"Dear JB" Mailbag #25

Oh, boy...a good one!

Dear JB:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Players Constantly Arguing Morals

Dear PCAM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

By working together towards a common goal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, 

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #24

Dear JB:

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

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

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

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

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

I Think I'm Just Bad At DND

Dear BAD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, your Dungeon Master is an idiot child.

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

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

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

From last night's game...

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

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

Sincerely,

JB

Wee Hours - Redux

Yes, another volleyball post. For those who are interested but, mostly, for my own enjoyment and edification.

It is again 5:30am and (again) I've been up/awake for, roughly, an hour plus. No volleyball today, but volleyball is what is on my mind. Also, I had some chocolate last night (Sunday doesn't count for the ol' Lenten fast) which might account for 4ish hours of sleep. Maybe. Playoff volleyball carries its own hyper-stimulation.

Some context: as a Catholic school (of course my kids go to Catholic school) we play in the CYO (Catholic Youth Organization) league of the Seattle Archdiocese. The vast majority of teams we play against are our fellow Catholic schools (CYO allows the occasional secular private school to participate also), so many of these schools are teams we see many times over the years, in various sports. Schools have rivalries; schools have reputations. And schools have strengths and weaknesses (by class). 

Our school is a small one...tiny. My son's class size is 17...eight boys and nine girls. Our parish has a vibrant Latino community thanks to its offering of bi-lingual (Spanish) services...one of the reasons my wife and I chose this parish for our family, besides its close proximity to our home. However, the majority of the Latino families send their children to public schools rather than our school, despite the fact our school offers Spanish language class from kindergarten through 8th grade (another reason we chose to enroll our children).

To say that our school is NOT known for athletics would be a gross understatement. These days (i.e. unlike in my youth) CYO is very interested in giving all students an opportunity to play sports, and as such schools are allowed to partner together with other schools (or simply have their students join larger schools) in order to play sports. My son has played CYO soccer since kindergarten, but he has not played under his own school's name since 5th grade (when they shifted from 7v7 to 9v9); in basketball, he's NEVER played for his own school (there are only four boys in the class that play). Same with cross country and track. It is what it is.

That we were able to put together a full volleyball roster is...amazing. Last year we had a combined team of 7th graders and 8th graders. All three of my 7th grade players returned this year, and they brought three of their five classmates. The one 7th grader from St. Matthew's (another small parish) that played last year also returned, and we got one new 8th grader (Jesus) who attends the parish but doesn't attend the school proper. Finally, we are once again including 7th graders on our (8th grade) roster with two from our own school and one from St. Benedict's...a traditional partner school of ours that is even smaller. None of these new boys had ever played team volleyball before this year.

When last I wrote, we we were about to play our penultimate regular season game against a hated rival; I'll call them "AB." Hated is a pretty strong word, but they are a school with an obnoxious reputation (in sports) and a rather unlikeable coach who has a tendency to jump out of her seat (not allowed under the league regulations) and yells instructions to her team continuously throughout matches. The team is large in size and numbers (a maxed out 15 man roster), and tends to get by on their athleticism. We played them on their home court with a biased referee (an alum of the school) and we lost...mostly (IMO) from us losing our cool over questionable calls. They finished 7-1 and #2 in the Northern division while we finished #3 after beating (what I considered to be) the best team in our division in the final week of the season (a team who had been undefeated in play before we beat them...their only other loss coming by forfeit when most of their players were taking a high school placement test for Seattle Prep).

So, at 6-2 (our only other loss being in the first week...mostly due to nerves...against last year's champ and the eventual #1 seed of our division), we entered the playoffs this weekend. Single elimination. Our first game was on Saturday and (as with all playoff games) was played at a neutral site (St. Louise in Bellevue) with League official scorekeepers and referees. The last time we had been in that gymnasium was last year, for our first (and last) playoff game of last season...a game in which my son injured himself making a diving save (scoring the point!) before having to be carried off the court. He sprained his MCL that day, which caused him to miss soccer tryouts for his club team (and was subsequently cut/sent down to a lower division) and prevented him from most athletics till July. 

ANYway...we won (against the #5 seed from the South division) in straight sets 2-0. 

Which set up yesterday's (Sunday's) quarter-final game against AB at 5:30pm in West Seattle.

The players were pretty keyed up...as you might imagine. Excited to be playing, fired up to avenge their earlier loss, a little worn out from a long-weekend (not only did we play Saturday, but this was the weekend of our school's Spring Musical...which has all middle school kids participating. Most of our players came directly from the Sunday "matinee" performance). Some were tense just from the drive to West Seattle in the pouring rain (there was pickup truck accident on the West Seattle bridge that is never helpful). Nathan was out sick. Herbert wasn't going to make it by game time. That kind of thing.

I said to them: "You guys ever watch sports movies?" Yeah. "You know how there's always a hero team and a jerk team that gets its comeuppance at the end? Well, today's our movie day when we knock off the jerks." That settled them down and fired 'em up.

