different from the approach of the other players at the table. You talk about the other players being "more experienced" but what you really mean is that they've played in other campaigns before and have certain biases and assumptions of how D&D is meant to be played, often including (what I'd agree are) "normal player shenanigans," said shenanigans being of the morally questionable variety. You blame the player's personal morals for his lack of willingness to compromise with the other players when it comes to taking these shenanigan actions. This lack of compromise leads to "exhausting" table arguments between the players that you, as the DM, are tired of mediating.

There is a short answer here, and a longer one.

The short answer is this: players have different personalities. They don't always get along nor do they always have the same approach to addressing a problem/challenge that arises in play. This is the same as in REAL LIFE...we go to school with (or end up working with) people who are NOT THE SAME as us, and yet somehow we still manage to get along 'well enough' that we aren't rolling around on the floor, punching each other in the face. How is this accomplished? 

By working together towards a common goal.

It's your job, PCAM, to give the players a common goal, because YOU are the Dungeon Master. The D&D game is built on the premise that a disparate band of adventurers are working together  to survive and thrive in a perilous fantasy world...they may have their differences (in backgrounds, training, racial types, skill sets, experience) but because they are all rowing in the same direction, they get along.

The players want to kill an orc chief. Why? Does it work towards their common goal? If it does, and the odd player has an issue with that, is he offering an alternative solution? One that is more efficient (i.e. offers less risk, carries more reward)? If he's not, than it's up to you, PCAM, to point this out: the party has a goal, this is the only/best path forward they've found to reach their goal, and if your character (i.e. YOU, Mr. Odd Player) can't hack it, your character should leave the party. That's the game...D&D is a team sport.

On the other hand, if killing the orc chief is NOT the best road to the goal the party has but, instead, simply shenanigans of the "We're bored and we're playing D&D and we haven't killed anything lately let's go kill this guy," then it's up to the morally upright player to make their case for why doing this is a bad idea AND (if he's got a valid point) I'd say part of your job as DM is to support his valid point to the other players ("you know, Bill here makes a good point fellas...maybe there is a different way forward"). But if the other players are simply "Har har, it's D&D let's kill people" and that's the type of game YOU want to run, PCAM...well, Bill might be in the wrong group.

Which brings me to my longer answer: what kind of game are YOU running? Because here's the thing: part of the job of the DM is to world build, and in world building you may find there is good place for the morally upright adventurer. In our real world, after all, there is a place for the people to make morally righteous decisions, even in dangerous and dire circumstances...real people do this all the time. And in an RPG like D&D, where players have agency, players should be able to make their own choices about the actions they (in their role as PCs) take...and endure the consequences of those choices.

How deep is your world, PCAM? Are actions consequential? There is nothing "morally bad" about slaying an NPC who had no consequential impact on the fabric of the campaign world before or after its appearance. Such a cardboard NPC is nothing...a figment of imagination, easily forgotten five minutes after its HP count hits zero. Such is the same with the wandering giant spider that surprises (or is surprised by) the party in a dungeon. I'd imagine the player has no "moral problem" with killing such a thing, if only in self-defense.

But what consequences are there for the orc chieftain? Is his tribe fairly peaceful, trading with the local human community (a good reason orcs have gold is for trade)? Are there "half-orc" tribal members that have contacts and relations with people in the human towns? Does he defend his territory against a more violent menace that would cause a real problem if his tribe was removed? Would "taking his head" lead to a war of reprisal from the surviving members of his tribe (and thus cause suffering with the local community)? Does he have relatives (other chieftains) in other tribes who would seek redress/revenge, much as did Bolg, son of Azog, in Tolkien's The Hobbit? What other allies of the chieftain might the PCs be pissing off by murdering the guy?

PCAM, you see your "moral player" has a problem. I see a guy giving you the opportunity to kick your campaign into a higher gear. When we sit down to play a game of Monopoly, we are not worried about the "moral implications" of being slum lords and capitalist pigs...we are just playing a game.  When we sit down to play D&D we can decide to play it in much the same way: kick in the doors, kill the monsters, loot the treasure. But that type of play tends to pale after a while. After a while, as Gygax pointed out in the DMG, players want their efforts to mean something in the overall grand scheme of things. They want to be part of something greater.

That "greater something" is only possible in a developed game world. And developing the game world is the DM's job. You say the player is creative, effective, and the most engaged member of the group...and yet you want to go along with the "har har kill" guys? That's choosing to play small ball after three years of campaigning. Maybe it's time to up your game, PCAM.

