"Dear JB" Mailbag #21

Dear JB:

I'm done, i give up.

Some of my players, who I think are my friends just can't be pleased.

They always make a characther that don't fit the story, have no motivation and, of course, he uses everyone's favorite excuse "It's what my characther would do"

I made a characther, she was supposed to be important, they were in her house, they knew her name, characters as well, she was a construct, she does not adress someone until they show her respect, so they were calling her names and slurs trying to get her attenttion, one of them try to touch her breast, she teleported him out of the house, then he spent the whole game complaining, then there was another player, who just rode his hate train, only one was repectful to her and had a conversation, 1/3 players cared for campaign.

I just want to get this out my chest and say that i'm at my limit, i quit, i give up, i am done.

I'm Done DMing

Dear IDD:

Sometimes, people need to vent. It's always good to have someone (hopefully a good friend) to whom you can vent without judgment...that is, without them judging you. It's also good to have them not offer you any advice until you're done venting...a little trickier, because the usual impulse (especially among friends) is to jump in and support your complaints and frustration, just stoking the fire, until your venting session turns into a full-on "pity party."  Bitching and moaning (something we all do...including me) is hardly ever constructive.

So. I am going to pretend to be your good friend. I'm going to let you vent and get the shit out of your system. And I'm going to let that sit there for a moment.

Are you done? Okay. Cool.

Do you want to be a Dungeon Master? Or don't you?

If the answer is NO, that's fine. Not everyone is cut out for the job. Does not make you a bad person or a failure...and it doesn't mean that you might not (some day) decide to change your mind. But for right now, if you don't want to DM, then don't...it will be a heavy burden lifted off your shoulders and you can still enjoy a nice, fine life...perhaps one that still experiences the pleasure of playing D&D (just not as the DM).

However, if...after venting and then taking a moment and a few deep breaths and settling down..IF you actually still want to be a Dungeon Master, then buck up and let's get down to brass tacks.

As a DM you are (probably) going to encounter a whole variety of players, all of whom have flaws and foibles and their own particular ways of being obnoxious. As the DM, your job is to run the game...and if you run it correctly, the complaints you're voicing won't be an issue.

You said that you think of these players (or thought of them) as friends. Great...it's always good to game with friends. But friends (just like all people) have minds of their own. And when it comes to the game of D&D, which empowers players to have agency ("freedom of action") within the parameters of the game, it's not a great idea to have too many expectations of what you consider to be "right" behavior. Or, to put it another way, if you have ATTACHMENTS to what you want to see happen, you better be ready for disappointment.

Because that is the game.  You write that only:

"...1/3 [of the] players cared for [my] campaign..."

But do YOU care for your campaign? Because the DM is the only person who is obligated to care about any particular campaign (and, to be fair, even the DM need not care about the campaign they're running...but such "no care" campaigns are likely to be very short-lived). 

Players will only "care" about a campaign if they are heavily invested in it. This investment only comes from time and effort spent engaging with the campaign (i.e. running characters though adventures in the world you've created). That's it! And the MORE time and effort spent doing that, the more investment they will have.  

But until they have that investment (which only comes from time and effort)? Don't expect a lot of "caring" from the players. 

So then, the question becomes how do I get my players to invest their time and effort into the campaign? And the answer is: by giving the players content that encourages player engagement.

You complain that the players make characters that

...don't fit the story, have no motivation and, of course...uses everyone's favorite excuse "It's what my characther [sic] would do..."

You are a DUNGEON MASTER, not...repeat NOT...a "storyteller!" 

Your players are not actors, nor are they characters in a story or play following a script. They are creating characters to act as their avatars for a game that you are running. If I am a player in a game AND the rules allow me to play a tiefling battle-mage AND I think that would be a cool way to play the game, then guess what? That's what I'm doing and you, IDD, are S.O.L. because that is the game. 

Don't like it? Play a different game.

And, by the way, that statement is meant to empower you, IDD. Because YOU are the DM and YOU have all the power when it comes to the game being run.

Guess what? I don't have tiefling battle-mages in my game, nor anything else that I don't want. Because I'm the DM and I say what goes. I am very clear with my players: "I am running AD&D, and you can play any character out of the PHB, including the bard in the appendix." I could also say: "I am running modified AD&D and you cannot play a non-human in the game, nor will we be using the rules for psionics and bards." Or I could say: "I am running Classic Traveller with supplements A, B, and C."  Or whatever. Because when I'm running the game I am the one in control.

Got that? Take back your power, IDD.

So you created an NPC construct that you expected the players to respect. Okay. Why did you expect them to respect the construct? What were the consequences of being disrespectful? Sounds like there were NO consequences, other than being teleported into the front yard...not very consequential. And your player complained about it...was the player informed that there'd be consequences? Did you make it clear WHY they needed to be deferential to some robot they'd just met?

See, there are going to be people out there who tell you "oh, your players are assholes, kick them to the curb." But let's look at how you're running your game, IDD...let's look at what you could have done differently. When my players' characters encounter a nobleperson they are expected to "respect," guess what? They do so, because they know damn good and well that they could be clapped in irons and thrown in a dungeon by the noble's soldiers if they don't. Same holds true when conversing with powerful wizards and patriarchs...there are CONSEQUENCES for bad behavior. They might not be able to get that magic item identified or that stone to flesh or raise dead spell cast or they might get cursed or geased or polymorphed or the NPC won't buy the magic item off them that will pay 10,000 g.p. or WHATEVER. You want your players to respect your NPCs? Give them consequential reasons for doing so.

If you don't, then it won't matter if you kick these particular players or not. You're just going to run into the same crap behavior...over and over...because YOU are running a crappy, inconsequential game.

I've met very few people who were 100% nice 100% of the time (and I'd guess that...of those I have...their closest friends and families could tell me stories of times they weren't). People who want to play D&D...a game about fantasy adventure that is inherently violent by design...are, at heart, individuals who don't mind some transgressive behavior. Not only do they not mind it, they want to experience it...in the game. That's (part of) why they play.

But in the real world there are consequences for transgressive behavior. Hard to get a job as a coffee barista when you insist on wearing an "I Heart Hitler" t-shirt and tattooing a swastika on your face. Hard to stay out of jail when you keep robbing and murdering people. Hard to get a date when you refuse to take a shower and grope every good looking person in arms' reach.

If you want to limit players' transgressive behavior in the game, then you...as the DM, the person with Absolute Power...must implement and execute consequences for their actions. Sure, the average D&D campaign is pretty wild and woolly, compared to the real world with wandering Chaotic-types found in abundance. But such a setting also has plenty of "frontier justice," not to mention "draconian laws" and "cruel & unusual punishments." The average good-aligned paladin or ranger deals out a LOT of murder...and they aren't always nice about it, ya' dig?

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

When the players know and understand that their actions are consequential, they cease taking actions that hurt them in the game. Or, at least, they'll stop complaining. Or they'll leave the game and you can fill the table with players with the balls to deal with the consequences of their actions. Regardless, it will curb the behavior at the table.

I will note, however, that your game still needs to be engaging. Players are an independent lot, and they will find ways to "make their own fun" if you aren't on the ball so far as giving them proper adventure. If groping your precious NPC and getting a rise out of you is more entertaining than the adventure opportunity being offered, then you might need to up your game. And if you're unable or unwilling to do that, well then you really are only left with the options of quitting or running a game of absurdist, un-fun "D&D."  Which would suck and is not something I'd wish on anyone.

Good luck, pal.

Sincerely,

JB

Reunion [Book Review]

My friend wrote a book. Writing an un-biased review isn't really possible.

Over the decade and a half that I've been writing this blog, I've mentioned my friend Jocelyn many, many times. For good reason: she was my best friend during the formative years of my youth. As most of those formative years were spent in gaming-related activities (at least, most of the best bits) and as this is ostensibly a "gaming blog," Jocelyn is intrinsically tied to my personal history.