While the rules of volleyball are pretty straightforward (best two out of three sets, first two sets to 25, third to 15, rally scoring, sets must be won by two points), the method of tracking scores is fairly intricate, as there are specific rules/procedures for serves and substitutions. In addition, CYO has specific rules with regard to participation and playing time (all players must serve at least once, all players must play at least 25% of the game). None of this is a problem for us (my wife is our scorekeeper), but it's cool because these intricate score cards allow me to recreate the game as they played out. Here's how yesterday's game went:

Coaches and captains met with the ref. Our captains for today were Diego (my son) and Atticus. Atticus is, perhaps, the nicest, kindest kid in class and is (definitely) the least competitive. He is good at volleyball (he was one of my players last year) but he plays it because its fun and he likes his friends (he plays no other competitive sports). He has also begged me all season NOT to make him a captain (captains on the court are the ONLY people allowed to address the ref during games and are responsible for having their players ordered and lined-up). I told Atticus after our win Saturday that he would be a captain against AB, no "but-but-buts" about it. Before the game I told him: "I am empowering you to be a leader with your kindness. You make sure our team is being kind to each other, and kind to the other team. Help them stay out of the whole drama that comes with playing this AB team...that's your job as the captain." He understood. As the "away" (lower seeded) team, he called the coin toss, which we won, and...as I always do...we deferred serve till the second set. 

We returned their serve to score the first point but immediately gave it back with our first server, Judah. They scored a point before we won a rally (making it 2-2), then gave it back again (Diego's serve), another exchange, then Evan got an extra point before they rallied, we exchanged again, and immediately gave it back after Atticus's serve. The game sitting at 5-5. They then served five in a row before we rallied, but an immediate exchange (Jesus serving) followed by a point put us down 12-6. I then subbed in Herbert for Evan.

Evan is the shyest, quietest kid on our the team...he has literally said less than 10 words to me all season (in practices or games). Maybe six words? And yet, he has the main role in the musical and I watched this kid rattling off plenty of memorized lines along with (not very tuneful) singing. He's one of our taller players, but he lacks quickness, decisiveness, and agility. He plays soccer to be with his friends but he's generally a bench player. Herb, on the other hand, is a 7th grader who plays premier soccer (same club as my son but a year behind) and is used to high level competition. Neither have played volleyball before but they both bring their own strengths: Evan, who's been taking tennis lessons, is one of our most consistent servers, while Herb has raw athleticism and competitive fire.

They score another point (13-6) and I call timeout. I check in with them, remind them there's no time limit, make sure they're calm, deep breaths, locked in. They rally and Ryan scores a point before we exchange and the gap is narrowed to six.

We immediately rally to make it 14-9 and then Judah, our gentle giant from St. Matt's parish, gives us 10, 11, and 12. He's going under-hand today, not trusting his nerves (6'3", bespectacled kid who's actually homeschooled, the Panther kids have embraced him since last year). I consider subbing him out after the exchange (like Evan, he's one of our slower backline players) but decide to let it ride. They score another point before we exchange and now the score is only 16-13.

Then its time for "Nails" to step in: my son, the Capricorn, has icewater in his veins (you should see him take PKs). He serves up 14, 15, and 16 to tie the score. Then he serves up 17 to take the lead and the AB coach calls timeout. I check in with our players...they are locked, they are solid, they've been here before. We would scrimmage our 8th grade girls back at the beginning of the season and routinely go down 8 or 10 points and have to claw our way back. This is what we do.

And now the crowd is chanting from the bleachers on the opposite side. "Let's go Panthers!" (*boom*boom*boom*) "Let's go Panthers!" (*boom*boom*boom). I have never heard this before at an elementary school event. Not volleyball, not basketball, not anything. It's rather incredible.

The timeout ends, the crowd goes silent (viewers are REQUIRED to be silent during serves). Diego scores another point to put us up 18-16 (thunderous applause) and then the exchange. 

The ref awards a point to AB for a bad switch in the front row (we use designated setters: Jesus and Diego for this set), and they score another to get to 19, but we win the next rally and we know we have them on the ropes. I sub Evan back onto the court to serve...no need to call time. Evan goes 20, 21, 22, 23 and the AB coach calls timeout. I was told later (I wasn't paying any attention) that she was actually yelling at and berating her players on the court. That's her deal, not mine. I told the team: two points...we just need a rally and a serve and we can move on to the next set. "Or," I said to Evan with a smile, "two more serves. If you want to." Evan said nothing (he never does), but he smiled and he gave me two more serves and we closed it out 25-19.

The tale of the second set was much the same, so I'll be quicker with the telling. They went up 6-1 to start before we got into our rhythm, but at 11-6 I subbed Ryan in for Nicolas. Nicolas is a big guy (tall, not fat) who has good instincts, but his feet are stuck in mud...it doesn't help that he misses practices for ice hockey (his other sport). Ryan, my son's best friend, is the shortest kid on the team (shorter than Diego) but has the biggest mouth (it runs non-stop)...a club basketball player, he's got excellent quickness and agility and is a ferocious competitor. We rally and Jesus takes over.

