"Dear JB" Mailbag #10

[I'm not sure how many more of these I plan on doing. A lot of these reddit gripes are fairly repetitive. And, yet, the dumb answers most of these folks get just incense and fuel me to new rants. I really just need to write a "How To" book for the market...but the topic is so LARGE it's easier to tackle it piecemeal through dumb little posts like this. *sigh* I'm lazy, I know...]

Dear JB:

This is my first time DMing, last campaign our DM preferred being a player so I volunteered to DM the next campaign. I was pretty excited and I took a ton of time planning out my campaign. While I was planning the campaign, I wanted some help from the previous DM. She helped me and while helping me she made her own character, Mildred. She told me her character's lore and asked me if I could incorporate some of her lore into the campaign so I said sure but I tried not to incorporate too much of it but before I knew it, suddenly she made her character become the entire campaign. As she helped me build the campaign she just kept putting more and more of her character's stuff into the campaign to the point where I really thought "damn if you like this character so much then just make your own campaign then". I allowed some stuff but most of it I told her I would not be adding. Then when the campaign started, she started adding her own stuff into the world. She made her own npc's for my campaign, she planned out her own fight with a monster she created in MY campaign, she told the other players what to roll for even though I didn't want them rolling?? I talked to her separately saying that this was my campaign, she shouldn't be adding in random stuff without debriefing me first. And she said that she did debrief me, because she kept telling me about her theories on the campaign. I didn't want to confirm nor deny campaign theories because I think it's fun to make theories on the campaign I didn't want to limit her or stop her on doing theories. But apparently, since I didn't say that her theories were wrong she just straight up assumed that what she said was right and she just started adding her theories into the campaign?????? This has made me not like DMing and I hate the campaign now, I no longer want to play dnd anymore because she is just making it so unenjoyable. I don't know what to do! 

 TLDR; First time DMing, previous DM won't stop controlling my campaign even though I keep asking her not to and she has somehow made the entire campaign revolve around HER character 

 Okay sorry for rant y'all I'm just so fed up and I don't know what to do

This Is My First Time DMing

Hey, First Time:

I am going to try to be gentle here...but it's hard. It's really, really hard. The second sentence of your letter states:

I was pretty excited and I took a ton of time planning out my campaign.

Were you? Did you? And now you write:

...I hate the campaign now, I no longer want to play dnd anymore...

Because of someone else's actions. As if you didn't have COMPLETE AND UTTER CONTROL OVER YOUR OWN WORLD.  The "TLDR" bit is the kicker: "previous DM won't stop controlling my campaign even though I keep asking her not to and she has somehow made the entire campaign revolve around HER character." 

You f'ing child. 

Either it's YOUR campaign, and YOU are the Dungeon Master...or it's not. Period. End of story. 

What "help" did you ask your previous DM for? As a new DM, asking for help is a great idea...questions like what's important? What should I focus on? How do I prep? Which rules should I commit to memory? Which rules should I have on cheat sheets or tabbed in my DMG? How do I stock a dungeon? These types of pointers are the kind of helpful advice that an experienced DM can give to a new DM, and a new DM would be WISE to take advantage of any willing mentor.

But it sounds to me like you weren't looking for info on how to run a game and be a competent DM. Instead, you were looking for CONTENT to put in your campaign. Which is a blatant failure.

Why did you want to be a DM? Why? Can you answer that question? For most of us "long-timers" there's a number of reasons, some simple, some complicated. But at the heart of it, there is at least some desire to be a creator...because creation is a large part of the action and responsibility of the Dungeon Master. 

The DM role is not a passive, reactive one. DMs are initiators of action.  Even if your world building chops are poor (and any DM should be working to improve those skills), you must create situations for your players to explore...or else there is no game. 

So...tell me why you wanted to be a DM? Did you have no ideas for situations? No content you wanted to implement?

[yes, I know some will say the urge to DM comes from a desire for power and control, and that's not invalid. But even jackass DMs of the worst sort are creators of situations...bad situations!...for their players]

Now, you say you put a "ton of time" into "planning your campaign." But what does that mean? Because clearly that doesn't translate to much actual effort on your part. Because if it did, you wouldn't be whining and crying like a baby and ready to chuck the whole thing in the trash. In fact, if you had put any real effort into the creation of your campaign, there's no way in hell you'd ever have let your old DM walk all over you in the way you describe!

As with other letter writers, this is an issue of YOU being the asshole in the situation, not the player. The person you're angry with is YOURSELF, because you committed to running a game, and then you half-assed it (at best), and then you allowed an experienced player to write your campaign for you. 

To me, this sounds like you aren't really cut out to be a DM and what you're doing now is looking for an excuse to cut bait and go back to being a player while somehow saving face, i.e. you want your prior DM to take over, but want to bitch about it so that you aren't shown to be the coward and slacker you really are.

Let Me Be Clear: DMs who want to be players aren't doing it because they want to create content 'on the sly.' They're doing it because they want a break from the shackles of being a DM and experience the "other side of the screen" for a while. But we're not trying to "secretly take over, manipulate the DM, and control the game;" if we wanted to run a game, guess what? We'd be running the game as the Dungeon Master! We know how to do it, and we'd do it, and the players would come because there are always people who want to play and who don't want to do the work of being a DM. Your old DM? She's filling a VOID that you are leaving in your game because she knows what's supposed to be there (content for engagement), and you're not providing it. The resentment you're feeling should be squarely directed in the mirror. 

But go ahead and listen to all the idiots on Reddit telling you to show your player the door, or talk her down from providing content, or ignoring her, or punishing her character. Go ahead: kick her to the curb! And then what? Are you (finally) going to put on your Big Boy Pants and create your own content? Or are you going to continue to flounder around until you can find some other lame-ass excuse to disband the campaign.

Because here's the thing: if you WERE doing your job as a DM, this would be a NON-ISSUE. If you were creating your own situations for the players, they wouldn't be worried about concocting "theories" (whatever the fuck that means)...they'd be too busy engaging with your game world. They wouldn't need to come up with interesting scenes or NPCs or monster encounters (!!) if you were creating that content. The way that a Dungeon Master is supposed to. 

Here's the most solid advice I can give you, First Time DM: bow out. With as much grace as possible. Acknowledge that you weren't quite ready to take up the mantle of Dungeon Master. Ask your former DM if she'd be willing to run the game again (and thank her for doing her best to bail your sorry ass out). AND, if you find you still have the bug to DM, then start doing the work...on the side. Write down your own ideas (not all of which you'll keep) for your own campaign, for your own adventures, for your own NPCs and situations. And when you're ready...really ready, ready to work...only then throw your hat in the ring and offer to run a game. And give yourself the patience to learn on the job (because that's how we all do it), while using your own content to run your own campaign. Chalk up this failed experiment as a learning experience (we can learn from our failures) and GROW from it. Humble pie is good for the soul.

Sincerely,

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #9

Dear JB:

every single one of the party members in the campaign I run and they try to murder every npc I've introduced they tried murdering and I need advice as I don't want to ruin their fun as well as stopping them.