Of course, it's more than that: the people that touch our lives always have some impact on our growth as human beings. As we get older, that impact (generally) becomes smaller, as it is measured against all the other individuals we've encountered in our lives over many years. But when you're young, and your life experience is as limited as the number of people you've actually met, long-term relationships have a tremendous hand in shaping one's developing personality. Or so I'd hypothesize as it was certainly true in my case.

So, the novel: Reunion by Jocelyn Lindsay. I would describe it as "YA fantasy fiction written for middle-aged Gen-Xers." Which probably sounds less than complimentary (on a number of levels), but it's an honest description and will certainly be right in the wheelhouse of some folks.

I don't read much fiction these days. Well, I don't read much anything these days, if you're talking about books. And, yet, as I say that there's a number of works of fiction stacked on my nightstand. Harold Lamb's Wolf of the Steppes. ERB's Tarzan and the City of Gold. Alistair MacLean's Where Eagles Dare. Miller's A Canticle for Leibowitz. Space Viking by H. Beam Piper.  A lot of old books...and, in the case of Leibowitz, some that I've read before (multiple times!).

Of course, there's also "new" fiction. Gail Simone's Red Sonja Consumed. Naomi Novik's A Deadly Education. Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell (hmm...actually, I recently shelved that one, having finally finished streaming the television adaptation of the book). These are...tougher...for me to get into. Not because they're poorly written, but because the direction these writers take are (quite often) not ones that hold much interest for me. It's not that they're young authors...all of them are about the same age as myself...it's just that...

I don't know. So much of it seems self-indulgent in a way that doesn't terribly appeal to me. Perhaps I care more about a good story and less about a characters' 'inner life' and thoughts. Or maybe it's just that the doorway into the protagonist's inner thoughts are so...mundane. We all have drama in our lives...things we bitch and moan about that really aren't worth the pain we cause ourselves hashing 'em...but do I read books to hear about other folks' drama? Just give me enough to understand the character and get on with the tale you're telling!

Reunion has quite a bit of this. The book is a slow burn with a lot of setup...the protagonist is coming back to a town she left behind twenty-five years ago, facing not only new (fantasy) dangers somewhat connected to the ones she fought in her youth, but also facing all the old friends and relations she cut out of her life, and dealing with both the fallout of those confrontations while enjoying the old camaraderie that rekindled friendships bring. 

As a middle-aged dude, it's a dance I've done myself, multiple times...although without the mosnter-fighting aspects. But I had coffee recently with a friend I hadn't seen in fifteen years. I went to a birthday party of a buddy I hadn't hung out with in 10. When my mom died, I got together with another friend that I hadn't hung out with since college (like 30 years ago). You live long enough, you experience this. Life is long and it meanders and we seldom retain the same tight bonds we did before jobs and marriages and kids. Seeing how our old buddies have changed...usually towards the decrepit end of the spectrum...reflects upon us our own mortality. Which has all sorts of different "feels" for different people. For me, it makes me wistful, melancholic and (often) maudlin...not my most flattering lights.

So...not my cup of team. Even so, I finished the book in just four or five days, the second half going much faster, with more energetic reveals and more active situations, despite interludes of characters taking the time to kabitz around kitchen tables. There is an ebb and flow to the book that feels very much like the life of a geezer in my age bracket...periods of reflection punctuated by high bursts of energy because shit needs to get done so I can get back to sitting on my ass and resting my aching back. Middle-aged superheroes. Yeah, if this is going to be a genre, at least I can understand it. And considering the declining rate of literacy in this country, perhaps it's the perfect genre for the aging literate types.

Now, for my regular readers, I'm going to make a gaming connection:

I've known this woman...Jocelyn...since long before she was a woman. No, we don't hang out anymore...she lives in Bellingham (where the novel takes place, natch) and the last time I remember seeing her in person was '96 or '97. But I know this author. And one of the most interesting things about reading her novel is seeing how the characters are all simply different aspects of her personality...all aspects I've encountered, years ago in our youth, through the playing of role-playing games, particularly Dungeons & Dragons. 

I can tell (mostly) which characters had their base behavioral pattern set down decades ago though our RPG play. And NOT because we were (like the 5E kids these days) trying to create "stories" and "original characters." Here is the thing that all the New School gamer kids don't seem to grok: our "original characters," back in the day, came NOT from creating an interesting backstory, but from playing ourselves in the avatar provided during the character generation process. You are ALWAYS playing yourself...but the act of playing ends up adapting your personality to the experiences of gameplay just as if you were living a different life.

When you roll up a fighter, you are still YOU...but you are you with muscles and armor and a high hit point capacity. When you roll up a magic-user, you are still YOU...but a you with limited (if powerful) magical resources, no armor, and few hit points. 

This shapes your personality. Forget alignment for the moment. If you spend adventure after adventure kicking ass on the front-line, how does that interact with and synthesize with your normal (real life) personality (i.e. the one largely shaped by your upbringing, parents, teachers, coaches, life experiences, etc.)? If you spend adventure after adventure in a supportive role, healing people (cleric types), how does that interact with and synthesize with your usual personality? From my experience (both for myself and what I've seen in others)...given enough time in a particular vehicle, your character's 'character' will change drastically, depending on what happens over the course of campaign play. It's not that you suddenly "invented" an OC out of whole cloth...it's just YOU, living out your life in a different body. And because of the sheer variety of PC options (not to mention possible game experiences) each PC can vary wildly from one to another, even though played by the same player.

It just happens. It's amazing. It's magical. And no backstory required.

So, I've seen the characters in Jocelyn's book before...Meg, Bianca, even Sam (although, she was a lot younger at the time)...at the gaming table. Other characters feel like they were probably drawn from people the author knows (Diana, for example, feels a lot like Jocelyn's mother to me...). Which, as a reader, I find fascinating...although I understand that this will be far less interesting to people who have no relationship to the writer.

Still...do all friends of a particular author feel the same when reading that author's book?

[side note: there is a character in Reunion named "JB:" a fat, balding, middle-aged jerk...who gets punched in the face a lot. I found that rather amusing...]

Reunion was published in September of 2024. It's seems obvious that it was a long time in coming (the book is set in 2015, and the characters are the same age as the author). As self-made rich folks are prone to say about their first million dollars, "Making the first is the hardest." Jocelyn just finished writing a follow-up Book 2 (Reverie) to what she's calling The Hellgate Chronicles, which is scheduled to come out in April. If you're interested in "modern day fantasy" in the vein of The Dresden Files, True Blood, or the various White Wolf RPGs, this might be your jam. If you just want to look into the mind of a fantasy nerd from the PacNW who actually grew up in the time period that Stranger Things portrays (unlike the Duffer brothers) you might find this an interesting window.

Of course, I'll be buying the next book in the series: the ending was compelling enough that I'd like to see what happens next. But I am hardly an un-biased reader/reviewer.

One critique (for the author, if she reads this): I kind of hated the inclusion of the sword. I understand the necessity to the plot, but I didn't like it. Sorry.

You can find blurbs and links to the book on the author's web site.

Happy Friday, folks.

"Dear JB" Mailbag #20

 

Dear JB:

So i started playing d&d with three of my friends and it's generaly a great experience but everything goes Bad once money is mentioned. They constantly loot everything, ask how much thing they can carry to sell and last session they ever robbed a gold mine. I need a bit of help with what i should do so they stop gathering random axes and armor peices to sell everywhere. I have tried sending bouty hunters but i didn't help. They are even seducing shopkeepers for discounts

My Friends Have A Bit Of A Problem

Dear DM:

Treasure hunting and the pursuit of loot is one of the main elements of the D&D game; in the older (pre-1989) versions of the game, the acquisition of treasure was hard-wired into the advancement system. If you find it difficult to accept this as a core principle of the game, you might want to look for a different fantasy RPG to run...perhaps something in the superhero genre, which generally use abstract mechanics for modeling financial mechanics.

Now, assuming you can get used to the idea that the PCs are cash-strapped adventurers looking for a score, let's move on to the next iteration of your issue: how to effectively deal with the players' desire to steal everything not nailed down. 