When we heard we were getting a new kid named "Jesus" this year, the kids joked "Jesus will save us!" When he missed the first two/three weeks of practice we wondered if he'd ever show up...and after missing so much work, there was some grumbling that "He better know how to play volleyball." Well he does, and he's the best overall player on the team. Only slightly taller than Diego (i.e. not that tall) he's stout and athletic and LOVES volleyball (his whole family is into the sport). Sporting long, "beautiful" hair (as described by one parent the other day), when he's on, he's on. He may be even more competitive than my son (the only other person I've seen with tears after a loss). 

Jesus serves us up to 10 before AB calls a timeout, desperate. The crowd is chanting again now (I believe it was Jesus's family that started the chants...Mexicans, go figure). There's not much for me to do or say during the timeout besides "finish strong." Jesus takes us up to 14, before they rally. 

They get back to 16, but I don't panic. Herbert serves and we exchange. I put Nicolas back in for Ryan (I want Nicolas to serve; he's consistent), Logan exchanges, they exchange, Nicolas serves up 18 and 19 to take the lead, then back to them where they take the lead to 20, before another exchange ties it up and Kieran comes in. 

Kieran is about as stereotypical an Irish Catholic kid as you see. He's got the red hair and freckles, he was born on St. Patrick's day, he acted as both an altar server and Eucharistic Minister at Mass the night before (I know...we were there and he gave me Communion). He comes from a musical family and plays multiple instruments...for school Masses he accompanies the choir on the piano. While he's done a lot of swimming in the past and is coordinated, this is the first time EVER that he has played on any competitive sports team. He can get a little "adrenalized" in these games.

He hits an overhand rocket that nearly goes out of bounds...he is obviously amped up. He takes a big step back and sends in another huge shot that nearly kills some poor kid. Now our whole bench is laughing. "What did Kieran have for breakfast this morning?" Ryan says: "We're going to storm the court!" I say: "Don't you dare." Ryan, on the bench is yelling at Kieran to move back, as he continues to put a heavy dose of mustard on his shots. We hit 23 and the AB coach calls a timeout. "We just need a serve and a rally," is all I need to say. They smile. They know. It's all over but the shouting (or chanting, in this case). "You feeling it a bit today, Kieran?" I joke, and he chuckles...he's practically floating.

He gets to 24 before they return one, Diego sets to Herbert who spikes into the net (probably Herb's only missed spike of the game) and AB gets the ball back. 

But it doesn't matter. They serve, Nicolas bumps it up in the air, Diego sets it beautifully to Jesus who spikes it off the head of some poor kid in the front row...an exclamation point on a team that could have been disqualified (under CYO rules) for their coach's antics in the playoff game the day before (we stayed to watch after we finished Saturday). I told the coach of that team, "We'll get 'em for you tomorrow." And we did.  Then we cheered 'em out and shook hands and I told the boys we'd have normal practice this week (ahead of our semi-final match next Saturday), now that the musical was over and we could use our gym again (last week we were practicing at a different school...not ideal).

Ah, sports. So fun, so exhilarating. Probably not as exciting to read about as to watch in person, but writing it up helps me remember the experience, the emotion, the stress, the joy. For the rest of the day, it's pretty much all my family talked about...but we get excited about sport. Not everyone does. 

But boy, the parents of these kids are sure having fun this year.

; )

There are only four teams left, and they are all exceptional teams. I had the chance to watch all of them play on Sunday and take their measure:

St. Al/John: a two school combo that always partners together. While most school's would choose to field one large team (like AB does), St. Al/John's has taken the "interesting" approach of fielding two small teams, one of which is stocked with their best athletes. This is their "A" team; an eight-man squad, they won the 7th grade championship last year (when we were playing up a grade) and at 7-1 were the top team in the North division. They handed us our first loss of the season, mainly due to nerves (I felt we were the better team, but it was our first game and we had a lot of "frozen" players) on the court. I figured they were pretty fraudulent as their record was pumped up playing the bottom-feeders (their only loss was to a 4-4 team)...however, watching them play yesterday, it's clear they have improved steadily over the course of the season. Very tough.

Holy Rosary Seattle: a team stocked with what appears to be varsity basketball players; tall, strong, athletic kids. They were only #3 in the South division, but maybe they lost games because their players were out playing club hoop tournaments? They are a little "exuberant"...their hammer serves fly over the back line nearly as often as they land in, and they mistime many of their spikes, hitting net on easy lay-ups...but this is the kind of team that, if they get rolling and 'in the zone,' they can steamroller teams. I have been told they were the runners-up last year and have a bone to pick with St. Al/John; their head coach is an old codger who looks like he was coaching volleyball since before I was born. 

St. Anthony: the #1 seed out of the South division, and the only 8-0 team. A team composed of mainly Filipino and Southeast Asian kids (judging from the last names on their jerseys), this is an extremely well-coached, well-disciplined team. A fifteen player roster, they have three coaches, and run a circuit training warm up in small groups. Very coordinated teamwork...they lack height and athleticism (they only have two kids I'd qualify as "athletes" on their team) but they run designated setters, outside hitters with a decoy in the middle, and they are all consistent servers (at least two or three with a good jumping overhand). They are the "death by a thousand mistakes" team...they build up a lead based on your errors and woe betide you if you're sloppy and give up easy points. Their main setter is a skinny blonde kid with a wicked left-handed overhand serve; their best athlete is the coach's kid and is basically a mini Jesus with a jump serve. Watched them demolish another playoff team 25-15 and wasn't even as close as that score looks...just no shot for a "playoff" team trying to get by on size, athleticism, and hard serves. Obviously a good team with good chemistry (a lot of love for each other); really, their only Achilles heel, besides a lack of athletes, is they struggle to dig. But they are as patient as Job, and they will wear you down...quickly...if you're not on your game.