How To Deal With Murder Hobos

Dear HTDWMH:

I've read a lot...a LOT...of letters complaining about murder hobos. I'm posting yours because, although poorly written, it is short, describes the issue, and voices a possible concern (ruining the players' fun). However, what I am about to write would certainly apply to ANY letter writer concerned with "the murder hobo problem."

Deep breath.

"Murder hobo" is one of those terms that has changed over time. When I first heard the phrase, it playfully referred to the average (D&D) adventure party. Why? Because adventurers are a group of folks without homes (until Name level) that wander about the fantasy world engaging in violence as a means to make their living. It was a wink-and-a-smile at the basic premise of the original fantasy RPG: combat (even against "evil" and "monsters") is still just a form of killing (i.e. murder) and these protagonists were outside the norms of whatever established society the game world has.

It was a way to jokingly refer to the PCs, purposefully ignoring the nuance and context that makes a game of (essentially) killing and looting enjoyable by viewing it through the perspective of non-gamer eyes.

NOW, though, the term has come to mean something else...instead of being used to describe ANY adventuring party, it is used to describe a specific type of player: one who indiscriminately kills (i.e. engages in combat) during the game, even when doing so is deemed inappropriate or counter-productive to the goals/objectives of the party.  And in SOME instances, it is used to describe a player who engages in ANY form of combat without just cause...and sometimes even with just cause! Here's an example from another letter:

Whilst traveling to investigate a temple affiliated with the city guard that had misteriously fallen silent for the past couple weeks they encountered 3 random bandits ransacking a cart. After trying and failing to sneak up on the bandits the ranger was confronted by one of them and threatened to leave. Failing to comply because the party took too long to decide what to do, the first bandit loosed an arrow at him, not hitting him.

This triggered initiative, the ranger was up first, hunter's marking one of the other bandits standing nearby and killing him with a single arrow through the eye. Next up was the sorcerer, 3 magic missiles to the chest took care of the second bandit standing next to the first.

The last bandit, seeing his compatriots killed instantly, decided to run. He jumped out of the cart but fell flat on his face because of the mud from earlier heavy rain. After scampering to his feet he made a dash for it fully intending to get away. The paladin, a former mercenary, saw all of this happening and was content not having to do anything. The druid used her turn to speak to her party to the effect of "what the F, guys?!"

The initiative came back around to the hunter. who, after moving his hunters mark to the runner, gave the final, fleeing, bandit an arrow to the back of the skull as a parting gift.

The session ended with the hunter looting the corpses, the paladin finding footprints leading away from the cart, a suspected fleeing owner, and the sorcerer skinning the dead ox that was pulling the cart. The druid player was playfully disappointed in her party, and made it clear that her character is very much not okay with the callous murder of 3 people.

This one was signed "Murderhobo Drama." I could show another one (from a player) who was ostracized by his fellow party members for killing a goblin (in combat!) during a raid of its lair by the PCs.

More often, however, the "murder hobo" label is applied to a character who decides to slay non-combatant NPCs for little reason. A tavern keeper giving the PC lip. A shopkeeper that won't lower their prices. A "quest giver" NPC who the player(s) find annoying. These kinds of in-game actions are considered to be disruptive and/or derailing to the story the DM is attempting to tell.

Another deep breath.

Here's the short answer: DMs, the problem is not "murder hobos;" the problem is YOU.

I do not have, nor have I ever seen, "murder hobos" at my table (in 40+ years of play), unless you mean in the tongue-in-cheek original sense of the term (i.e. when all un-settled adventurers are little more than wandering, murderous hobos). But if you mean in the "disruptive" or "derailing" present day use of the term, then nope, no murder hobos here.

And these days I'm (usually) playing with kids. 

First off, how fucking boring must your game be that the players can find nothing better to do than stab some NPC shopkeeper? I mean, really. Players never even interact with NPC shopkeepers in my game! "Do you guys want to buy some equipment before heading out?" Yeah. "Okay, tell me what you buy and how much it costs and let's go." 

The only reason to go into any detail about a particular non-dungeon location (such as a tavern or inn or shop) is because that location is pertinent to the adventure (say, the Golden Grain Inn from module N1). The tavern in B2 has a chance of containing men-at-arms or adventurers for hire...you roll up how many are there (if the PCs express an interest in hiring people) and you ask what they're offering as payment. That's it! Let's get on with the game!

Dungeons & Dragons is a game where violence is an inherent part of its concept. I know that doesn't sit well with some people, and that's fine...D&D is probably not the game for them! Not everyone likes every form of entertainment out there! I'm not big into horror movies or playing tennis...that doesn't mean other people don't love-love-love those things. And more power to them. 

But if I went into a game of tennis and complained that people kept score because 'how lame to just make it about getting points' than guess what? I'm the asshole...not the tennis player or the game of tennis.

I have the occasional "quest giver" type NPC that shows up in my campaign. A duke with a treasure map who's willing to finance an expedition (that he doesn't want to go on) in exchange for a cut of the profits. An innkeeper who had a break-in through her cellar and was willing to pay brave souls to go into the mysterious tunnel and see what was going on. A drunken man at a tavern crying about how his sister had been taken by the evil vampire lord of the village and maybe the PCs would be interested in avenging his family. Etc.

Did my players decide to roll the duke? Slay the innkeeper? Stomp the rambling drunk? No! Because they were mature individuals? No way! Because they wanted to get onto the adventure, and they saw the profit in dialing in to the game we were playing. Not just actual "profit" (treasure for their PCs) but a profit of time (for the players)...time better spent playing the damn game we'd all sat down to play!

Hey, DMs: how seriously do you take your game? Do you make a world that is sensible and consequential? If players pick a fight with the town guardsmen (and lose), do they end up swinging from a rope and needing to roll up new characters? They do in my game. Do you have "magic shops" on the street corner just begging to be robbed by the PCs because the potential profit far outweighs the risk of killing the owner and his body guards? I don't...because I want my players to have reasons to go into dungeons, rather than loot townsfolk.

Hey, DMs: are you providing enough treasure in your games that knocking over citizens isn't worth their time? If you're not, guess whose fault that is.

Yes, I have seen "evil PCs" that would actively engage in reprehensible behavior. In my youth, I had one player who created a (male) Drow cleric of Llolth that was trying to set up a secret temple in a (surface) town and murdered a goodwife and at least a child or two, mainly as random acts of wanton violence. However, the character was caught and imprisoned (for being Drow, I think...not sure if the murders were initially discovered) and the player lost interest in playing the character after that first and only session. A different player, playing an insane, evil priest (Father Cornelius...still remember his name) engaged in some sort of heinous acts that I honestly can't remember. But that was back when I still allowed PvP and the other players killed him for being too much of a loose cannon. 

In neither of these cases was this an issue of "disruptive" behavior. They were brief experiments into "playing evil" and being transgressive, the kind of thing you do when you're young and new to role-playing. Murdering (and 'hoboing') was neither new, nor outside the norms of play at our table. Many of our characters were chaotic neutral (or worse) back in the day, simply because we played By The Book, and those non-goody alignments allowed PCs more freedom of action ("agency"). It didn't turn them into random stabbers of non-combatants. 