The great thing about greed (in the D&D game) is that it is an excellent motivator for players...give them rumors of a legendary treasure trove or present some other opportunity for a 'big score' and they're off like a shot with single-minded focus and engagement. Which generally helps make for an entertaining D&D session (bored, listless players are the antithesis of a "good time"). But greed can lead to distraction...as seems to be the case in your campaign...and Dungeon Masters have two main tools for combatting the players who would overdo their desire for money: encumbrance and world building.

Encumbrance has always been part of the rules, though in many editions of the game (including Basic versions) it is given as an "optional" rule. However, I will assert that you cannot have a meaningful game without using encumbrance.  There are limits to what the human body (or the horse or the wagon or the boat) can carry, and it is one of the main limitations of dealing with the logistics of moving from Point A to Point B. If you are hand-waving encumbrance (i.e. not bothering with it) the prospect of gathering all the scrap metal scattered about the battlefield becomes much more enticing, as it all represents "free money." This is a video game mentality...point-and-click and the pile of loot goes strait into an extra-dimensional 'inventory' space with no inconvenience whatsoever. 

Don't play D&D like a video game. Use encumbrance.

World building, on the other hand, isn't hard-baked into the rules, but it provides just as good a limitation when thoughtfully done. For example, YES, of course there should be gold mines in your game world (where else does the gold come from?), but such mines tend to be heavily guarded (duh) and in a pseudo-medieval/ancient world (like D&D) are usually guarded by the State (i.e. the local ruler) as regulating the currency of the region falls under their purview. Robbing from the King tends to get PCs branded as hunted outlaws. Which can still make for fun adventures...but it sure makes it tough to spend that ill-gotten wealth. 

Besides which, it's not like gold miners are prying coins out of the tunnel walls; rather, they are extracting dust and fragments that need to be gathered, refined, smelted, and minted into usable currency. Better to rob the local mint unless you have your own coining operation set-up (again: see trouble with the local ruler).

And let's talk about those sultry shop-keepers that need seducing. Sure, such NPCs are human (or, um, close enough) and as such have normal human desires that can be preyed upon by sexy PCs. But they are also business owners, and any business owner that gives a blanket discount to every flirtatious person that comes through their door is going to (quickly) go OUT of business. Besides, that's not usually what happens with seduction. If we're talking a true quid-pro-quo, the PC is going to have to be "putting out" (i.e. have a tryst in some back room) in exchange for goods deemed to be of 'equal value' (which, again, could lead to some interesting "adventure" if you'd welcome your game taking on a bit of soap opera drama). But more usual would be for shopkeepers to try pawning off items that they've had a hard time moving, perhaps at a MINOR discount (that they would have already been considering just to get the thing off their shelf). And maybe not even then. Some people just like to flirt (and be flirted with) and that's just how they interact with (consenting) others.

[if a person likes flirting with non-consenting types, we call this "harassment," just by the way]

And as for gathering up every last scrap of armor or weapon or gear in the bandit camp the PCs just obliterated, it's not like that's an "easy sale." There's no eBay or Craigs List in D&D, so who are they going to sell the stuff to? The local armorer? He's only interested in selling his own wares, not buying your cast-offs. Anyway, who wants to buy a polearm that's worn and pitted and stinks of orc or goblin when they could have a shiny new one from the local arms dealer? Look, a lot of the "stuff" found in the dungeon just isn't worth much as treasure. I've been working on emptying my deceased mother's house the last year plus, removing hundreds of pounds of perfectly good, perfectly useable items and just DONATING the bulk of it to charity...because no one wants to buy it. And I live in a big, modern city where people have lots of disposable income, not some Village of Hommlet.

Have you ever had a yard sale? Did you make so much money you wanted to quit your day job?

Just run the game with a little more thought: treasure is treasure and crap is crap. If the players insist on picking up every last bit of found objects, weigh them down and make them carry it (even bags of holding have limits). Slow them down, make them use up their resources (food, for example). Charge them taxes and tolls as "peddlers" when entering towns and villages with a cart full of discarded gear. Make it damn hard for them to sell the stuff (in terms of time spent for coins earned) and only allow them to do so at a prohibitive discount in price. 

And THEN get them in trouble with the local guilds who don't like them under-cutting their members' prices. The guilders can hire thieves to steal their goods or contract assassins to rough them up or set fire to their warehouse (assuming they are paying for a place to store all these extra swords and whatnot). Make it more convenient (and profitable) for the players to simply move on to the next dungeon rather than playing "merchant" in the city. 

This really shouldn't be an issue...assuming your dungeons have enough loot in them to make it worth the players' time. And if they don't...well, then, that's not the players that are the problem.

Sincerely,

JB

Wee Hours

It's 5:40am. I've been up for about an hour. Been awake since about an hour before that.

Cutting the booze and sugared goodies out of my diet (Lenten resolutions) certainly helps my energy level. But I'm pretty fiery at the moment...pretty fired up. Energized...a live wire.

It's volleyball day.

Our team is rolling through the season. Five wins in a row, two games left to play before the playoffs. Today's game will be the second toughest opponent in our division...a perennial rival of the school when it comes to sporting events. We went out to support the girls team last week and stuck around to scout the boys in preparation for today's match. They're no great shakes: a bunch of big kids with the same hairstyle who get by on their athleticism and some questionable calls from their home line-judge (need to make sure we're on the correct side of the court today).

I'm not terribly worried about losing the game today...losing could be a good check on my players' egos. I'd rather lose this one then our next game (which will be against the toughest team in our division). But if we do win today...which we should...I don't think we'll lose another game this year. Which is my preference, of course: I'm not really into the exhilaration of close, heart-attack inducing, knife edge victories. I'd rather just dominate, shake hands, and go home.

For our little school...that has a tiny trophy case and hasn't won shit in YEARS...it would be a tremendous feather in the cap to bring home the championship. But for the players? I want this so badly for them. For them to be able to say: yeah, we did that. No, it doesn't mean they'll go on to play in the Olympics or cure cancer or get elected President or anything. But it's unquestionably something that you'll cherish in your heart, years from now...as an adult, reflecting on the past victories (and failures and oh-so-close moments) of your youth.

This I know. I know it from my own experience as an old geezer, and I know it from talking to other old codgers. Little things like this stick in your brain...highlights between years of "stuff" that's faded into the grey malaise of lost memory.

Especially this group. Especially with the way they're doing it. The misfits. The "try-hards." The nerds.

In my youth, I would have fit very well on this team. 

I want them to have that photograph in the trophy case so bad. Not a runner-up prize, not a second place finish. A championship. Because they are champions...just to come out and work hard and be good teammates to each other and to play damn good volleyball. I am so proud of each and every one of them. Even the goof-offs and screw-ups that fight each other in practice. Because when they come together on the court, they are one team, one entity. Just Panthers...the team in black. I want them to have that recognition...because it will leave a lasting impression in their hearts of what they can accomplish when they put aside their differences and complaints and come together with a single purpose.

That's a valuable lesson...one I wish I'd learned in my youth. My life, my journey...good as it has been...would have been a lot happier and more joyful along the way.

But it is sport (he writes as he wipes the tears from his eyes and refills the coffee cup), and the finality of sport is that sometimes you lose and sometimes you get bounced from the playoffs in the first round. Sometimes the other team plays better than you on a given day. Sometimes the other team IS better than you. And you have to understand that and accept that and take defeat with as much grace as you can muster. Because the real, hard truth is that life goes on (until it doesn't) and...win or lose...you've got to get up on Monday and go to school or work again. The daily grind goes on, regardless of the high highs and low lows that occur in our lives. 

Which isn't to say sport and competition is useless in the grand scheme of life...quite the contrary! What we learn in sport...especially bits like teamwork, focus, practice habits, effort, consistency, gracefulness (in both victory and defeat)...is directly applicable to our day-to-day lives. Especially team sport...learning to get along with different people with different personalities, different backgrounds, different skin colors, different tax brackets, different talent levels...this is incredibly important. It is one of the most important lessons we can learn for the rest of our lives. One of the main reasons I volunteer to coach these teams is to make sure I impart that lesson to my own kids.