Moral quandaries are only issues if they're consequential. If the orc chieftain is a threat to the local humans because he is violent and warlike and wants to enlarge his territory and enslave the indigenous peoples then the "moral" thing to do would be to use one's powers to end his threat. If he's not a threat, then why do the players want to kill him? Because he's there? Okay. But if he's truly inconsequential ("We just don't like orcs 'round these here parts.") then why is he even there? Why doesn't he move himself and his tribe away as soon as he hears there's a band of racist, murderous thugs in the area that scalp orcs for shits & giggles?  Unless he has enough warriors to make such a conflict a dangerous proposition for the party (i.e. "consequential") why is he sticking around?

Or a better question: why are you, DM, putting him in your game? Just so your players can get their jollies with a little wanton pillage?  

After three years of running the same group you're not ready for something with a little more meat on the bone?

When building your world, make it consequential. Then players can have healthy (i.e. constructive) debate over what is the "right" thing to do when challenges arise. So long as they all have the same goal they're working towards, one player's "morality" shouldn't end up being a problem, because it's either get on the team or exit stage left. You can steer the car down a different road, but it better end up at the same destination. Because that's the game. 

And if that's NOT the game...if all the players have different goals and different motivations and different objectives they're working towards...well, that's on the Dungeon Master. That's on you, PCAM.

Sincerely, 

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #24

Dear JB:

Don’t get me wrong I enjoy everything around the hobby (designing a character, writing a backstory, etc.) but for some reason when I’m at a table and it’s my character’s turn to do something I just freeze. I just can’t bring myself to think of anything my character would do until long after the session’s finished.

I joined a campaign a few months ago and the campaign’s been going pretty well but every time the dm looks at me I don’t have anything to say. I’m basically just watching the others play together at this point. I keep running into this issue and I can’t help but feel like I’m ruining the game.

This isn’t the first time it’s happened either. I had a campaign that I was playing over discord and I had the same issue.

The few times I did enjoy dnd were at new player tables where the environment was more relaxed and it wasn’t so rp heavy. It’s hard for me to keep up with more advanced players who come in with their min maxed builds that kill everything in one shot.

I want to hang out with this crowd and other dnd players but I think I’m just not cut out for a hobby that’s so improv-heavy.

I Think I'm Just Bad At DND

Dear BAD:

I was born, raised, and continue to live in Seattle, Washington. As such, when it comes to the MLB the team I pull for is the Seattle Mariners. Which is pathetic, because they have a long and continuing history of frustrating failure...the only MLB team to never make a World Series, let alone win one.

And because I refuse to give dollar one to an ownership group who (despite being reported as one of the most profitable teams in MLB) refuse to pay money to sign good players (in a non-salary cap sport)...essentially 'voting with my wallet'...I can't even WATCH the games at home, because I won't pay for a subscription to the team owned channel that carries the games. So in order to follow the games, I tune in to Chris Crawford's My Oh Why YT channel. Crawford (a minor league scout, sports writer, and lifelong M's fan) recaps every single game, win or lose, with the straight scoop, and his passion, humor, and honesty makes the following of this frustrating team somewhat bearable.  And after last night's 12th inning 2-1 loss in which our starting pitching gave up no earned runs and the team went 1 for 19 with runners in scoring position (and 19 strikeouts overall to a mid pitching squad), he chose to discuss how he first fell in love with the team in the mid-90s and how, despite the frustrations with the 1997 team, they were still fun to watch and how he would prefer to watch fun baseball that fails over bad baseball that enjoys mediocre success. Watching last night's game made him nostalgic for the times when the team played in a way that won people over, instead of a way that pushed them into frustration and apathy.

Reading your email, I have profound empathy for Crawford's position. 

I will continue to assert that playing D&D is NOT acting, even if you happen to see professional actors playing D&D around a game table. I trained as an actor (that's what I was doing in the mid-90s, instead of watching the Mariners). I was a good actor. Reviews of my work stated "While others on the stage were merely 'acting,' he was the only person to put on a genuine performance such that I believed he actually was the character." Why I didn't become a professional actor is a short and (ultimately) silly story, but I regret nothing...my life is wonderful.

Acting is hard work, and every actor ALWAYS has some modicum of fear before stepping onto the stage to give a performance. However, there are three things that carry you through the trepidation and steel your will:

• the camaraderie of your fellow actors
• the lines you've worked so hard to memorize and rehearse
• the mental craft you've used to help you understand and embody your character

Truth be told, for me that third bit was the part I was best at and which I leaned on the most. Memorizing lines was a necessary chore (and my least favorite part of the process), but I was never one to need my fellow actors to "give" me anything on stage. I simply became the character, with my own motivations...they would play off me. 