We play St. Anthony's...in Bellevue again...on Saturday. If we win, we play the other semi-final winner in the championship at Blanchet high school, in our neighborhood, on our turf (Diego will be attending BBHS next year...it's five minutes from our home). 

All right. I think all that's out of my system now. Time for a nap.

[post momentarily interrupted by the need to get kids off to school]

Lack

I am not terribly worried about whether or not people follow my religion or whether or not they follow ANY religion. The most important thing (to me) is whether or not people are kind to each other. 

Please note that being kind is not the same thing as being nice. Niceness is the art of being pleasant or pleasing in a way that doesn't ruffle feathers. Kindness is being considerate of and helpful to others. Sometimes being kind means telling someone there's something nasty hanging out of their nose, rather than politely ignoring it.

The ability to be kind to others comes from an inner feeling of abundance: a feeling that we have all that we need...and (probably) even more than we need...in a particular area of interest in our lives. When we feel flush with cash, we are more likely to give to others; when we feel flush with knowledge, we wish to share it with those who lack. And when we're feeling pretty good about our own selves and our standing with our friends, we are comfortable with telling them that have that thing hanging off their nose.

The wonderful thing about many (most? all?) religions, is that each provides a system for bringing people closer to an experience with God (or whatever it is your culture calls the underlying, creative force of the universe). Which is something that's rather hard for us to do otherwise; the physical senses of the human body are not built to perceive the underlying structure and energy forces that make up reality We cannot "know" God in the way we can know our next door neighbor. But through religion we can find a way (or system) that can lead to connection...if you choose to believe.

And why is that "wonderful?" Because only by experiencing (or "connecting") to God can we experience true abundance...the feeling that God (i.e. the universe) has our backs, always, every day, in every way. God gives each of us what we need...with kindness!...at all times. Sometimes, it doesn't feel much like kindness ("Thanks, God, I really didn't need cancer today..."), but there are underlying reasons that are often unknowable to us until years later...and possibly never, depending on how reflective we are as particular individuals.

When we can cultivate that feeling of abundance, it makes it impossible to suffer from lack. Lack is the feeling of, well, lacking in something, i.e. not having it. We can feel a lack of wealth, or a lack of love, or a lack of comfort, a lack of food, a lack of friends. Dungeon Masters might feel a lack of players (or, more often, a lack of "good" players) for the campaign they hope to run. This feeling of "lack" which EVERYONE has felt (and probably continues to feel) at some point or another (in some arena or another) is what leads to desire, called the "root of suffering" by Buddhists. 

[eh...there's a little more to it than that (gross understatement!) but I don't really want to get into Buddhist philosophy at the moment]

Desire can be a symptom, a signal to us (if we notice it) that we have a perceived "lack" of something. We desire a person because we feel a lack of closeness and intimacy in our lives. We desire the trappings of wealth (big house, fancy cars) because we lack the the prestige and status associated with these symbols. We desire a different job because we lack satisfaction in the one we're doing (for any number of reasons: lack of compensation, lack of "fun," lack of fulfillment, lack of pleasant coworkers, etc.).

To be clear: none of this is to say that a person should not change jobs or go on dates or acquire "stuff." Just to be wary of desire when it stems from a feeling of lack...and to be self-reflective and aware of this.

[as I type this, I am reheating cold coffee on the stove top. This is not done from a "desire" for hot coffee, based on a sense of "lacking" the same. I drink cold coffee at times, and I have the means to brew a hot pot if I choose. However, in this moment I have a preference for hot coffee, and I have the means to make it so]

Feeling "lack" in our lives is caused by a limited perception of who and what we are in the universe.

HOW STUPID IS THAT, JB!  I hear some people scream at me.  I AM LOCKED IN PRISON...AIN'T NOTHING "PERCEIVED" ABOUT MY "LACK" OF FREEDOM. Or how 'bout... I JUST GOT LAID OFF FROM MY JOB, MY SPOUSE IS ON MEDICAL DISABILITY AND WE'RE ABOUT TO LOSE OUR HOME. HOW DOES GOD "HAVE MY BACK" OR THAT OF MY KIDS?!

To which I must answer: I don't know. I could speculate, but I don't know the answer. I am not God.

It is (yet another) gross understatement to say it is far easier to "trust in God's plan" when our lives seem to be going well. When we're not impoverished or dying of some disease or living in a war-torn state or watching our economy tank under a wannabe fascist dictator. It is difficult enough to tear our minds away from our "normal" suffering (physical, mental, emotional) and "count our blessings;" how much more difficult is it to feel...and act...from a feeling of abundance in such times of real crisis?

And yet, I do trust in God (EASY FOR YOU, JB! Yes, yes, I know...). I have faith; I choose to believe. And because of that choice...my choice...it is easier (not easy! easier) to operate from a sense of abundance rather than lack. To have gratitude for what life's given me, rather than bemoan the things it hasn't.