Well, that AND because I'm an insufferably competitive gamer.

; )

Okay, it's 6:40 (6:38 actually). I might try closing my eyes for 30 minutes before I wake everyone. Sofia's volleyball game at 9am (in Edmonds), Diego's at 11, then we're going to a teammate's birthday/pizza party (he invited the entire v-ball team), then Diego's soccer in the afternoon. A full day ahead of us.

Hope everyone has a great weekend. Thanks for letting me share what's on my mind.

"Dear JB" Mailbag #19

[sorry to throw down more of these lazy-ass posts, but I'm a bit short on time recently]

Dear JB:

So firstly, context. My players have been getting along very well! The main thing I've begun to notice is that they tend to split into mini groups. 

Out of five they tend to split

• Goliath barb and Gnome Artficer
• Human fighter and human artificer
• And rogue who sticks to her npcs.

Again, players are getting along well, but I'm a smidge worried that character motivations may split as the characters sometimes don't even get along lol.

Without strong arming them or going over the table, how could I get them together more?

How Do You Get Characters To Bond

Dear DM:

I'll admit that I'm a tad unclear on what you mean by the players tendency to "split into mini groups;" are you saying the party tends to split up while on adventures? Going separate ways in the dungeon? Because if that's the issue it is easily solved: most such parties will be destroyed if they insist on tackling adventure sites in piecemeal fashion. And once they create new characters (with the wisdom that comes from a 'hard knocks' experience) they'll be more like to stick together.

However, from your terminology ("artificer," "rogue") I gather that you're playing a newer version of the game. And perhaps your issue is with the characters simply "getting along" in the game world. That is, the characters...being played as actual entities separate from their players...sometimes allow their "character issues" to interfere with becoming a cohesive party. Or something.

Group dynamics are a tricky thing: people can be friends, co-workers, colleagues, and/or family members and might still have disagreements with each other. Even STRONG disagreements. Married couples and siblings (generally) love each other very much, and share strong bonds, but they can be deeply divided about things like politics or religion or even what types of movies or music they like. My brother and I, for example, have such a strong bond from sharing our lives together that often times we appear downright telepathic to others, because our minds and thoughts move in such similar ways. And, yet, we disagree on fundamental levels regarding politics, religion, and music (Bel Biv Devoe, Adam? Really?). 

And the larger the group, the more complicated those group dynamics become. Because each person in a group is a unique individual with their own likes/dislikes, hopes, fears, desires, and level of confidence when it comes to expressing themselves.

Now, once upon a time I subscribed to the idea that people could play a character that was different from themselves...the "this isn't ME making these decisions, it's MY character and how THEY would act" thing. However, over the years, I've only found one person who could truly be this objective about their playing piece: myself. And even to myself, my motives are oftentimes suspect. What actually occurs in this attempted dissolution of personality is that we tap into aspects of ourselves...sometimes aspects that we dislike or don't usually acknowledge even to ourselves, in order to "create" a persona that appears to be a different, separate entity. And I'm not just talking about "playing an evil PC;" check out the hardcore atheists that enjoy playing devout clerics (in a non-caricatured fashion).

It is similar to (part of) the process of an actor embodying a role: actors can only bring to the stage what is inside themselves and so they have to...purposefully...find that connection between their own personality and the character they are playing and weave the two together. We all have our "dark sides" and our "light sides;" what's more, we all have all the feelings/emotions that go into making the myriad of human behaviors and reactions to LIFE, as it happens...even if we don't all have the traumatic or uplifting experiences to cause those emotions to manifest into specific behavioral patterns.

But D&D is not acting: we are not attempting to shape ourselves into a character in order to portray the playwright's words in an effective matter, conveying the author's story with the director's themes. No.

What we ARE doing is playing a game of fantasy adventure. And our characters are the vehicles for that experience. And without all the mental gymnastics an actor needs to perform in order to (for example) transform Sir Anthony Hopkins into Hannibal Lecter, we can still say "Hm. If I were a wizard confronted by an owl bear, with only these few spells in my repertoire, what would I do?" That's it: that is what 'role-playing' is when it comes to the D&D game.

SO THEN: how do you get your players' characters to bond? By getting your players to bond. 

And how do you do that? Why, by imperiling them: putting their characters in jeopardy...if not mortal danger...such that it forces them to cooperate and rely on each other for aid and support. 

It's really that simple. The beauty of older edition games (which, I gather, you don't play) is that there is also a common objective (the attainment of treasure) which helps focus the players in the same direction. But with or without that, you ALWAYS have the objective of survival to fall back on...and this IS a game of fantasy adventure we're playing.  Adventures are dangerous; as Bilbo Baggins remarked, they're a nasty business that tend to make people late for supper. 

Will players continue to bicker and butt heads at times, both in and out of character? Yes, of course...because that is what people do, even cherished friends and loved ones. But they will form a strong bond if thrown into the fire together...an incredibly strong bond. And you, DM, are responsible for providing that flame. 

Sincerely, 

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #18

Dear JB:

I’m running a mini campaign on Discord, and put a lot of time into the story and world. I’ve made maps of the city, complex and detailed battlemaps and put almost 30 hours into the story and world building.

But my players, who actually roped me into this, literally don’t care. At first I thought I was running an engaging and fun game because someone was actually putting a good effort into making their character, but the others literally didn’t care. They just gave me what their magic item did (one didn’t even do that) and the classes. For context, these characters all started with a custom magical item.

When the first session rolled around, I found that no one was paying attention, except for the guy who had played three times before (we are all new) and hadn’t picked his item. He was a dragonborn rogue and had asked to switch his Breath Weapon with a teleport of ten feet. I agreed and thought he had 3 breath weapons (he had one at level 5). All he did was teleport behind enemies and ”Assassinate” them. I challenged this claim, as I asserted that even though someone would be surprised if someone teleported behind them and hit them, it would only count as a sneak attack and not an assassination because they were still in combat. Also, when I told him I had misremembered the amount of Breath Weapons he got, he told he that since I told him he had three, his character now had three.

Throughout the entire session, all I heard were games from the unmuted players, and whenever I promoted someone specific to make an action, they just responded with “What?” or “I wasn’t paying attention“ and I got sick of it. I ended the session early because I could feel myself about to cry. I know, immature, but I tried everything to get people to enjoy and have fun and none of it worked. Whenever they did something and it didn’t work, they would argue with me constantly (the only time they paid attention). I feel lost and confused. Planning the session was fun. But DMing it was horrible.

How Do I Keep Player Engagement When My Players Just Don’t Care

Dear DM:

Mm. Mmm.

You say that your "players roped you into this." What does that mean? That they wanted to play in a D&D campaign run by you? Or that they would only be willing to play D&D AT ALL, if you were the DM putting in all the work?

There is a lot to say here, but let me first give you your power back:

1. You are the Dungeon Master.
2. You are responsible for what happens at your table.
3. All this "player blaming?" Nope. This is all on YOU.
4. You are the Dungeon Master.

Reading over this, I see a lot of whining and complaining on your part for things that fall entirely into your purview. First off, no one gets "roped" into being the Dungeon Master, unless it's some condition of employment or your roommates are paying your rent or something. You either CHOOSE to be a Dungeon Master (and settle down to do the work) or you don't. That's it!

And please, please, please don't tell me "If I don't DM, then there's no game." THAT DOESN'T MATTER. That's not a thing! Playing D&D is NOT the same thing as running D&D. The two sides of the screen exercise different creative muscles, provide different forms of self-expression, give different types of "highs" to the participants.

You either want to be a DM. Or you don't.