But they would have wanted the option (even though it wasn't exercised)...which explains why we didn't see any paladins and few rangers or Lawful Good types (the main LG cleric was the same player who created "Father Cornelius"); just too many strictures over player behavior for our taste. However, my co-DM and I provided enough adventure in our games (as well as a consequential game world) that giving the players such leeway was never an issue.

Do you give your players enough adventure?

I know, I know...many of the  DMs that complain about "murder hobos" are yelling: 'That's the whole point, JB! We are TRYING to give our players adventure, but they ignore our efforts in favor of slaying innocent NPCs! This is why we find "murder hobos" so damnable! They are wrecking our whole process of running an adventure.' 

Okay...but have you considered that maybe you're doing this wrong?

And by "this" I mean "running the D&D game." Maybe, just maybe, this isn't a matter of having assholes for players. And maybe, just maybe, it has nothing to do with having a "session zero" for "setting expectations of play" (I don't do that). Maybe it's not about taking players aside and talking to them between sessions and asking them not to be disruptive, nor shaming them, nor shunning them at the table.

Maybe it's just about running a solid game of Dungeons & Dragons in a competent manner that engages the players' interest, promotes cooperation, and provides an exciting experience.

Maybe people want to play bold adventurers in a fantasy world, braving perilous dangers in the hope of discovering glory and riches. Maybe that's the kind of experience the game is meant to provide and MAYBE you're failing to run the game in a way that facilitates that experience. Maybe the players are simply trying to "find fun" because they ain't getting it from your lovingly-crafted "story."

Maybe?

As always, I prefer to take the stance that the DM is ultimately responsible for what happens at their table. A PC that murders an NPC is not "playing in character;" the player is making the choice of what the character does and can ALWAYS justify ANY action for "in-game reasons." But, personally, I don't sweat a dead NPC...as the Dungeon Master I can make as many NPCs as I need. Poof! There's an army! Heck, if I need to, I can always bring an NPC back to life...I AM GOD IN MY WORLD: I can do whatever is necessary to run the game.  So what's the complaint, DMs?

Is the "murder hobo" player really "ruining the game" for the other players? Or is it really that the player is exercising agency and ruining your fun, DM? Your "fun" story? Is that it, Mr./Ms. Would-Be Author?

THEN GO WRITE YOUR NOVEL. GO DO IT. STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT PLAYERS WANTING AGENCY IN A GAME BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH YOUR CAREFULLY SCRIPTED PLANS.

Go write your novel, and then AFTERWARDS, come back and run some D&D. 

Sincerely,

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #8

Wednesday's child is full of woe.

Dear JB:

So I'm running cyberpunk themed 5e game for 5 friends. One of the players had given me a really light backstory so I did what I could with what I had, he was a widower with a 6 year old daughter. I had tried to do a story point where the 6 year old got into trouble at school. Being an upset child who wants to see their mother and also having access to both the internet and magic there was an obvious story point where the kid would try something. So being a 6 year old I had it be to where she attempted a necromancy spell but messed up and accidentally "pet cemetary-ed" her mother. The player was pissed and said that I shouldn't be messing with his backstory like that and that I was abusing my privilege as the DM.

So was I out of line here?

Quick edit to clear confusion: I didn't change his backstory at all. I just tried to do a story line involving his backstory.

Am I "Abusing DM Privileges"?

Hey, AIADMP:

The short answer here is "No."

I will forgo any sort of rant about 5Eisms and the inanity of "backstories" in modern play. I have played (and run) many games where backstories were a part of character creation (Vampire the Masquerade, Ars Magica, Over The Edge, etc.). Once upon a time, the 1E campaign of my youth was heavy with "backstories" of varying lengths and depths.

Here's the thing about "backstories" in a game where the DM has final authority over the game world: ANYthing in the backstory is fair game for the DM to use in the game. It is the DM's game. The "Mastery" of the DM title applies to the entire imaginary universe/cosmology in which the players participate...including the characters the players are using. And it has to be this way; the DM must have ultimate authority to run the game.

Does this mean the DM can have a PC struck down by a "blue bolt from the heavens" at any moment? Yes, it does! And this is even part of the explicit text of the original DMG (page 110). In fact, the DM can, at any moment, completely and utterly exile any player character and the player themself from the game universe for all eternity simply by kicking them from the table.  All authority for the game, including who gets to participate, rests in the hands of the Dungeon Master.

That's point #1.

Now, with regard to D&D backstories specifically: if someone has a background or backstory for their character, they are asking for it to be used in play...consciously or not.  Nothing (in the D&D game) compels a person to say "the character's father hates him and drove him from his home as a teen," or "my character's village was burned by goblins and she has harbored a grudge ever since," or "my character's spouse died and they feel like they can never love again."  None of this melodrama is required...so if a person doesn't want it used, guess what? Don't bring it up. 

"So what's your character's story, Anne?"

"She was trained as a fighter, and is now looking for adventure."

"Any family? History?"

"Nope, none to speak of."

Look how easy that is!

But humans tend towards narcissism (we all love ourselves to one degree or another) and while that manifests in different people in different ways, the "cult of character" has long been a part of D&D.  Yes, even before DragonLance...don't kid yourselves Old Edition Players! LOTS of people like to imagine a fictional history for their fictional character.

But the DM, as ultimate authority of the game, is free to completely ignore it. That's point #2...players are welcome to create whatever they like, but the DM is under no obligation to care about it, listen to it, or remember it. Hell, as the DM, I can erase it at any time: just as I can drop a "bolt from the blue" on your character, I can do the same to your PC widower's six-year old child. But probably I'd just say she had an accident or was struck down by an illness, and when the town patriarch tried to raise her she failed her resurrection roll. That's my purview as a Dungeon Master: NPCs are completely under my control.

Which brings us to point #3: general DMing "douchery." 

There is a difference between "abuse of power/authority" and more general "abuse." When Donald Trump gropes a woman against her will, that is just abuse. When Donald Trump in the office of President causes the NY DOJ to dismiss the charges against Mayor Eric Adams but reserves the right to re-prosecute, effectively setting up Adams as a pawn of the White House, that is abuse of power. There is a difference there.

In terms of D&D, general abuse would be yelling at a player, belittling them (insulting them, telling them they're "stupid," etc.), or physically smacking them around a bit. A DM abuse of power would be giving a player special treatment (bonus experience points, really awesome magic items) in exchange for "favors" (buying the DM drinks, performing sexual favors, etc.). Obviously, either of these forms of abuse are Really Bad Things, and players who find themselves with such a DM should extricate themselves from the situation as swiftly and efficiently as possible. Abusive DMs (like abusers in general) are pieces of shit, and deserve nothing good until they reform their act.