Every moment I've lived in my life has led me to this moment. I am sad about some of the choices I made, but I regret nothing.

As you go forward with your week, I hope this new Spring (well, it's Spring in the northern hemisphere) is filled with many sunny, beautiful days...and just enough rain to keep things green and growing. I hope you can feel a true sense of abundance, and I hope you can be kind to those you encounter...to the best of your abilities. I wish you nothing but the joy and fulfillment that comes with such acts of kindness. My love to you all.

[my Sunday morning reflection]

"Dear JB" Mailbag #23

[a Friday post for folks to muse over during the weekend while I am...hopefully...very busy with playoff volleyball matches]

Dear JB:

So recently we quite a split session in terms of enjoyment. I’m still a fairly new DM so for most of this campaign I have stuck to what I do best which is creative combat scenarios. We usually have about 1-3 fights per session and while it is not the focus of the campaign to fight it has become something they expect. The problem is we have two people in our campaign who are not as suited towards combat as the other 2 so I wanted to come up with something they could excel in as well.

For my most recent session I created a bit of a mystery for them to solve, relying more on talking and role playing than it does bludgeoning people. At first I thought it was going really well, they were meeting people in the town and making good progress, but by the second half of the session the two fighters were not having it. Neither were listening to the conversation they were actively a part of with one of them just laying on the floor while I was trying to roleplay. I tried to get the party moving by foregoing the mystery and telling them exactly where to go next but they didn’t really care.

At the end of the session both the fighter players told me that my DMing kind of sucked and that this story was terrible. The other two players seemed to have enjoyed it but after a 3-1 vote they opted to wander into the woods, leaving the story to do literally anything else than that.

I don’t think that the story was terrible, in fact it was probably my most well put together quest yet. I can understand why they may not be happy with the story since they have done so much fighting previously I made it clear fighting was not the centerpiece. Am I in the wrong here?

My Players Say I'm A Terrible DM

Dear Terrible:

I am going to disagree with 99% of the more than 300+ reddit comments that said (summarizing) that you are an awesome DM and these players are jerks who should be grateful and kissing the ground you walk on. As my kids would say, "They're glazing you, bruh." Your campaign was going well, you shifted gears, you ended up with bored, complaining players, and when put to a vote (?!) they voted 3-1 to abandon your "well put together quest." That sounds like a pretty solid indictment to me.

Or, as my ten year old daughter concluded (after I read her your letter): "He was dumb. They're playing D&D...it involves fighting."

But set all that aside for a moment and let's address the problematic elephant in the room: the "eternal struggle" of a would-be DM to find and retain players.  

The RPG genre of gaming suffers from being both odd and ill-defined; it is not an "easy sale" to potential players. Certainly it wasn't back in the 80s and (OMG) the 90s. And while the recent spike in D&D's popularity has made it an attractive pastime to all manner of individuals wanting to give it a whirl, the majority of these newbs have little clue what they're getting themselves into. People say D&D was a "fad" of the 80s, but for me it seems more "faddish" now than ever before, with all sorts of bandwagon types wanting to geek out and pretend they're elves and whatnot.

Real life is stressful these days. The fantasy escapism of D&D offers respite. Go figure.

But every DM, on some level, has worries about finding and retaining competent players with the proper chemistry to make their game sing. And just like sports teams drafting players, different DMs have different approaches to how they "stock their roster." Some DMs just want warm bodies. Some want friends. Some look for experience. Some look for "good role-players" (*sigh*). But all DMs want players...because the joy we experience in creating our world can only reach its fullest expression when shared with others. And once we have them, there's often (always?) that nagging doubt in our minds that we may not be able to keep them...that they will dislike us, or our game, or find 'something better to do,' or (Lord, no!) find a better DM to play with.

It is a childish and false narrative, but it is O So Human to find these thoughts creeping through the dark corners of our minds. It happens in all spheres of interest and importance: our work, our marriage, our standing in the community, etc. It is a subconscious narrative born of past failures and the idea that (painful) history will repeat itself and we will suffer as a result. 

Hey, folks: life has ups and downs. That's life. Get used to it.

Let's wander back to your issue, Terrible: you run a campaign for four players. You state you're "fairly new" but you have already ascertained that what you do best is "creative combat scenarios." You note that it is a "problem" that two of your four players are "not as suited to combat" as the others...not ill-suited, but not as suited.

You then proceeded to "fix" this problem by going away from what you do best by crafting a mystery scenario that YOU feel is your "most well put together quest" ever. And three of the four players balked.

Why O Why are you trying to "fix" things that aren't broken? Why O Why are you trying to cater to your players? YOU have a perception that there is a problem...when no one (apparently) was complaining...and then when people say your "solution" SUCKED you whine about it and try to justify how great it was and complain about how terrible your players are. 

No. 

Listen, pal: you want to be a Dungeon Master? Then be a Dungeon Master. You create the world and the players create their characters, and then you run the game. If the characters are poorly suited to the rigors of your world, they will DIE and then create new characters...presumably characters more viable to the world you're running. 