So that's the first thing. Assuming that's true, everything that follows is your responsibility. This includes:

• how the game is run (in-person or on-line)
• what is allowed at the table (players playing video games during a session? nope)
• who is allowed at the table (specifically, how about only players interested in playing)

You set the parameters of play when you set up the game...that is, when you say "hey, we're playing 1E on Wednesday nights" (for example). I mean, you wouldn't invite people over to a poker game and expect them to plop on your couch and switch on the TV, right? You wouldn't invite people over to watch the Super Bowl and have them set-up a poker game in the garage while the game is playing, would you?

Moving on...so, it seems like you don't even know the rules of the game you've chosen to DM. That's kind of an issue. Especially when you're hell bent on modifying the game right out of the gate (changing what characters are allowed to do, permitting the players to each have a "custom magic item" that they're responsible for). Yeah, no. Again, this is on YOU. Since you seem new to this whole DMing thing, let me give you a piece of advice:

RUN THE DAMN GAME AS WRITTEN.

Regardless of the edition you're using. I don't think I've written this before but, if I have, it's worth repeating: the so-called "rule of cool" is just about the worst concept to ever smite the RPG hobby. 

The. Worst.

I am being perfectly serious: this idea that the game isn't good enough as written that one must constantly bend (or break) it's rules to ensure that gameplay is "awesome fun." Because...why? Because players need to be excited? Or mollified? Or what? Listen up, folks: Do you want to play D&D? Or don't you? 

Leave the tweaking of game systems to the only people who should be tweaking them: the long-time DMs who've played the system as designed and understand its ins and outs and have modifications they want to make for their taste, i.e. the taste of the particular veteran DM in question. Do not...repeat: DO NOT...kowtow to players who ask things like "can my character teleport instead of ability X" or "can I play ABC class/race that's not in the book" or "can I...whatever." The correct answer to any of this nonsense is a polite, but firm, "No."

Dungeons & Dragons is not a game of "yes, and..." It is a specific game with specific design considerations that went into making its specific rules in order to facilitate specific objectives of play.

Or, rather, it WAS. Then the Powers-That-Be decided they could make more money marketing it as the Everything Game for Every Fantasy-Loving nerd with a wallet full of smoldering cash and weren't afraid to muddy the waters, sowing confusion such that they could collect from the rubes before they realized they'd been hoodwinked.

Pick an edition. Learn it. Run it. That's the start. 

NOW, as far as keeping players engaged (assuming these are players who are ready, willing, and able to play the brand of D&D you're running)...well, that shouldn't be too hard, so long as you're plying them with adventure. By which I mean: immediate, visceral scenarios/situations that require a response from the players. So long as you do this...and keep the pressure turned up...they should be engaged. Because if they fail to engage, their characters will die. As you grow in experience and proficiency, you'll learn when to back off the heat, and when to crank it up, feeling the natural ebbs and flows of the game, giving necessary respites to your players (so they can take a breather before you hammer them again)...but for right now? Just run adventures that require attention.

Ad let the chips fall where they may.

Sincerely,

JB

Revisiting The Past

The last couple nights, I've had the pleasure of watching the first two episodes of Daredevil: Born Again. Man, I missed that show. Vincent D'Onofrio is so great...I've followed his career for years (starting with the Blood of Heroes, cheering him as Rob Howard in The Whole Wide World, even watching him as that evil Billy Corgin-looking serial killer in that Jennifer Lopez movie whose name escapes me)...but his portrayal of Wilson Fisk has got be his greatest role. And Charlie Cox makes a terrific Murdoch/Daredevil. Chef's kiss.

But MCU television isn't the reason for this post's title (although, as usual, it makes me itch to run a superhero campaign. Also, Sofia was watching The Incredibles 2 the other day...I'm sure that's part of it). No. I received an email from someone the other day that read (in part):

Reading The Complete B/X Adventurer I've noticed a teaser for the module "In the Realm of the Goblin Queen". I didn't find it anywhere, was this module published?

Ah, man...I'd forgotten all about that one.

BXC1: In the Realm of the Goblin Queen was an adventure module I had originally planned on publishing alongside...or in conjunction with...my B/X Companion book. I wanted a companion adventure for my Companion that provided a decent scenario for high level B/X play in the same way that B2 was published with Moldvay's Basic set and X1 was included in the Cook/Marsh Expert set.  Unfortunately, it never happened...for a number of reasons.

That doesn't mean there wasn't work done on the thing. Looking through my laptop's hard drive, I not only found my notes on the thing, but whole sections of text that were completed for the module: nearly two dozen pages of text, in fact. Considering the size of other adventures I've written for publication in recent years, this is pretty darn huge...the thing probably would have been close to the size of Dragon Wrack, had it been completed.

Of course, it's too wordy by far, and in need of serious editing. It looks like I last worked on it in 2010 or 2011, and my idea of what's needed/necessary in a module (even an introductory/teaching example, as this one was supposed to be), has changed quite a bit over the last 14+ years. It's not bad...in fact it has some decent ideas in it. But it could certainly be more clear and direct and less, mm, "flowery." There's read aloud text here (similar to that found in B2 and X1), and its presence makes me cringe a bit...I was putting a lot of effort into aping old adventure writing styles at the time.

Understandable, of course. BXC1 was my first attempt at writing any kind of adventure module.

However, it wasn't dissatisfaction with my own writing that kept me from completing the thing. Heck, it wasn't even lack of ideas for content: all the content is pretty much outlined in my notes (and most, if not all, of the more complex encounter areas were the ones I finished writing. Nope. This project got shelved for the two my two biggest bugaboos (of that time): lack of artwork and lack of satisfaction with my mapmaking abilities.

*sigh*

Which is all so dumb. I mean, sure, I STILL drag my feet when it comes to drawing maps (for me, the map is the hardest part about designing an adventure), but I've developed strategies and methods of dealing with that particular weakness of mine. And the art thing? That is sooooo not a concern for me these days. Way too many adventure writers are prioritizing form and style over functionality and playability...to the detriment of the product they're ostensibly trying to create. I'm at the point where I'm more-or-less anti-artwork in adventures. Which I grok is bad for the business side, but the artwork in adventure modules is so rarely helpful/useful. Decorative fluff, rather than truly illustrative.

SO...I should probably just finish this thing. 

I actually don't think it would take that long to do (hahaha...sure, pal! it always takes longer than anticipated!). But seriously, the bulk of the work has already been done. Cutting the extraneous and cleaning up the format doesn't take that long. If I could find my maps (never scanned, though they're around here somewhere), I could probably bang this out in a couple weeks or less. But there ARE a couple things that make me hesitate:

1. It's a high level adventure written for B/X.  I am sorry, but these days I'm not wearing the same rose-colored glasses I once did with regard to the viability of long-term B/X play. Do I really want to be encouraging this concept? Finishing BXC1, at this point, would be more of a vanity project than substantive (at least, so far as my own development as a game designer is concerned). Good practice for writing (maybe), but doubtful in its practicality.
2. I've got three (or four) adventures still in need of writing for Cauldron 2025. And all of eight months left before that little trip...eight busy months (with one kid graduating and starting high school, Confirmation classes, volleyball season/playoffs, soccer club tryouts/tournaments, summer travel, etc., etc.). Not to mention I still need to finish cleaning out my mom's house so I can get it on the market. Just a ton of stuff.

But "being busy" is nothing new for me; I suppose I should be used to it by now (though, to be fair, "not completing writing projects because of busy-ness" is also nothing unusual). Ah, well.

Okay, that's enough for the nonce. I'm currently in the process of thawing out a frozen beef liver for my lunch. Talk about "revisiting the past:" I haven't had liver & onions in some 30+ years. It was one of my mom's favorite dishes, though she stopped making it around the same time I started going to high school...instead, she'd get it for her birthday, once a year, when her best friend would take her to the (horse) racetracks.  Just had a craving. 

Later, gators.

EDIT:  Man, there were a lot of typos in this post (fixed most of 'em). ALSO: the liver and onions dish was delicious.