I was a good actor. But I was NOT good (certainly not as good) at improvisation.

Improv actors...the good ones anyway...are a different breed. They are quick-witted, sure, but more than anything they are mercurial...they can easily shift on a dime to the needs of the story being told. It takes a certain type of headspace to play off-book well, to be able to adjust in a way that does use the give-and-take of your fellow actors on-stage. You have to listen to what they're saying, synthesize it through the filter of the character you're playing, and respond in an appropriate fashion. It's difficult to do well...most of the time, it comes off pretty hammy (which is why you see most improv troupes working comedy routines like Theater Sports...they're all big hams looking to milk laughs from the audience). I would argue that serious improv has a very small appeal...it's one of the reasons the LARP community is pretty small in comparison to the rest of the RPG hobby. Back when I ran a lot of Vampire the Masquerade (in the early '90s), I would play NPCs as if I was acting in character (i.e. improvising)...it tended to make my players exceptionally uncomfortable. I eventually stopped doing more than using the occasional pseudo-accent.

BAD, you are not "bad at D&D." You are simply uncomfortable doing improvisational acting. Designing a character, creating a backstory...these are things that ANY person with an imagination can do. We've all read books (even if only forced to do so in school). We've all seen movies and TV shows. We've all fantasized of living a different life...probably one in which we had superhuman abilities or magical powers. Thinking up a character and considering how they got from "birth" to "present" (i.e. the backstory) is a simple matter of letting our mind wander in a directed fashion.

But there is a vast difference between thinking and acting...and especially a difference between thinking and performing. 

Your problem, BAD, is NOT that you're "bad at D&D." Your problem is that you live in a day and age where the predominant thinking about the POINT of D&D is pretty fucked up.

You, BAD, want to play a game in which you can escape from the humdrum and/or stress of your daily life in a world of fantasy and adventure. And you want to do so with other, likeminded people who ALSO want to experience a world of fantasy and adventure. In such an imaginary world, you require an imaginary character to act as a vehicle...and you've said you like designing characters (and seem to know how to do it). From where I'm sitting, you have all the tools you need to play D&D...actual D&D, the game D&D...in a competent fashion.

Unfortunately, your Dungeon Master is an idiot child.

I run tables with experienced gamers and with rank novices...often at the same time. I can do this because I run the game as a game. I'm okay with players "talking in character," but it's certainly not necessary...and generally there's not a lot of time for "role-playing" (as you use the term) because the players' attention is focused on the situation at hand, NOT the drama (or potential drama) that comes from improvising personalities around the table. And...so far as I've been told by my players...no one has ever felt inadequate in their ability to contribute. EVERYone is contributing...even if they're just taking hits that might have done damage to a fellow PC. Everyone in the party is giving something. And everyone is having fun.

There was a time, BAD...maybe 30 years ago, maybe less, maybe more...there was a time, when I wouldn't have needed to write all this out. There was a time when this was obvious...when people sat down to play D&D, and everyone understood the point of play. And for some people, it wasn't their cup of tea, sure...not every person loves playing every game. I stopped playing baseball at age 10...it doesn't mean I don't understand what the game is about or how it's meant to be played. 

But now...NOW...I look at D&D the same as I look at the Mariners. And there are plenty of people still willing to shell out money to get in the door of a luxury ballpark, so they can stand around in the beer garden on a sunny day, kabitzing with friends, hitting on members of the opposite sex, and having only a passing interest in the product on the field...the bad product on the field. They're not there for the game of baseball. If they were, they'd be outraged...and they'd take their wallets somewhere else. And maybe then the ownership group would do something about the product they're pedaling, even if meant selling the team to someone that cares about more than profits.

From last night's game...

D&D should be an enjoyable experience for people who are interested in playing a game of fantastic fantasy adventure. It should be fun for people who enjoy imagining themselves doing dangerous and heroic deeds as an escape from the daily grind. It should be a game that appeals to and is accessible by a broad range of people of all ages, ethnicities, races, genders, religions, etc....so long as they're people that enjoy a good yarn about sword-swinging action, magic, dragons, etc.

BAD, I tell you with all sincerity: you are not the person who's "bad at D&D." And I'm sorry that you've had multiple experiences where you felt you were: there's a lot of ignorance out there. Don't allow yourself to be gaslit.

Sincerely,

JB