Now, it could be that YOU are the one who is the person who is actually interested in running investigative, mystery adventures, NOT the players themselves. And that is your prerogative as the person running the table! You have the power! You are in control! HOWEVER, note the following:

1. D&D is not a particularly good RPG for investigative and mystery scenarios (though, there are many other RPGs that do fine in this regard), and
2. The players currently at your table may NOT be interested in this type of game. And presenting them with adventures they dislike will (probably, eventually) cause them to leave your table, as is their prerogative.

And that's FINE if they do. It doesn't mean you're a bad person. It does not mean you'll never DM again. It does not mean you'll never put together another group of players. It simply means that THESE players are not interested in the game you want to run.

And wouldn't you rather have a table of players that ARE interested in the game you want to run?

Do not cater to players. Do. Not. Run the game you want to run...enthusiastically, with verve and vigor. Love your game; love your world. It's the only way you'll find the energy to endure the work...real work!...of being a Dungeon Master.

The players will come and they will be far more engaged than if you are wishy-washy on just what kind of game you're running. Players want to play (duh). The game has rules that limit the boundaries of what is permitted. Embrace those limits: they set parameters and inform understandings of what the game is as well as what it isn't. If you start knocking down those fences, you will find your game morphing into something undefined and untenable. Bad, bad news if that happens.

Fortunately, it's not the end of the world by any stretch of the imagination. You created a scenario that the players bitched about it. It happens. Forget about the players...write the scenarios you want to run. If the players aren't on the same page, they'll leave. Which will make space for players that are on the same page. And, ultimately, with regard to players, that's the best you can hope for.

Sincerely, 

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #22

Dear JB:

My player "John" and I had an argument at the very beginning of our session yesterday. I DM for a party of eight and they are about half-way through my homebrew campaign. John decided that the current character he was playing, "Galahad," no longer had a reason to travel with the party because of XYZ. He has stated that he'd like to return to playing as that character at a later point in the storyline. Therefore, I made it clear to John that Galahad would be going off on his own to investigate XYZ, which he agreed to.

The party received a bunch of letters, one of which was from Galahad, describing what he has found, where he is going next, why he is going there, etc... John got very angry about this because I wasn't allowing him to choose what Galahad is doing, despite him already playing as a new character that was introduced. I tried to reason with him that since Galahad was merely going from place to place, learning new information, there wasn't really any need for player input. I also tried to justify it by saying that since he is no longer playing as Galahad, he would effectively be just an NPC. We already have characters in the world that were once PCs that I now play, and when they show up to meet the party, I allow their respective players to voice them once more.

John, dismissed everything I was saying because "it is MY character." Another player "Luke" even chipped in saying that John was in the right and that it is just common sense. And so, I exclaimed that Galahad would then just sit right there, having done nothing and not learned anything, until John would pick him back up to play as. This only angered John more and Luke then stated that since what Galahad was doing was ultimately unimportant, that I should let John just make the decisions of what to do and where to go. But how in the Hell am I supposed to let John make decisions for something so bare bones?! A+B=C kind of scenario and John expects me to let him decide Galahad's actions?

I only intended to have Galahad send letters over time to just give the world a feeling of livelihood. As a DM, I feel that I don't have to do that since the party is already busy with other things. For a year and a half, I've DM'd for this story for the party and had no complications with any of my players. Suddenly, this makes our second big argument in the same month and I'm starting to no longer enjoy DM'ing. He and I talked last week about behavior and we came to the conclusion that we were both stressed from outside sources. Yet, after our confrontation last night, I just couldn't find any enjoyment in our game and I found myself being pretty snappy with everyone, which I apologized for. Give it to me straight doc: am I in the wrong, if so, how should I handle this?

Player And I Had An Argument

Dear DM:

Your issue...much like 90% of the issues I see in the Mailbag...stems from a fundamentally warped perspective of D&D. I point you to the first paragraph of your letter:

"He has stated that he'd like to return to playing as that character at a later point in the storyline."

Emphasis added by me. 

You are NOT writing a television serial, nor are you writing a 300 page fantasy novel or fantasy novel series. You are (ostensibly) a DUNGEON MASTER. You are running a game, NOT telling a story. There is no "storyline."

Let me help put this in perspective for you:

Say that you were, in fact, a writer for a TV series. And one of the main actors in your sitcom/drama came up to you and said, "Hey, my agent just got me a movie deal and I still want to be part of the show, but I need six weeks off for filming." And let's say the actor was a solid guy/gal who was popular with the audience and you didn't just want to fire their ass. Well, then, you'd write the character's absence into the script..."Oh, X is on their honeymoon in Italy (or whatever) and we'll pursue other storylines till they get back." This would, of course, be your prerogative as the head writer, director, and producer of the show.

Now let's contrast that with a weekly poker game. If one player says, hey, I need to take a few weeks off but I'd like to buy back in later, you wouldn't say, "Great, but leave your money on the table so we can keep playing with it." You'd (instead) say, no problem, take you cash and we'll see you in a few weeks.

Do you see the difference? 

Hopefully you do because, when you can shift your perspective to viewing D&D as a game, then the issues here (as with 90% of the issues in the Mailbag) become non-issues.