However, it's not "abuse" (of any sort) for a DM to exercise authority over the game in order to run the game. And if the DM decides to not ignore a character's backstory (a backstory that was unnecessary to begin with), but instead use it in the creation of a situation for the players to experience, that is well within the DM's prerogative. A player wants to bring a motherless six year old NPC into existence? There are all sorts of ways I can use that:

• The kid can be kidnapped by kobolds (they eat babies).
• The kid develops psionic powers (and is now wanted by the powers-that-be for their own nefarious reasons)
• The kid gets killed by an arrow trap (signaling the danger of the crypt the PCs are exploring)

I mean, endless possibilities. Having the kid use school resources to perform a bit of necromancy is fine (I suppose in a non-cyberpunk game she'd be studying at some sort of wizard school, and stole a scroll of animate dead to bring her mom back from the grave...that's kind of funny/horrific, actually).

There doesn't even have to be verisimilitude in the DM's use of such things...though, of course, verisimilitude always helps with player engagement. But just as the DM can say, "okay, you wake up in the desert having been drugged and kidnapped several nights ago while carousing at Tavern X..." the DM is free to say, yeah, sorry, your kid was eaten by wolves a week ago. 

Now, this might not sit well with some players...and that's fine. Players are allowed to walk (point #4: no one is forced to play D&D). Dungeon Masters must accept the fact that their game is not going to appeal to everyone, just as the game of D&D doesn't appeal to everyone. But to be an effective Dungeon Master requires the maintaining and exercising of one's authority.  If you give that up, because you're worried your players won't like you or are going to cry "abuse," then your game will wither and die on the vine. 

Sincerely,

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #7

Dear JB:

This may be the least original post about D&D ever, but I need help. What do you guys do when, no matter what day you pick, one person cannot make it? It feels like it comes down to choosing favorites. I try to only suggest one date and stick with it to avoid this, but then someone in the group chat says "I can't make it that day, can we do sunday?" and then someone else says "I'm never free on sundays" and then things just pile on like that. How do I avoid this?

Why Is Scheduling SO HARD?

Hey, WISSH:

You are the Dungeon Master. You run the game. You set the schedule. There is only one person who needs to be able to make the session: YOU. Because without you (the Dungeon Master) there is no game.

Find a day and time that works for you, and run your game at that time. If it doesn't work for a player, that's tough (you can still be friends!), but they're not going to be able to participate. Maybe in the future their schedule will become more open and then they can join your table.

People like to be able to plan their activities ahead of time. Having a fixed day and time for your game is the best practice, as it allows people to plan ahead. If they want to prioritize playing in your game, they'll make sure to take it into account when pencilling in their other activities. If they don't, that's too bad (perhaps)...but don't you want the people at your table to all be people who WANT to be there? 

If a player says they can't do Wednesday night because they have book club or their weekly pick-up basketball game, they are making a choice that YOUR GAME is NOT AS IMPORTANT as their other activity.

And that's fine. These days, I don't run a regular game because I have kids that have a lot of activities that I schedule my life around because I love them and they won't be kids forever and I want to prioritize my time with them over any other thing, including gaming. But once they're grown, you can bet I'll be starting up a weekly game again...same as I had running back before they were born.

Scheduling your D&D game isn't hard, WISSH. Trying to please and accommodate everyone is hard. Stop doing that. Schedule your game and run it for the people who want to play. And when someone can't make it (because they're sick or because something of higher priority comes up), you simply play without them. This isn't rocket science.

Sincerely, 

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #6

[new Reddit spam just popped into my notifications...yay!] 

[oh, man...the comments on this one. Ugh]

Dear JB:

I've been wanting to get into dnd and ttrpg in general for years now and recently had an opportunity to participate in a short campaign. the group and dm were amazing, all friendly folk, but I realised I have troubles with roleplaying.

whenever I try to speak in character, or even just tell others about my character in text, I just feel dread, I get so nervous and scared but I don't even know what of. part of it, I think, is that I'm afraid what I came up with is cringe and I know that me rp-ing would be cringe, based on my experience with acting. but it feels like it's not the only reason.

I know it's probably a question I should be going to a therapist with lmao (/j) but maybe somebody here had a similar problem and could give me some tips or share their story and how you managed to overcome this problem?

Too Scared To Roleplay

Hey, TSTR:

When you sit down to a table to play a role-playing game (RPG) like Dungeons & Dragons, you are already "role-playing." You are playing the game through the role of whatever character you created to act as your vehicle for participation. You are using that character to interact with the fantasy environment that exists only in the shared imaginary space of the people at the table. That is what role-playing is in D&D...congrats, you're already doing it.

What you are describing...and what is causing your stress...is something else entirely. What you are describing is performance anxiety over play-acting. Pretending to be someone else, trying to "speak in character," or embody a character's background or back story...that's not what was meant when the creators of D&D first labeled it a "role-playing game." This is a tabletop game we are playing, not an improv theater exercise. There are places to go if you are seeking that sort of creative outlet.

But it sounds to me that the improv/acting thing isn't really your bag at all, and that's completely understandable: it's not the bag of a LOT of people. Fortunately, TSTR, you can still play D&D and experience the excitement of imaginary adventure without ever having to pretend to be something other than a person playing a game...no cringy play-acting necessary!

However, you will probably need to find a new group with which to game, since it sounds like your current one has a very different understanding of how D&D is played. 

Sincerely,

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #5

Dear JB:

Hey y'all. I'm about to start DMing for the first time and I was wondering what kinda time scale do y'all have when it comes to leveling up. How long between each level up?

New DM

Hey, New:

Every edition of the Dungeons & Dragons game has rules with regard to how experience points are acquired. Since the acquisition of these points is dependent on player action, how quickly players level up will largely be determined by how well the players play when it comes to performing the actions that are rewarded with experience. 

In other words: leveling depends on your players' competence.

Now, having said that you have to understand you (as DM) are the vital piece of determining their potential for acquiring experience points. For example, in an edition of D&D that rewards the bulk of its experience through treasure acquisition, you LIMIT your players potential for advancement by failing to include enough loot in your adventure scenarios. Likewise, if playing a later edition of D&D that only awards x.p. for defeating opponents in combat, you must include enough creatures of the proper challenge level for players to murder.  YOU are RESPONSIBLE for stocking this potential; if you fail in this regard, it will not matter how competent the players are at playing the game.

The players cannot acquire what isn't there to acquire.

As for what makes a good amount of "potential x.p." to stock in one's adventures: this varies from edition to edition and from group to group, and should factor in both regularity with which a group plays, and number of hours per session. A weekly game with three hour sessions requires less stocking than a game that means only once a month for an eight hour haul. Without knowing the specifics of your group, I can't suggest a proper scale. Moldvay suggests a new campaign should provide enough treasure that PCs should reach 2nd level in three-four sessions; however, I do not find it unusual (nor inappropriate) for my AD&D campaign to see players reach 2nd level after two...or even one!...session, depending on how many PCs were killed (thus leaving more spoils for for fewer individuals). 

