"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.

"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.

; )