; )

"Dear JB" Mailbag #17

[*sigh*]

Dear JB:

All the games I play in these days eschew XP entirely and use milestone and story-based leveling instead. I like not having one extra thing to track as the DM and as a player and it means you don't end up with weird in-game stuff like leveling in the middle of a dungeon or even a session. However, it also means that the players have no real idea of how close they might be to the next level -- we have a running gag in one of our campaigns that we end every session by saying "so we leveled for next session, right?"

XP is prominent in game resources -- the 2024 encounter building rules now use XP, for example -- but because I don't use it or see it being used it feels extraneous, which got me wondering how prevalent it still is.

How is leveling handled in your games? Are you still using XP? Have you tried story-based leveling and gone back to XP for some reason?

Do You Still Use XP

Hey DYSUX:

I'm going to answer your three final questions first, because the answers are short; they are:

1. The normal way (minus training).
2. Yes.
3. No.

Okay, now for the rest of it.

I am sorry, DYSUX...very, very sorry indeed. I am sorry for the problems of the world. I am sorry that you and I have to live with those problems and deal with them as do as all the other human beings with whom we share this delightful planet. I'm sorry for the messes humans have made and continue to make, and I'm sorry we can't all seem to get along and behave like decent people on a more regular basis.

I am sorry. And while it may seem like I am not personally responsible for the world's problems, the fact remains that I am one of the people on this planet, and so I share in the responsibility. I am a part of this great race of humanity, and so I share in its collective responsibility. And on behalf of everyone I apologize to you and to me and to everyone. I am sorry.

Drilling down more locally, I am sorry for you and your game. It is clear that the game is too difficult for you. I am sorry for your education...whatever educational system set you up for failure by failing to teach you strong principles in BASIC ARITHMETIC, since basic arithmetic is all that's required to calculate experience points in the D&D game. Yes, in ANY edition, even the abomination that is "DND 2024."

I am sorry for your ignorance. I am sorry for your laziness. I am sorry that I haven't been a better example in the world...or, at least, in this hobby. I am sorry I haven't bothered to write sufficient blog posts describing how to add points together, divide them by surviving party members, and consult a table to see if an individual character has "leveled up."

I am so, so sorry.

Of course, I don't play "DND 2024," so it may just be that I have it easy. Let me check out a copy of the 2024 DMG and see how one goes about doling out the x.p. Hmmmm. Step-by-step it looks like this:

1. determine whether you want a given encounter to have a "low," "moderate," or "high" difficulty. Ok.
2. look at the chart on page 115 and cross-reference the difficulty choice with the average PC level...this gives you a number.
3. multiply the number on the chart by the number of characters in the party (PCs and NPCs)
4. using the x.p. awards listed for each monster in the latest MM, use this "point budget" to put together the monsters for the encounter.

So...what's the problem? 

[*read*read*read*] 

Um...says here that the x.p. is awarded to the party for defeating the encounter, and then split amongst the party member. Okay....

So the problem is...what? Not having a calculator?  If you own a smart phone, these generally have a calculator app already loaded. I'm sorry I can't point to where it is specifically on your list of apps (since I don't know you personally), but perhaps someone nearby can help you find it?

Let's get to your second paragraph, DYSUX: you wonder how prevalent the use of "XP" (i.e. "experience points") are given that they are a prominent part of the game (any edition of the game, by the way). My guess would be "pretty prevalent" among people who A) play D&D (any edition), B) use the rule books, and C) have half a brain and/or a rudimentary education. Clearly, YOU are lacking one or more of these three things. 

You seem to find the game of D&D too challenging to run as a DM. You state that doing away with experience points means "not having one extra thing to track as the DM." Pray tell, what other things do you need to track that you so need to free up this memory space in your brain? Encumbrance? Spell durations? The amount of chips in the communal snack bowl?  The level of drink in your glass?

Allow me to be frank, DYSUX: I think you're a lazy idiot. Let me explain why:

• Calculating experience is not rocket science, especially in 5E. You add the point value of monsters slain (usually not all that many in your average 5E session) and divide it amongst the group. The point value is easily found in the MM; the math is easily done on a calculator. You don't do this DURING THE GAME; you do it at the end of the session or between sessions. You give the amount to your players (to add to their character sheets) and you keep a running total for each PC (in a notebook or on a laptop), which can then be compared (again, between sessions) to see if a level threshold has been achieved. The only "tracking" that needs to be done is how many monsters have been defeated...simply make a note, or put a checkmark by each monster entry in your adventure text or something that can be easily reviewed once the session has concluded.
• If you were to run an old edition game...like, say, AD&D...you'd need to track g.p. value of treasure recovered, too. However, given your capabilities, you might find such extra work to be overwhelming. I merely note it and the fact that this isn't very hard...I've been able to do the math (without a calculator or computer or smart phone) since before I was a teenager. Again, it's just basic arithmetic.
• By not using x.p. you are depriving your players of objective goals of play in favor of arbitrary ones set by the DM. You are subjugating player agency to the needs of the story and/or simply riding roughshod over the players with your own laissez-faire fickleness (however that lands on a particular, given day) with fiat awarding of levels. You are furthermore destroying the joy that comes from pride of accomplishment that players feel when they see that point total climb and surpass the needed amounts to level up their characters' personal power, replacing it with slavish devotion to DM whim and a "good boy" pat-on-the-head feeling for jumping through your hoops. All because you're too lazy and/or stupid to put in the effort to do simple math.

DYSUX, if it sounds like I'm being harsh with you, it's because I am, because I would like to stomp and squash such ignorant practices. Sadly, though, I sincerely doubt that you are alone in the way you run your D&D game, because I have read too much evidence to the contrary. And I am sorry about that. I am sorry for you and I am sorry for the hobby and I am sorry for all the poor saps that are learning BAD, BAD practices in how to run the Dungeons & Dragons game. 

Fortunately for you, it IS just a game, and you can run it however you want at your own table. But don't expect to gather much respect from the people who know better.

Sincerely,

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #16

[okay, one more and then...I think...I'm done]

Dear JB:

I kind of just need to just get this off my chest.

So nearly two months ago, very early in january my six players and myself had a talk about starting a campaign and did some session zero stuff like talking about what kind of style we want for the game, boundaries, how often we want to play etc.

I gave them the jist for a campaign idea I had and we agreed on a starting date which was even rescheduled to be even later. It was already relatively far into the future, because many of us had exams and needed to focus on that. Two weeks after our initial talk I send them a more detailed description of the campaign prompt, the world, which races would be playable, a map, even some bullet points about which character options might be thematically relevant and easy to tie into the story.

Now we're supposed to start playing on monday and 5/6 players haven't told me anything about their characters other than what classes they might play and many of them are really stressed because their weekend is full. They nearly had two months of time and I now and then gave some updates in our group chats, offered to help with character creation...

All of them say they're excited to play but I'm just not buying it. I'm so disappointed that they had so much time and nearly all of them procrastined character creation like it's some kind of homework. I was so excited to play and to hear about their characters, try and build their backstory into the campaign plot and world.

TL,;DR: players had almost 2 months to create characters, still didn't deliver even though campaign starts in 3 days.

I'm Disappointed With My Players

Hey, Disappointed:

Ah, college days. I can still remember being asked to run Vampire the Masquerade for a bunch of young nerds living in the campus dormitories (I did not live in the dorms, though I spent many a night there). VtM is a game that has an extensive, point-buy chargen system and recommends that the first session of a "Saga" (VtM-speak for "campaign") be conducted as a "prelude" to actual game play, detailing each character's origin story as well how the PCs have come together. In the terms of today's RPG lingo, it is a very "trad" game.

When I was asked to run VtM for these eight or nine players (of whom I only knew one or two), I showed up to our first session with my books and pre-printed (blank) character sheets. I passed these out, explained the basic system was an additive dice pool and gave them the numbers they needed to assign to create their characters. I can't remember exactly how much time was spent that first session...probably a couple hours getting to know people, answering questions, and doing the actual chargen as well as discussing how each PC would fit into the campaign ("preludes," short and sweet, were folded into this). And then we made plans to meet the following week...at the same time on the same day in the same place...in order to have our first session.  And when I ran/played other "trad" games in college (Ars Magica, for example) this was pretty much the standard procedure.