Sincerely,

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #4

[received some positive feedback on this series, so I'll just continue as I gradually empty out the ol' trash emails. I have to say that some of these...especially some of the comments...have STRONGLY TEMPTED me to break my longstanding "No Interaction With Reddit" policy. However, I have...so far...managed to hold firm]

Dear JB:

My friend group has recently gotten into D&D and I took on the mantle of DMing. I have run a series of 1 shots for the table and we're trying out a little campaign to see how it goes. So far I have maybe run 7-8 games total between 1 shots and the campaign since fall 2024, and still am quite new obviously and have to pause to look up rules here and there.

On two different occasions the same player has not told me the ruling on a spell, swinging the fight wildly in his favor. On the first instance he kept using a spell that required concentration, and didn't tell me that it required concentration, nor did he mention it when he was hit multiple times. On the second occasion he used a spell that hindered my big boss creature useless, and didn't tell me until the last round of combat that the boss could have been making saves to escape.

I trust the other players to tell me the full spell effect, as we are all learning, but I get the sense that this player is holding the information back intentionally. On both instances I have asked what the spell does when he casts it, but that info was left out.

Is this on me as a DM to learn the spells more quickly to rule things better, or should the player be accountable for things like remembering concentration checks or telling me that creatures can escape his spells? In both instances I learned what the spells have done and am ruling them correctly since.

While I know I could look the spells up, asking what they did was trying to accomplish that same thing as the players have them written down.

Either way, we are having fun and growing in our understanding of the game as a group which is lovely :)

 

My Mistake Or Cheating?

Dear MMOC:

You are the Dungeon Master. You are responsible for what happens at the table. This is ENTIRELY on YOU.

As the DM for the game, it is your role to be arbiter of the rules and your responsibility to understand and know those rules...and it is imperative that YOU know the rules at least as well as your players. At many tables, the DM will be the person with the most knowledge of the game system being played...but, of course, for a new DM there is always a period of learning that goes on when you must search up rules and references, slowing down play. That's all part of the process, and ALL of us who act as DM has had to go through it to one degree or another.  Hell, I've been playing for more than 40 years and I still have to look up spell and monster and magic item descriptions to check durations or job my memory about some game effect or other.  

For most DMs, this NEVER GOES AWAY. The main difference between me and you, is that A) I've committed huge heaps of the rules to memory, and B) my ability to search out, find, and reference needed information is much, much faster (based on years of experience). But unless you have eidetic memory, I'd doubt anyone's ability to run ANY edition of D&D "book free." You can make and use cheat sheets (I do this), but mainly you just have to accept that D&D is a complex game and you are only human.

Your player may be a nefarious conniver or he may be an idiot newbie or me have been completely innocent; regardless, none of that matters. What matters is YOU shirking your responsibility, YOU being lazy, YOU not taking the time to read and reference the spells being used in the game and instead relying on your player to do your job for you.  THAT is the issue, MMOC. The only thing the players have (some) authority over is their own character...everything else is in the hands of the Dungeon Master. When you delegate away knowledge (as you did here) you undermine your own authority...the authority that is the very foundation of a functional game. There is no game without a Dungeon Master. Even individuals who play the game solo (yes, there is such a thing as solo D&D play) are simply acting as their own Dungeon Master. 

Without the foundational stability of a DM's authority...an authority that comes from both knowledge of the game and the trust of the players...that campaign will inevitably collapse. 

Fortunately, your game is new enough that it shouldn't be too difficult regain control of the situation. Learn the rules of the game. Study the rules of the game. Pay especial attention to rules that pertain to the player characters (class abilities, spells) and circumstances most pertinent to your game. Make yourself a subject matter expert...and in-play give yourself the time and patience to look up the odd rule or system that you can't recall. That way you can exercise your authority based on actual knowledge of the game and build the trust in your players that you're willing and able to do the work.

Sincerely,

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #3

[just experimenting with titles for this series...I'm certainly open to suggestions]

Dear JB:

So I’m a DM and I play games with people i hardly know. I feel like I’m not having fun cause I don’t know these people and I feel like I have to put on a good show. The pressure feels heavy when I’m prepping. My real friends don’t play D&D but I know I would have fun playing with people I actually knew… but instead I feel like I’m about to give a presentation in front of work CEOs (if that’s a good example of the feeling)

I'm Not Having Fun

Dear INHF:

First thing's first: running a game of D&D is not about "putting on a good show." You are not a dancing monkey. Your livelihood is not dependent on you currying the favor of your players. If you go down the road of having to please people as a DM, I daresay you will never have "fun" running the game. Get that firmly screwed down in your noggin.

In fact, I'd hazard to guess that the main issue here isn't that you can't game with your "real friends," but that you don't know or understand what it is to be a DM and why it is that you take on the role. Because once you do understand, it doesn't matter at all who you're playing with, so long as they abide by the standards of etiquette and behavior you've set for your table.

Not. At. All.

When I was a kid (i.e. through college) my gaming groups consisted of players my own age (maybe a year older or younger) almost exclusively pulled from my own social circle, i.e. my friends. That has it's own complicated effects based on the outside social dynamic, but for the most part it was good...or good enough. 

However, there's this thing called life that eventually comes along. People move away. People get jobs. People get married. People have kids. Priorities change. Sometimes, sadly, people die. If your sole reason for gaming was playing with the same group of buddies for the social aspect, this "life thing" can really sound the death knell for your hobby.

For me, that wasn't the case. There came a time when I decided gaming was just always going to be a part of my life, so deep was my love for the game. And so I had to find people to play with...a fairly daunting task, back in the days before (internet enabled) social networking made it a lot easier.

Yet even with the ease that developing technology has given us in putting together groups, the prospect of playing with Random Strangers can seem intimidating. Fortunately for both of us, INHF, we have the Great Gift of being Dungeon Masters; there are multiple advantages to this:

1. There are far more potential players than DMs in the world...so many that I honestly doubt there are enough to go around. In terms of workload, DMs assume the bulk of what comes with the game of D&D...and humans being generally lazy (er, "prone to inertia"), you're just going to find a lot fewer people willing to take up the mantle.
2. As a Dungeon Master, you control who and what goes on at your table. 

Personally, I find it rather freeing to DM for random strangers: I don't have to worry about the social dynamics away from the table and I can bring all my focus and attention to running the game. Over the last couple decades I've had the opportunity to run games for a whole swath of people, geezers and youngsters, newbies and old hands, and just enjoyed the hell out of working on my craft. Some of these "randos" have even turned into folks I'd consider "friends" (certainly "solid acquaintances") away from the table...people I continue to keep in touch with, even though "life" has gotten in the way of us gaming together. It's a rather beautiful thing.

So, INHF, stop worrying about who you game with and how you appear to those people. Instead, focus your attention on the game you want to run. Do that and you'll find all your performance anxiety melting away.

Sincerely,

JB

More "Dear JB" Advice

Maybe I should number these?

Dear JB:

DMs how did you teach your players not to try to kill everything they encounter? 😆 

Edit: So a lot of good insight. I thought I'd hear some of the gory stories that result from those learning experiences...sigh, I bet the players recall that green dragon, or looking at their party members saying "we can take them". Good times. 