John: My PC Galahad can no longer travel with the party.

DM: What do you mean? Are you leaving the group?

John: No, I still want to play, but I want to play a different character for a while. However, I'd still like to return to Galahad at a future date.

DM: Okay, what do you think Galahad will be doing while not adventuring with the group?

And then John (or whomever) will give an answer that should (hopefully) give an answer that effectively freezes the character until he's ready to be "thawed out." Examples might include: shacking up with a girl for a while, putting some of his money into a farm or business and trying a less dangerous life, or simply "wandering" in search of himself. He could also just "take a job" as a stablehand or tavern barkeep (or whatever) or something in his own field of expertise: clerics could work in a temple, magic-users acting as scribes, fighters as town militia, etc. 

Now, if you're like me (a hardass that runs 1E), you'll still keep track of the character's monthly living expenses while mothballed until his treasure counter hits zero...at which point, no further action need be taken. It's assumed the PC has found some way of supporting themself in a non-adventuring way. And when John decides to once again play Galahad as his PC, the character is no worse-for-wear (although possibly older, depending on how many campaign years have passed). Regardless, a player character that is not being played should have NO IMPACT on the campaign. Out of sight, out of mind, and of no concern to what's going on at the table.

"But-but-but, my campaign arc needs so-and-so to be a part of..." NO. Stop. Just...stop. 

YOU are the DM. You are a Builder of Worlds...you are THE "Creator God" of your campaign. Make an NPC. Make a hundred NPCs. That's your prerogative. You do not need the player's character for your designs. 

Again: D&D is a game. It has rules. There are specific circumstances that might transform a PC into an NPC under the DM's control (some examples include mind control effects or a dead PC being raised as some form of undead). But OTHERWISE a player character should belong to their player until A) they (the player) chooses to leave the campaign (or is booted), B) they (the player) decides to permanently retire the character from play, C) they (the player) chooses to pass off the character to another player (which might be the DM), or D) the character dies in one of the many permanent ways inherent in the D&D game, including failing a resurrection survival roll.

Note: I said "should." This is an assertion, not an explicit instruction found in the text. However, it makes good sense for the following reasons:

1. It avoids issues/disputes (like the one that caused you to write this letter).
2. It provides a check on abusive DMs.
3. It frees DMs from having to adjudicate the actions of a PC in a manner that players will perceive as "fair."
4. It provides players with true agency (within the parameters of the game), allowing them to operate with less fear and more engagement.
5. It places all participants on a somewhat more even playing field, i.e. the DM has absolute control over the world (within the bounds of the game systems), while the players have absolute control over their characters (within the bounds of the game systems).

For all these reasons, I've found it a best practice to act in a "hands off" approach to player characters outside the scope of actual play (that is, play away from the actual game occurring at the table). 

Remember that a PC is not a character in a story (we are playing a game not telling stories), nor is it a simple pawn on a chess board. Rather, a PC is an avatar of the player, the vehicle by which they get to experience the fantasy world in which play occurs. In a very real sense, the character IS the player...no matter how much distance they attempt to put between themselves and this fictional persona. Galahad IS John...it is John if he were an individual of a particular class, race, and alignment, living and adventuring in the imaginary world of your fantasy campaign. As such, players readily identify with...and become attached to...their characters. And this identification/attachment only grows stronger over time, with more play, as more time and effort is invested.

You start arbitrarily making up stuff their character is doing in their downtime, and you're bound to ruffle feathers. Hell, Rob Kuntz is still pissed about what happened to Robilar!

So, yeah: you made a mistake here (and the players were understandably outraged because of it). However, I'd say the mistake stems mostly from a false perspective of what D&D is, and a false understanding of your role as a Dungeon Master. D&D is not a story being told, and you are not a writer/director of the story.  And the player characters are player characters...their actions are chosen by the players, not the DM. That is why there is a distinction between player characters and non-player characters. 

As to "how to handle this:" my advice would be to apologize and say "never mind, none of that happened." And then move on to running D&D for the current batch of PCs at the table. Because that's what they (the players) are all there for: playing D&D. Just do your job as a DM: Dungeon Masters build (and run) dungeons (and worlds)...not stories. 

Sincerely,

JB

"Dear JB" - The Rejects

Not every D&D reddit post is worth going in the "Dear JB" mailbag; here are a few:

[note: this is not an April Fool's joke]

So basically I'm in a campaign and our party consists of A sorcerer (me), a monk, a fighter, a barbarian, artificer and a rouge. We are all level 2 and we just beat our first encounter and we realized oh shit we don't have a healer (our artificer has one healing spell)! I thought I could subclass into cleric for healing spells but I don't know if sorcerer and cleric mix well and I want some outside input/help! Please help!

Help! We Didn't Coordinate!

Um...your party is all level 2 and you JUST beat your first encounter?

My character has a personal weapon taken from a family member that was slain (it's complicated) but she is a Dex based fighter with no strength and it's a strength item, a trident. Would you allow your players to narratively shorten the haft or lighten the weapon to make it Dex based? Or is that abit of a stretch?

Modifying A Weapon In Character

"Narratively shorten the haft?" That's not a thing. 