These days, though, I run only D&D (specifically AD&D) and it's nowhere near as complex a procedure. If I'm playing a con game or one-off, I come to the table with pre-gens. If we're playing in my home campaign, we spend the 10-15 minutes making a character for whichever player(s) is lacking one. And then we start playing.  

Because we are playing D&D, and D&D isn't rocket science.

Disappointed, if you couldn't play till after your exams, you should have just told your players "Hey, I'm going to run some D&D after exams...anyone interested?"  Once the exams were complete, you send out the email saying "hey, we're playing at this place at this time on this date; please RSVP by [whenever]" and then you wait to see how many people respond by the cut-off, and you plan an adventure for that number of PCs.  And you might even give yourself a little extra time to make characters on that first session.

Because that's how you run a D&D game. Dungeons & Dragons already has a concrete premise that provides a justification for different players to be together with a common goal/objective. Players are bold adventurers in a fantasy world who face dangerous perils together in the hopes of acquiring fame and fortune. That's the game!

Why are you drawing all this out? Even if you're playing 5E (or 5.5 or One DND or whatever), we are talking about college educated veteran players in their 20s (at least)...why the hell do they need months to create their characters? Just what, exactly, are you expecting from them? Term paper length backstories?

Wouldn't you rather just, you know, play D&D? Instead of reading and waiting and incorporating and collating and....I don't know, whatever it is you're doing instead of playing D&D? Wouldn't you rather do that instead of whining and complaining? 

As the Dungeon Master, your job is to world build and prep adventures. You don't need the players' characters to do that...certainly not when starting a new campaign!  YOU ARE YOUR WORLD...what the heck do you need from the players?  Even if you're playing 5E with its thousand and one different player species and character classes: you just tell the players what's allowed and what's prohibited and away they go.

At the first session. Right before slapping 'em upside the head with some adventure.

But you want...what? Updates? "Thematic relevance?" Something?

Man, it is JUST D&D. That's all it is. You are not a director putting on a play. You do not need to write scripts or have players practicing their lines (or their accents). All you should be focused on is designing that first dungeon that's going to kick off your (hopefully awesome) game! It is still called Dungeons & Dragons, right?  Why do you insist on making things so hard?

Sincerely, 

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #13, #14, and #15

[three quick ones I figured I could knock out before breakfast; happy Ash Wednesday, by the way!]

Dear JB:

I posted about a week ago asking about how to balance an encounter for a group of nine players that I was taking over for a previous DM.

Many of y’all said I should split the group and I followed your advice. But now the four who are in the “B group” so to speak are upset with me. One of my A group players wants me to add someone from the B group in. The B group players decided to drop the campaign even when I suggested doing A group one week and B group the next.

I’m just so stressed. I want everyone to have a good time but I won’t be having a good time if I have to run a game for nine people. I’m also a little mad at the old DM for allowing so many players. I wish he had put a limit on his group

My Players Are Upset With Me

Hey MPAUWM:

I'm sorry you didn't turn to me first; we could have nipped this whole thing in the bud instead of allowing it to escalate to where you're at now.

FIRST OFF: you state that you wish the previous DM had set a limit on players in the group. Well, you know who's the DM now?  Any guesses on who's responsible for setting limits on the group size now?

No one is forcing you to be the DM (I hope. Please write back if you're being held against your will). As the DM, you set the table size, you decide who's allowed, you decide how many you can handle, you schedule the games, etc., etc.

You can't please ALL the people ALL the time. Have players draw lots for your game, or pick your favorites or whatever...but exercise your authority. The players who get left out can form their own group with their own DM. You wouldn't be doing them any favors by trying to include them in a situation where you're already feeling overwhelmed.

Sincerely,

JB

*****

Dear JB:

I haven't played in a long time but I'd like to DM a few easy campaigns for my nephews who have never played before. Ideally I'd like them to create their characters and then have them go on a few adventures with minimal complexity. What's the easiest way to get started?

Want To Create Simple Campaigns For Kids Aged 8-11

Hey WTCSCFK:

The simplest way is just as you said: have them create characters and have them run through a few simple adventures of your own (or others') design. This isn't rocket science.

Ignore the idiots on Reddit who say "DnD is an unnecessarily complicated system for kids;" they have no idea what they're talking about. I've introduced MANY kids aged 8-11 to D&D without any problems at all. Pick up B/X and a copy of M1: Blizzard Pass...that's a great introductory adventure that will give them a real feel for the game. Or, if you're feeling ambitious run them through B1 and B2; both are great.

AD&D is a little trickier for kids as young as 8 and 9 (requiring quite a lot of hand-holding), but fine for age 10+. Unfortunately, I don't have a good AD&D adventure to recommend for 1st level characters. However, if you can get your hands on a copy of Holmes Basic, The Tower of Zenopus is easily adapted to 1E and makes a fine warm up dungeon. 

Best of luck. If your experience is anything like mine, you're well on your way to becoming a favorite uncle!

Sincerely, 

JB

*****

Dear JB:

I've already played in a few DnD campaigns, but now it's my first time being a DM(I'm still a teen so I am not like super advanced), and I need tips!

-How do I make the experience the most enjoyable for the players?

-How to come up with a story that will make the players engage? I have played a campaign in which everything revolved around the DM, and really do not want that with my campaign. And overall some tips would be really appreciated.

First Time Being A DM

Hey First Time:

I'm going to answer each of your two questions separately.

1. In my experience, players will find the most enjoyment in a smoothly run game. To do that, you need to be experienced with the rules. Since this will be your first time DMing, there is no way you should expect to provide that (it's always going to be a little rough your first few times), but you can mitigate your lack of experience by being well-prepared. Be sure you know and understand the rules most pertinent to your players' characters, be sure you understand the ins-and-outs of combat and other complex procedures. Design or purchase a SMALL adventure to start, and make yourself exceptionally familiar with it for your first running. 
2. Forget everything about "creating a story." Player engagement does not come from storytelling; it comes from situational immediacy. Keeping the players in the moment, by confronting them with situations that require action, is the best way to engage players. Do this, and they will lose themselves in the game and enjoy the heck out of it.

Be patient with yourself and understand you will get better with time. Remember that when you are the DM, you ARE the world...the game cannot help but revolve around the DM (because without the DM there is no game), so if you are not comfortable with that, you may not be ready to take up the mantle.

But try it out. Maybe you'll find you enjoy being a Dungeon Master. Many of us do.

Sincerely,

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #12

[back to reddit. I've found that the majority of posts are ones I can't use, because they are written by players...and there's nothing I can do for players. Because I'm not their Dungeon Master. I've written down a couple that are relatively "interesting" or "juicy," but in the end my responses simply come out as "sorry, but I can't help because I'm not your DM." If you don't like the way the DM is running the game, as a player your options are limited to 1) leave, 2) suck it up, or 3) try "talking to the DM"...however, I am fairly skeptical about this last option for a number of reasons. Anyway... Only DM questions from now on]

Dear JB:

I've been DMing for about 6 years at this point. I try to be a good DM and most importantly I try to make the players feel badass and like heros.

One of the ways I do this is when there is a fight that's particularly important to one player, I try to make it so that player gets the killing blow on the main baddie. Like if one players character was betrayed by the bad guy, or theve been rivals for years. How this usually works is once the main baddie gets to zero hp, if that blows wasn't done by the "important" player, then I will keep baddie alive until their turn and let their attack be the one that finishes them off. Does this mean that sometimes the badid will get an extra turn? Yes it does, but I never use that turn to heal or run away or do something that will alter the fight.