Edit2: So again our world is rote. Most everyone assumes I'm asking so I must be a noob, has anyone on this thread heard of Chainmail, the game? Im a story teller, I like to immerse my players in the game. I like players that read fantasy more often than math for fun . I really wanted to hear some stories I guess, about that encounter where your noobs encountered something they shouldn't try to take on but consider it or try. I might consider these sessions "one off' knowing some or all of them might die. It's exciting for me as DM as well I don't like knowing everything that can happen, and that makes it challenging for me. I always have a few badies or tricks in case it gets bloody or I have to lead the party back on script. I don't want to sound like a dick to an entire generation of players but so far most of the examples sound like the campaigned doesn't need a story just dice and a calculator. If that's the thing now, why pay $60 a book full of world building content just to do arithmetic for a few hours?

Don't Do It!

[the edits are responses based on "helpful" advice provided by the Reddit commentators, all of which I'm going to ignore. However, I leave the edits here as they provide some insight into the writer's stance and background]

Dear DDI:

D&D is a game. It has objectives of play. It has game mechanics (i.e. "rules") that reward certain behaviors that facilitate those objectives of play. Beginning with 3rd edition D&D, the most prominent reward (and the ONLY non-subjective, non-arbitrary reward) is gained through defeating enemies. Combat, in other words. How can you fault players for wanting to engage in the only behavior that ensure they will be rewarded with the only tangible gaming reward that matters? Specifically: experience points. Which, in D&D allows the players to level up their characters, increase their in-game effectiveness and (hopefully) open new content for exploration.

Don't hate the player, DDI. Hate the game.

Now you could play an older version of D&D, such as the more sensible/coherent AD&D (1st edition only), which sets combat experience as a secondary reward mechanic...however, based on the further elaboration in your edits, I imagine such an idea seems untenable to you. Your reference to "Chainmail," I infer, is with regard to the 2001 tabletop skirmish game, not the original war game of the same name which preceded Dungeons & Dragons and provided much of the basis for the original game. Regardless, your disdain for any game that fails to provide ready elements of "story telling" is clear.

Which leads me to question: why the hell do you want to play Dungeons & Dragons?

D&D is not a story telling game. It is a game of adventure, in which players brave unknown perils for the promise of fortune and glory. You don't seem to know or comprehend this basic fact, nor do you seem able to understand why players would find this an enjoyable pastime. Your job as a Dungeon Master has NOTHING to do with "story telling" or "leading" players to any sort of "script." If you want to write stories or scripts, your time would be better spent doing THAT...and not playing D&D.

That being said, if you decide you'd like to pull your head out of your ass and play some D&D, the first thing you might consider doing is using that $60 book full of "world building content" to build a world that your players will live in and explore though those avatars we call characters. Because the people who come to the table to play D&D are there for the experience of adventuring in such a world...they are NOT there to "read a fantasy story." If they wanted to fill their mind with a story, they'd simply read a book or watch a film. Sorry, to tell you, but they ARE, in fact, on board with doing "maths" (at least insomuch as these are part of the game) because they're hear to play.   YOU, DDI, are the idiot that's not giving them anything else to do besides rolling dice and killing people.

Players want agency. You seem bent on denying them that (making them follow the script of your fantasy story, instead). As such, they will take what agency is allowed to hem (for example: combat)...especially when the exercise of that minimal agency gives them in-game rewards (experience points).

Stop dicking around, DDI. Either go write your book OR learn how to run D&D in the proper fashion. For a newb like yourself, I'd recommend starting with Moldvay's Basic rules...just till you get the hang of it. Master that one first (it's short and clear) and then migrate your game into a more robust ruleset (like 1st edition AD&D). Once you've figured out how to design adventures and worlds, you'll find your players are fully ready to immerse themselves in the game, behaving with prudence in an imaginary environment where their actions are consequential. But until you do that, you're going to find that the only thing that engages your players is the opportunity to roll dice...and there's a lot of dice rolling in combat. 

Sincerely,

JB

Dear Reddit

Just got back into town from a short vacation. Started writing two (three?) looong posts while I was gone, but abandoned all of them because...well, because I lost interest in my own thoughts (or the directions they were trending).

So rather than that...or writing an apology post to Ukraine on behalf of my country (which is what I've really wanted to do the last couple/few days)...I've decided to try something different.

From time to time, I get notifications of various reddit posts in my email box. I don't know why...I don't post or respond on reddit (I don't think I have a reddit account), and I don't even spend time there, and the notifications are on a variety of subjects. Probably I accidentally signed up for some mailing list or other, once upon a time...who knows? Anyway, occasionally, the subject line piques my interest and I'll check it out and even bother to read the comments. Generally a complete waste of my time, but then again, so is playing Tetris or any other stupid game app on my phone.

SO, since I've been so lax about posting lately, I am going to do something silly to fill space. I am going to pretend this most recent Reddit poster wrote to ME, specifically...as if I was some sort of Dear Abby for people seeking DM advice. I'm not going to post this on reddit (as I said, I don't do that anyway), so chances are the original poster will never get my answer. But perhaps this will prove an amusing exercise for me. 

Besides, I'm still kind of on "vacation time."

; )

Okay, here goes:

Dear JB:

So I run a pretty relaxed Homebrew , and we've recently had a new player who demands he should be able to cast spells in his wild shapes form, and thinks he should be able to turn into any creature, monster, beast... and I've been been really polite about it . Saying things like " That's just too broken. You gotta be balanced some how." Etc... and I don't necessarily wanna kick him from the campaign because he brings a fun energy every week. But I don't know how to get it through his head it's not gonna happen.

I'm Struggling

Hey Struggling:

Mm. While it would be easy to simply point out that the new player is an asshole and your gaming table would be better off without him, the fact is that there are TWO assholes in the situation you describe...and the other one is YOU.

There is no reason to be polite to this individual or humor him or attempt to reason with him. That you waste your group's time engaging with this disruptive behavior shows that what you're really struggling with is taking the reins of your own authority. YOU ARE THE DUNGEON MASTER. Do you not understand what this means? Do you not understand your own role and responsibility to the game you're running?

If you invited a player over to your home for a table game like, say, Monopoly and he insisted on re-rolling his dice, or giving himself an extra $200 out of the bank every time he made it past the Free Parking corner, or any other type of action that isn't part of the rules of the game, what would be your reaction? What would be the reaction of the other players at the table who had been playing by the rules? Would you tolerate this just because the d-bag brings "a fun energy?" If you invited him to play poker and he wanted to discard and draw multiple times because he didn't like the first set of cards he received, would you stand for that because he's "fun?"

As the Dungeon Master, you are responsible for being the arbiter of the game rules (whether those rules are RAW or "homebrew"). That's the job. And it's an important one! Because without rules, the game ceases to be a game, and becomes just a conversation of "let's pretend" around the table. That might be an enjoyable activity for some folks, but it's NOT Dungeons & Dragons.

