"Dear JB" Mailbag #49

*sigh*

Dear JB:

I joined a D&D campaign in person and have been mostly having a great time, but the DM seems roleplay averse, even when he doesn't have to roleplay.

We're a group of six plus the DM, and his fights are brutal and long. We generally lose a character every dungeon and individual encounters can last weeks. The last fight took us three sessions to finish, during which time two new characters were introduced because of deaths.

After the fight was finally over -- which again, took about a calendar month -- our newest player attempted to initiate roleplay, asking us how we had ended up in this cultist dungeon. We started to answer in character, but the DM quickly talked over us, sounding annoyed, and asking what we were going to do next so he could prep it. It killed any in-character talk and we just moved forward into the next fight. Likewise, I asked if I could commune with the gods for an answer to a question and was laughed at by the DM for wanting to waste a spell slot on something outside of combat.

I really get the sense that others might also want to have more roleplay time, as I've spoken to a few of them, but we don't want to upset the DM who has a very dominant personality. How can we best broach the topic that we would like some time between fights to explore our characters? The DM is a very nice guy who works really hard, but he does have a DM-versus player mentality when it comes to the game. Any advice?

How To Ask A DM To Let Us Roleplay

Dear Roleplayer:

A DM is required to have an adversarial mentality when it comes to the game; that's part of the gig. Your DM sounds like a bit of an ass...Commune is an excellent spell (there's good reason why it's included, why it is limited in use, and why it is only available at higher levels)...but providing players with challenging encounters is part of a Dungeon Master's responsibility. 

But that's not the main thrust of your gripe, which is the lack of time being allowed space for "roleplaying" and "character exploration" during sessions. I infer from your letter that you seem to think the DM's "brutal," combat-heavy style contributes in some way to his "aversion" to roleplaying.

Maybe. But not necessarily. His "being an ass," may contribute to the "ass" way he acts when you try to engage in "roleplaying," but to me he's just trying to run the game. If a player at my table tried to have an "in-character conversation" with other players about "why are we in this dungeon" in the middle of the session, you would find I'm rather curt about shutting this down myself.

And I'm a pretty nice guy. 

I'm writing this again, for the upteenth time, and it seems as crazy to me now as it ever has that I have to put these words in print: THIS IS NOT ACTING CLASS. The game is not about performance. It is not about character exploration. Jeez-Louise...even back in 2009 the OSR folks had the mantra "we explore dungeons, not characters;" it's as true today as it was then. We are playing a game called Dungeons & Dragons...a GAME.

Why do you have 300+ page rule books? Why do you have dice? Do these things help you portray your character better? Do they make you a more "believable" tiefling bard (or whatever)?

There is a difference between "role-playing" and "roleplaying." In a roleplaying game (RPG) you take on a particular role in the game using your character (again, the GAME term) as your vehicle for exploring the imagined setting and situation. You are not "portraying" anyone...the player character is YOU, your "game piece" with which you interact with the game. Without a character, you have no way to interact with the game.

"Role-playing," on the other hand, was coined by the psychiatrist Jacob Moreno in 1934 to describe a therapeutic method of acting out conflicts in order to understand different perspectives...a technique still used today in various fields.

That's not what we're doing in an RPG. When you sit down to play an RPG, you automatically engage in the act of "roleplaying," as you interact with the game through your particular "vehicle" (character). You are still using YOUR OWN perspective, just filtered through the lens of an individual who can cast spells, or fight with a sword, ore that has pointy ears. And you do this in order to participate in a game of fantasy adventure...not a game of understanding the psychology of a dwarf or half-elf with childhood trauma. 

Does this not make sense? You're sitting at the table to play a game in which you are pursuing fortune and glory (the latter modeled as advancement or "leveling up") by facing dangerous challenges that your DM places between you and your goal.  I mean, that's the game in a nutshell.

What part of that involves pretending that you don't know "how we had ended up in this cultist dungeon?" Why on Earth would you waste time having an imaginary discussion in-character about something that is self-evident? 

This is performative narcissism. What? Are you hoping to win a Tony for your portrayal of Kettlewood the Gnome?  