My Fairy Divination Wizard level 17 wants to be an Archfey, its like my personal quest besides killing all the evil witches from the Feywild. I know its a DM call, but I want you guys to give me some ideas and a bit of lore, what kind of stuff could my character get by achieving something like that? I know that Archfeys have a little bit of the Feywild territory for themselves and stuff like that.

My Character Wants To Be An Archfey

I hate you 5E.

Good day to all! All my successful characters were strange, crazy, idiots, and outcasts. But I had a great experience with them, as well as nice interactions with NPCs and party members. And here comes the problem. For my next campaign I'd like to play a detective who saw life and different crimes, worked undercover. And I just can't imagine him interesting. He supposed to react and interact normally some strange and scary things are not so strange and scary for him. I just have a pic of him in my head and wanna do something with that, but playing a normal person is way harder for me than someone strange. I want to ask what makes others interesting. How calm, normal, logical, not too emotional person can be good.

How To Play A Normal, Healthy, And Sociable Characters?

If you have to ask what "normal" is....

Dying and being resurrected. How would that change you?

*sigh*

So my DM is a full time college student and works full time but still makes time to DM for my DND group. We've only done about 4 sessions (2 of them one-shots) and I got to asking him about background music. I'm not to worried about the music knowing he's working and going to school and probably doesn't have a lot of time to prepare a full playlist for every encounter. So this morning at work he got to saying that I should put together a playlist, 'since I watch the most anime'. I'm ok with this and will make a playlist on YouTube for him. My question is, does anyone have any advice to make this playlist easy to navigate.

Playlist Advice

Are YOU in college? Because that's not the correct spelling of the word "too." The rest of your post is nonsense.

I've never tried dnd before, I kinda know how it works, I have a few concepts for characters, not even drafts, my main question is how should I go about creating a character? And if you have an active dnd party and consider inviting me, I'd be more than happy to join, I hear dnd players are a welcoming bunch

I Want To Start Playing Some DND

This is trolling, right? On the off-chance it's not...have you read the instruction manual?

Am I Playing DnD Wrong?

[post deleted by JB]

Yes...yes, you are.

We were doing a dungeon crawl where the DM matched us mostly against skeletons. During a break from play (the session was quite long), I thought I'd look at the skeleton stat block on my phone. After finding out just how low their INT scores are, I extensively used Mind Sliver for the remainder of the session to target their INT saves. Another player caught onto me doing that and asked why I started using a cantrip I haven't touched in the first half of the session. I explained my thought process, to which they said that's metagaming and that I shouldn't look up enemy stats.

Is It Actually Frowned Upon To Make Decisions Based On Enemy Stats?

As D&D is a game, "metagaming" is an acceptable form of game play. However, many DMs (including myself) would not allow a player to access a Monster Manual for intel during play. Also, how does a "mind attack" spell have any effect on a mindless skeleton?

I Rolled 3 Nat 1 In A Row…It Wasn’t Fun

Quit D&D now before you are further disappointed!

I have been playing D&D with a group of IRL friends for a few years (I am not the DM), and one of my friends has been consistently making their characters share the trait of being hypersexual, and by this I mean that they roleplay their character as someone who (in-game, not OOC) finds 99% of NPCs attractive, constantly flirts and tries to initiate romantic or (non-explicit) sexual encounters.

How To Deal With The Hypersexual PC At The Table

*sigh*

My Player Said My DM Style Is Unfair.

Boo-fucking-hoo.

How Do I Tell My DM I Don't Want To Play Anymore?

Say: "I don't want to play anymore."

Player acts aloof and does things against the party just because. "But their backstory is why they act like that"

Does Backstory Excuse Shitty Player Behavior

No.

I'm new to D&D. Our DM has dinged us twice with "If you ask if you level up then you don't level up" and we've missed 2 levels from this under the milestone system. Which was a surprise to even his regulars. He said 'it's an unofficial rule of the game'. Is that true, has anyone heard of this? Once was when I just mentioned something about leveling in-between sessions and another when a fellow player asked directly at the end of a session. So we have got the feeling we might be facing CR5 stuff as level 3 next session, is that how it works? Before someone asks, the DM is in his late 20's.

If You Ask If You Level Up Then You Don't Level Up

Mm. Mmmmm.

What could the motivation be of purposely killing half your party with Thunderwave?

Maybe he/she hates 5E?

Should I Kick This Player Out Of My Campaign?

Should I Bail On This Campaign?

Two for the price of one! The answer to both is: if you have to ask, you already know the answer.

TL;DR: I joined my wife’s group after watching her 4 year long amazing campaign and her DM bashes my character every single session despite her saying that this character is essential to her overall story and everyone’s back story.

I'm Pretty Sure My Wife's DM Hates Me

I'm pretty sure he does, too...especially since you refuse to see him as your DM, despite now being part of the campaign.

I Designed A Puzzle, But Don't Know What For

*sigh*

So I just started a campaign for people in my major this is second session and I just have some whiskey so I drink it anyway turns out that when your drunk playing d&d is really fun and roleplaying is a lot more expressive apparently this was one of my players best session ever. So to all DMs alcohol.

Dungeon Master Pro Tip Get Drunk

Helps when reading Reddit letters as well.