So, Struggling, it's time you decide what exactly you plan on doing with your game night. If you're there to play a game, you need to buck up and lay down the law for this asshole. Stop being a wuss...it's not fair to your other players, it's not fair to your game, and it's not fair to you. Hell, it's not even fair to the new guy, who you are enabling and teaching that it's okay for him to wheedle and manipulate.

Do everyone a favor, Struggling, and grow the hell up.

Sincerely,

JB

Tuesday Morning Musings (On A Wednesday)

So...a real "throwback" post: I'm sitting at a restaurant, eating breakfast and blogging. Haven't done that for a while. 

But here I am, waiting on an eggs bennie while savoring my coffee and being glad to be out of the cold for a minute (it's about 10 degrees below freezing at the moment, despite the sunshine). 

[food just arrived]

[okay...food is finished]

I am out of practice, obviously. I cleaned my plate before reopening my laptop. Might have to order a piece of coffee cake, so that I can sit here a while.

Oh, who am I kidding. I was going to order the coffee cake regardless.

I think that judging the Adventure Site Contest took a bit out of me. Maybe. It's hard to say for certain. But I just haven't been all that interested in "adventure writing/design" since that last post posted. Now, of course, I have other things going on. The boy is getting ready to graduate (and has been applying to high schools). Volleyball season has started (both kids are playing; I'm, again, coaching). Snow. Travel (heading to California this weekend to see my father). Other stuff. Taxes are around the corner...although I already had to start some of that for the financial aid applications.

Gaming has been of the "war" variety. I've been revisiting BattleTech recently. The boy got the new BT set for Christmas, and we've yet to play...reading through it, I didn't see much difference (if any) from my own version of BT. And then, while cleaning out my mom's house, I found a brown paper-wrapped box set of classic BT (the 2E version, which was the version to carry the moniker BattleTech, rather than Battle Droids). The box included all the original box stuff (maps, counters, sheets, etc.) plus CityTech (and all its paraphernalia) AND a copy of first edition MechWarrior. I have no idea where any of this came from...I still possess all MY old BT stuff (including CT, AeroTech, and MW), and no one in my family (besides me) ever played...so where did this all come from? A real mystery.

[the paper wrapper, had "Battle Tech" handwritten on it in what appeared to be my brother's handwriting...however, he professed complete ignorance of it. Given the addled state of his brain these days, this may mean nothing...he's killed a lot of brain cells...but I'd think I would have known/remembered if he ever played. And so far as I recall, he never has]

Then there's Axis & Allies. The boy and I are once again engaged in battle for global supremacy the last couple-three days, though I expect it to end in the next turn or two. We aren't the hardcore type that play with "bids" and specific "opening moves" and both of us are too stubborn to simply concede after losing one capital or another. As the Allies, I made blunders allowing Italy to control the Mediterranean and most of Africa and the Middle East...meanwhile, Japan/Tokyo was just captured by ANZAC after successive waves of UK and US forces wiped out the Imperial Navy. Right now, it's a race for Moscow from every side, and while I'm pretty sure the "good guys" will prevail, fortune can be a fickle bitch. We'll see. 

Anyway, we've already decided to play another round (reversing our roles) and I'm anxious to show him "how it's done." He remains convinced that the Allies are "O.P." due to the financial might of the Americanos, and of course, there's some truth to that...if you play a cautious game and allow the Allies time to muster their resources. By the time Japan decided to go to war, I was dug in at Fortress Philippines and the Pacific was mine for the taking. 

[I will note that my son tends to beat me...or, at least, break even...when we play on only one side of the Global A&A (i.e. either Pacific OR Europe). However, when we play the entire world, I find it much easier to distract and harass him into making errors, using forces from one board to support the other...it was especially evident in this game where he was worried about putting down the "annoying" UK or Russian or Chinese forces instead of focusing on taking the Victory Cities he needed to win the game. I suppose that's an example of "playing the opponent;" I know I have MY weaknesses in play that he exploits, too]

Why are war games so fascinating? I suppose they're not...at least not to everybody...but, to me, they're such a different form of entertainment. In a way, they are like a puzzle one is trying to solve...while your opponent constantly changes the shape of that puzzle (and simultaneously competing against you). But to what end? So you can cheer and brag? We're just going to reset the puzzle and fight the (same) war again...as we've already done numerous times. 

War games are NOT like D&D. As a DM, I am "setting the board" for the players, but I am not trying to solve a puzzle in competition with them...only the players are working at puzzle solving. And I am not allowed to change that puzzle (in play)...as the DM, I am only allowed to run the puzzle, "playing" the puzzle (I suppose) to the best of the puzzles' ability. Actually, scratch that...I'm not playing anything. The puzzle plays itself; I just roll the dice and arbitrate results.

I guess I'm a puzzle creator?

Playing a war game...like A&A or WH40K or BattleTech or Blood Bowl or Car Wars or whatever...is very different from running an RPG. The players facing each other over the gaming table are adversarial (which is how I see my role as a DM, by the way...that's another post), BUT they are on equal footing. The forces may not be symmetrical, the level of skill/knowledge/experience may be different, but generally speaking, they are playing by the same rules. The opponents are competing to solve the same puzzle.

When I run D&D, I'm not trying to "solve" anything.

You do not have to be a puzzle creator (or have any ability to build puzzles) to run D&D as a Dungeon Master. And you need a lot more skills in your toolbox than just "puzzle building" to be a competent Dungeon Master. But refereeing an RPG is a very different animal from a playing a "war game." A very different animal indeed.

My thoughts of the morning.

[UPDATE (posted Wednesday): the war is all but lost for the Axis. The German forces have broken on the mass of infantry and Allied aircraft that defend Moscow, the Japanese forces reduced to three land units and a fighter, marauding in the USSR, Gibraltar has been taken, the German and Italian navies sunk, and the Americans just took Rome, while the UK marches through north Africa towards Cairo]

[Diego conceded this morning]

Adventure Site Contest Wrap-Up

While these review posts have been rolling out on the daily, I actually wrapped up reading, reviewing, and writing them back on January 13th...I didn't want to overwhelm everyone with multiple posts at once.

Welp, it's been a few days (I'm writing this post on January 17th), and I've had a moment to reflect on the contest and the various entries and compile some thoughts on the whole exercise.

The original ASC only had 18 entries...this year's has 30. I was not a judge in the prior year, but reading through the Adventure Sites I compilation, I can examine the top eight and compare their quality to my (personal) top 8-10 of this year's crop. Here are some things that (I think) are worth noting:

50% of the first ASC's top entries were written for AD&D, and all were "solid D&D"...the kind of entry I'd award four(+) stars. My only quibble with any of them, really, is that Lipply's Tavern needs to be set to a higher level than 2nd-4th based on the amount of danger AND the potential treasure take; but it's still a great adventure. Of the other four, one was S&W (also very good), two were for some form of Basic (though only one would get a 3* from me), and the last is a monstrosity that I would not have included, had it been my competition.

In comparison, less than half of the 30 entries for ASCII were for AD&D, and while four of those did crack my "top eight," only one of those would have rated as "solid" (4+) for me...the others were merely "playable" (3*). The other four in my top...two B/X and two OD&D...received better ratings generally.