For me, the REAL question is: why are you playing this game called Dungeons & Dragons? If you'd rather be acting, why aren't you polishing up your monologue and auditioning for roles? If you'd like to "explore your character" why aren't you writing a novel (or even a short story!) diving deep into the character's inner journey of discovery? If you want to do improvisational theater, why aren't you forming a troupe with these like-minded friends? If you want to do "collaborative storytelling," why don't you just do THAT? Grab some collaborators and tell some stories!

Why in the name of all things holy do you need a 900 page GAME to do these things? Is it such a BADGE OF HONOR to be labeled as a D&D nerd? Christ Almighty! Most of us hid this fact from our "normal" friends, back in the day.

Here's my advice, friend:

You write that you "have been mostly having a great time." You write that your "DM is a very nice guy who works really hard." That's a leg up over a lot of tables! And you have a chance to game in-person (as opposed to on-line)? That's the best way to play the game...human interaction! Yay!

SO if you want to play a game of D&D, and you have an in-person game with a DM who is both "nice" and "hard working" and the sessions are (mostly) "a great time" THEN quit your bitching. Do your flavor of "roleplaying" away from the table...i.e. between sessions. Hang out with your friends over drinks and talk and act in character...no one's stopping you! DO your "character exploration:" write a journal! In-character! Share it with the group! See if the other players want to do the same and share with you! 

This is all stuff you can do OUTSIDE the game at the table, and it can be fun...just in the same way a DM, working on their campaign setting, creating "lore" that players will probably never see can be a fun and enjoyable activity for the DM. I'll tell you a dirty secret of mine: my friends and I used to do this kind of stuff ourselves (back in the late-80s) because we were so invested in our characters, we couldn't even put them down when we were away from the table. We were big geeks, okay?

BUT...we didn't bring that stuff to the table. It may have contributed to situations and adventures, but we weren't "acting" in character...we were still PLAYING A GAME when we sat down. 

Focus on what you're doing when you're doing it. That's my best advice.

Sincerely,

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #48

Dear JB:

Over the past few years I have noticed a sort of divide between segments in the fan base. I’m sure most people are aware of it but maybe can’t put it precisely into words (at least I have an issue doing so). I want to talk about 3 of these quickly before I get into the main point. There will obviously be overlap between them, but I imagine them as multiple overlapping circles.

1. The new age enthusiasts- these are typically younger people in my experience. Very much into the hobby as a whole; watching lots of YouTube videos on topics, picking out new dice constantly, buying all the new books, really enjoying character art etc. Maybe they don’t play that often, but they love the hobby and they interact a great deal with the community. They also seem to be the most interactive and present in online spaces.
2. The old age enthusiasts- These people share similar overlap with the Grognard, but aren’t inherently insufferable. They seem to enjoy specific over general (in most cases), they like to have explicit rules, and they don’t typically care for the simplification of races/classes. They also don’t tend to care for the smushing together of races, like the change to half-orc and half-elf. There seems to also be a bent for more realism or more explicit rules for how and why things work in certain contexts.
3. genuine exclusionists- This group of people would like nothing more than to exclude every person, or type of person, they don’t like from the game. They are the biggest gatekeepers and the first ones to chastise someone else for simply playing a different way or wanting to follow a non normative story beat. They dislike the race changes in 5.5 because they genuinely think orcs are some sort metaphor for certain real word people and it helps them justify in their minds their racism. They also like the overcomplexity of the game because it is another way they can gatekeep people who don’t share their near obsessive need to know all the rules and break them in a way that aggrandizes themselves.

Now my main point. It definitely seems when compared with older books, 5e seems to lean towards “DM’s now have the flexibility to make it up, run the games how they want, and our rules are here to facilitate that.” But that’s not really true at all because that’s always been the case. I play 3.5 a fair bit and there are tons of rules that we have over time either ignored or change because they felt right for our table. 5e seems to be intentionally sparse of precise information about things.

I’ve always viewed myself as a bit of a mix between groups 1 and 2. I enjoy a lot of the dnd content in the hobby, I like to buy new books, I watch lots of YouTube videos, but I do like my rules (at least at a baseline) to have specificity and my lore to have depth. This does not seem to be the case for a lot of the content released by WotC recently. I just finished going through the Heroes of Faerun book and while a lot of it is good, there’s just a bunch of lacking information, especially in regard to the factions.