I told my friend about this, a person who I used to DM for years ago until he had to move, and he got legitimately upset. He asked if I ever did this in our campaign and I answer yes because I had. He said it wasn't fair and it was fudging the numbers. I told him I did it because I want each player to have a moment where they are the hero, where they get revenge or have their moment of triumph over the baddie. But he just kept saying that it was cheating and was a case of "DM vs the players". Ive never seen it that way, and I've certainly never meant for that to be the case. What do you all think?  

Does This Make Me A Jerk DM

Hey, DTMMAJDM:

Does this make you a "jerk?" The term means different things to different people, so that's hard to nail down, unless you're just talking about my own subjective opinion.

However, your actions certainly make you a liar and a cheat, and I can understand why any of your players (former or current) would be upset to find out about your proclivity for despicable behavior.

I've written before, at length, about "fudging dice" and why it's a Very Bad Thing, but if the reasons given in my prior post ain't enough for you, just look at the reaction of your former player: was he grateful for your cheating? Was that his reaction?

Of course not. In my own experience (and fortunately this has been rare) I can tell you that when I've discovered I am playing a game with a cheater and that they are being deceptive (i.e. lying about their cheating), I've felt DIRTY. Just horribly unclean. Mortified for the cheater, and completely uninterested in playing ANY game with them ever again. 

Because what does that say about the person? It's just a game after all: the stakes that come with LOSING are so small...it's not like someone's going to lose their life or drain their bank account over a game of D&D. What would this person be willing to do if something important really was 'on the line?'

Now, I know that you (and others) will defend your actions by saying your cheating (which is what a blatant disregard of the game rules is) was done for the advantage of your players, and is thus justifiable. You wanted to give them their moment to shine and be badass heroes...clearly you're not hurting your players right?

How the hell do you know? What if the Big Bad Guy is important to ANOTHER player, besides the one you've hand-picked to get the 'killing blow?' What if I, as a player in your game, have no "backstory investment" in the opponent, but rather have an actual, real emotional investment of the kind that arises naturally in-play due to a hard fought combat? You're going to take that away from me? Just to preserve your fucking story?

How utterly selfish of you! And what if the Bad Guy lasting an extra round or two causes it to hit and kill a PC...even the one that you had destined for the "spotlight?" Are you going to fudge THAT roll, too, so that the PC survives? If you don't then your blatant disregard of the game rules has cost one player their character. But if you do, then why are we even bothering to roll dice anyway? Why don't you simply narrate how the battle goes. I mean, that's what you're doing anyway except that we are making noise by throwing dice on the table.

There's no facade necessary. Go write your frigging novel.

No, I don't know if you're a jerk, but you are a joke of a DM. Six years? You've been DMing for six years and this is how you run your game? Your former player is absolutely correct on all counts: it isn't fair, it is fudging, it is cheating, and you are breaking the rules in order to ensure your preferences over those of the people interested in normal, emergent play. Why should any of your players ever trust you, let alone respect you? 

And if they can't, why would any one of them ever be willing to play in your game?

Sincerely, 

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #11

Something new...on non-Reddit letter, but rather a missive from the CAG discord. While it was addressed to all CAG members, I told the writer I'd throw his letter in the "mailbag" (he said my Dear JB stuff inspired the post anyway).

Dear JB:

My AD&D campaign kicked off in mid September and we’re 18 sessions in. I emphasized CAG style play even before then, but the system(s) we had used would often work against this, and my players developed a few bad habits as a result (I probably did too). Add to that the needing to learn AD&D rules and you get my approach to DMing which has included a healthy amount of teaching the game through providing information and verbalizing options to players that would (or should) just be known to players with more skill and experience with the game. At what point do you think I should back off and let the players figure things out on their own, maybe even through hard-earned lessons ( has happened already. 4 character deaths since September)?  

Signed, (Hopefully not egregiously) 

Helicopter DM 

Dear Helicopter DM:

After 18 sessions and nearly half a year (five and a half months?) I'd figure your players should have a pretty good idea of how the game is played. Hell, they should have been ready for any "training wheels" to come off 12-15 sessions ago.

I know I say this a lot, but D&D (even AD&D) isn't "rocket science." It's a game...and a game that is readily played by kids as young as 10 (or thereabouts). Note, I say played, not DM'd (though 12-13 is old enough to run AD&D semi-competently...I know, having done so myself). But with a Dungeon Master who's familiar with the system, there's not a lot players need to know: by the second or third session of play, all but the most obtuse players should have a solid handle on the basic system mechanics (AC, HPs, to hit rolls, saves, Vancian magic, experience points, surprise, initiative, secret doors, thief skills, etc.) because all of these systems should have been showing up in-play from the very first session.

"CAG" ("classic adventure gaming") is not a "style" of play, nor even some "mindset" one has to adapt. It is simply a term used to describe the type of play that emerges from playing old edition RPGs (like AD&D) in the way in which they're intended to be played, i.e. as a game. That's it...that's all it is. 

If your players are NEW to AD&D (that is, if they're used to playing other RPG systems: 5E, PbtA, Savage Worlds, etc.), they are going to have to learn the new rules and objectives of play...but that's really all they're learning. Risk is different from Axis & Allies which is different from Warhammer which is different from Advanced Squad Leader, and while there is some terminology (and dice) that carries over between games..and even similar themes...they are distinct games, and one has to spend some time learning the rules.

Similarly, AD&D is a distinct RPG from other editions of D&D, even though it shares the name Dungeons & Dragons in its title. Now, it's not INCREDIBLY different from 2E or 5E, so the "learning time" should be pretty negligible when making the transition from a different system. But there IS a period of learning. For an adult player who has played other versions of D&D I'd estimate the learning period to range from one to four sessions...and you can cut that learning time in HALF if the player has access to their own Players Handbook and the inclination to read in their spare time. 

Now, just because they've learned the rules doesn't make them any good at the game. If you're a beginner playing a veteran in a war game (like the ones mentioned two paragraphs back) you're most likely going to have your ass handed to you by your opponent, and that's to be expected. You come back to the game, not because you like getting pwned, but because you love the game...and you love it enough that you're willing to suffer through some hard knocks to get better at it.

In AD&D, the GAME is your opponent.

As the Dungeon Master, your job is to run the game; the game cannot be played without a Dungeon Master. Let me try an analogy: playing AD&D is like driving a race car. The system is the car; the battery of the car is Dungeon Master's effort level (the fuel is whatever fires the DM's imagination). The track or course is the adventure being played. 

The players...collectively...are the driver. They are trying to handle both the car (the system) and the course (the adventure)...not an easy task, especially for a beginning driver. When starting out, they need a slower speed and a simpler track, but as they grow in confidence and proficiency, you can give them more "curves" and press them to gear up, speed up, post better times. 

You don't want the group driving 30mph six months into their career.

Look: your players should, at this point, have a good handle on how to play AD&D. After half a year and 18 sessions, I'd probably expect your PCs to be in the 5th-6th level range (maybe 4th for multi-class or replacement characters). They are no longer "beginners;" haven't been for a long time. You should be offering them scenarios ("adventures") that are appropriate for their level range...appropriate meaning commensurate danger for commensurate reward...and, then, letting them play. YOU run the game. THEY drive the race car. 

They don't need to be experts for you to stop verbalizing possibilities to them. If I were running such a group, I'd be fine with them asking "um, can I do this?" or "hey, how would I do that?" But my attention would not be on offering suggestions of possible actions they could take...instead, my focus would be squarely on running the game: here's the situation my dudes, now what are you going to do about it?  

Rather than making excuses for your players (and for yourself) you should be making adventures...that's really the bottom line. Stop worrying about the players "learning the hard way" (or whatever). You either want to run AD&D...or you don't. The players either want to play in the game you're running...or they don't. Here's what I know for certain: YOU will not be satisfied and energized unless you run the game system you want to run. And no campaign can survive a Dungeon Master that is un-satisfied and lacks energy. Zero chance. 

Let them play...I promise the players will all survive (even if their characters don't). Direct all your worries and stress into making sure the playground is awesome and exciting, so much so that they don't mind the occasional bruise or scraped knee.

Sincerely,

JB