Now, I want to choose my next words carefully: while there was definitely a lot of enthusiasm and creativity on display in ASC2...and I mean a LOT...I found myself somewhat disappointed by the overall results. The average number of stars awarded was 2.30 out of 5 possible and, just to be clear, THREE stars is what I deemed as the minimum for playable D&D. As in, an adventure that if you sat down at a table with the designated rulebook(s) you would be able to run the adventure for your table, without needing to cobble things "on the fly." If I removed the Stars Without Number entry (because it doesn't really fit with the overall treasure-seeking goals of old edition D&D), that number drops to 2.28. That's...not fantastic.

The best of the bunch (surprisingly to me) were the five OD&D/S&W entries: they scored a 2.80; three of the five were in the top 15, two of which had 4* ratings, and a fourth (The Two Spires) barely missing the cut. The fourteen AD&D/OSRIC entries ended up with 2.29, while the eight Basic entries clocked only a 2.00 average. If you were only to look at the best 18 (the same number as the submissions for the first ASC), the average is 2.94...but I'm sure that even the original contest had a few stinkers in it.

Would the ratings have been higher if we'd had some of last year's "best" writers return? Hard to say, but it's true no entries were submitted by Scott Marcley, Trent Smith, Grutzi, and GiantGoose. However, even past best nominees (DangerIsReal, Peter McDevitt, and Stooshie & Stramas) had a more difficult go of it, this time around.

One difference that really stood out was the extra pages that ASC2 entrants were afforded.  Last year's submissions were allowed three pages total, including the map...this year, we received three pages of text PLUS maps (some entries had two or three pages of maps!). This led to bigger entries, many of which stretched well outside the parameters of "adventure site," instead being more "mini-module." And for many authors, this brought with it a compulsion to create elaborate backgrounds, rumors, plots, NPCs, etc. The focus of "adventure site" is (with the possible exception of Lipply's) clearly evident in the original ASC's final compilation. For ASC2? Not so much. 

If I was going to advise Mr. Gibson of ways to improve the contest for ASC3, I'd tell him to tighten the parameters of the contest. I'd tell him to limit the contestants to an 8-15 encounter range...about all that can be done in "an evening's play," while still being larger than a simple "lair." I would limit the entries to ONE PAGE of maps, TWO PAGES of text, plus ONE PAGE of "appendix" to detail non-system monsters, treasures, or NPCs...four pages total unless authors wanted to attach a cover sheet. Lock it down, dial it in...I think that would help the designers set achievable objectives.

For the authors, I'd offer the following advice: pick a system, learn a system, write for the system. I don't care that "that's not how I run my game at home." You are not writing for your home table!  If you want to be a game designer/author, then you have to kowtow to your audience. My home game has a bunch of odds and ends and houserules, too. But when I write an adventure for the public (for a contest like ASC or NAP, for example), I can't put in my "house rules." Characters need alignment. Magic-users need the read magic spell. Etc. Allow your audience (the judges, the customers) decide what THEY want to modify to fit their Frankenstein mash-up at home...don't you do it for them!

And if you don't already have a system that you know and love...why not?  It's D&D, not rocket science. Learn B/X...it's the easiest and cheapest...and write for that, while you're learning the AD&D game. Or if you want something a little looser, check out S&W. I was impressed by the S&W adventures I saw in this contest, both how people used it and what it allowed. 

Or don't, I guess. You don't have to take my advice (duh). Heck, I'm not even sure Ben would want me judging again (after downgrading his adventure), so you needn't worry (much) about me saying "mean things" about your hard-wrought efforts.

REGARDLESS (i.e. regardless of whether or not you place any value in my advice AND regardless of whether or not I'm passing judgment on adventures in the future): please remember that the proof of whether or not ANY adventure is "good"...or worth a damn at all...is in the playing of the adventure. You really don't know HOW an adventure will play until you sit down at the table with some friends (new or old) and give it a whirl. Everything else...treasure counts, "interesting" encounters, level ranges, etc...is just guesstimating. At best.

Anyway.

Fun little contest. Nice to see so many people doing awesome stuff.  Lots of variety, different styles, nice maps, creative ideas. People playing these old D&D games are a pretty marvelous bunch...still. And that's great...that's hopeful. And all the enthusiasm...double the number of submissions as last year!...is also very cool. It would seem that a lot of folks have been hipped to Ben's contest, either through his web site, or the CAG server, or other people discussing it on-line. That's wonderful to see. Very positive.

Yeah.

All right, that's enough for now. I'm scheduling this to post February 3rd. Hope people found something useful in my reviews. For other reviews...focusing on different aspects of the same adventures, and many offering differing opinions from Yours Truly...you should check out the following links:

https://coldlightrpgpress.weebly.com/

https://thegloomyforest.blogspot.com/

https://www.youtube.com/@OwenEdwardsBooks/videos

https://tinypinktentacle.wordpress.com/

Cheers, folks!

: )

ASC Review: The Tower in the Lake

The Tower in the Lake (Matthew Lake)

B/X for four to seven PCs of 3rd-5th level

And so we come to the end of our list. The Tower in the Lake was actually the 25th adventure received, but it was updated with a re-scanned map to make the walls clearer...no big deal. Will we go out with a bang or a whimper? That's the real question.

For my review criteria, you may check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (three page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews short.

I'll save you the suspense: this adventure is so good that I have almost no notes.

Only quibble would be with the Magical Library: magic mouth isn't a spell in B/X (although a wizard like Thassalius certainly might have researched one), and spell books don't work like this in B/X (PCs only know the spells they know)...but since they don't impact anything (not even treasure), that doesn't matter at all. 

B/X system mastery is on full display. Wonderful...really shows what can be done with the system. The problem with B/X is the lack of durability at low levels and the lack of long-term play value after reaching Name level. But for a small, mid-level adventure like this? B/X can be really effective. 

This is an adventure site, but it's a large one: 23 encounter areas. It will probably take more than one night to complete, but not necessarily because its many nods to verticality (pits, slides, whirlpools, etc.) can be used to bypass content. However, the adventure is so cool, players will probably want to plumb its (literal) depths.

Danger level is fairly high...but not impossible!...for this level range. Probably should take at least six PCs into this one. For a party of six 4th levels, I'd expect treasure take to be about 34K total. Treasure total? 40K (and up to 8K of that is destroyable). So...perfect?

Theme is tight and well done. Creativity is delightful. I'm not going to tell you anything about this adventure, because you should have your B/X DM run it for you. If you play a different edition, you can try converting it, although for AD&D you'll want to increase the level range...maybe a 5th-6th average with adjusted magic/treasure. Monster use is excellent, making good use of B/X stuff with a couple unique guys (well-described and fully statted) that are perfectly acceptable. Some DMs will complain there are no hit points listed for the monsters, but that doesn't bother me when everything can be found in the rule book.

This adventure is a triumph and gets the full five stars (out of five). Matthew Lake should be very proud of what he's wrought. Exceptionally nice way to finish these reviews.

*****