For the Order of the Gauntlet, a faction that the 5e developers have basically made themselves, they reference the Code of Scales and Weights multiple times in their entry. They even state that initiates are required to learn by heart the code itself. But where is the code? Literally, where is the code? Even a small creed? How is this knightly order any different from any other knightly Paladin-esque order that we’ve all made? Some people in group 1 may say, “Well, the DM can make the code because they may want the group to be different in their world.” But I don’t buy these books so they can do basic brainstorming for me. I buy these books because I want to play in a community known setting, with things like this already thought of. If I wanted to make a new Paladin order and write my own code, I’d do it.

It just feels extremely negligent and lazy on the part of WotC when it comes to stuff like this. It’s like they don’t want to add any constraining features or guidelines to their lore under the guise of allowing DM freedom but in actuality it’s just the shirking of actual lore creation. There’s just a vagueness everywhere in these books when there shouldn’t be.

It seems like Wizards has taken the enthusiasm from group 1 for granted because the company knows that releasing books with a few character options (some obviously untested- banneret) and some updates with a great deal of vagueness for the various regions will still sell to people. And then when group 2 points this out, or had complaints, there’s often accusations of them belonging to group 3. My main point is that I still obviously love the game. But I feel there has been backlash against any pushback of the vagueness and what seems like the dumbing down or simplification of the rules. Or what feels like sterilization of races like the orc. It feels weird that every race is just as good as all the other races at everything, despite us all knowing that orcs are just generally stronger than most races. And I don’t feel like it’s being exclusionary, or God forbid racist, to point that out and then not be lumped with the crack pots of group 3.

This turned into a rant. Apologies. I’d love to hear others thoughts on this topic though.

Disappointment With New Books (aka SunnySpade)

 

Dear Disappointment:

This isn't a rant. This is an expression of your feelings of disappointment and frustration, carefully and succinctly explained. Here are my thoughts (since you asked):

#1  You have to understand that the company currrently publishing D&D (WotC/Hasbro) cares far less about you...or even the game...than it does about making money. You can call this "corporate greed" or you can call it "performing their fiduciary duty for their shareholders" but regardless, this is how it is. In order to do this, they have shifted their product to have THE BROADEST APPEAL to THE MOST CUSTOMERS possible, in order to MAXIMIZE PROFITS. It has long been known that the most profit is made every time the company can compel its fanbase to purchase (yet another) set of "core rule books;" this is the main impetus for putting out a newer version of the game every 8-10 years. But if you want to know WHY the designers feel lazy, negligent, and uninterested in "constraining features or guidelines" (what some might call "rules") it comes back to this:

Broadest appeal.

Most Customers

Maximize profits.

This is their business strategy. They don't want to be "niche" or "boutique;" they want to take advantage of the game's incredible international popularity and global presence to reap as many dollars as possible. To do that the game must be "everything to everybody" and "easily accessible." Adding (or enforcing) rules, systems, and procedures turns off that pipe line of cash.

#2 You're operating under some false premises when it comes to your perception of (what you call) "old age enthusiasts" and "genuine exclusionists." I shall endeavor to enlighten you so as to disabuse of your false notions (apologies if that sounds condescending...no offense meant).

I am NOT an "old age enthusiast" (which I'd hazard to guess is probably closer to the "OSR" scene). I am an Old Geezer who plays AD&D (1st edition) exclusively. This might cause you to lump me in with the "insufferable Grognard" crowd, but I'm not someone who came to the game out of a wargame tradition (which is where the G-term comes from)...I started with D&D over forty years ago and it's the same game that I still play. Wargames can be fun, but that's not my primary focus, nor my area of expertise.

However, while I have an exclusive preference for AD&D, I am anything but "exclusionary." The gates to my game are WIDE OPEN (so long as there's room at my table) and I have gamed with a huge variety of people of all races, creeds, colors, genders, religions, politics, ages, etc. People come to play D&D...I run D&D. That's not "virtue signaling;" I'm telling you the FACTS.

But I don't play 5th edition. And I don't play "5.5." Partly because, for all their production values, they are extremely poor games. But MAINLY because AD&D is just the best game on the market. And, yes, it's still "on the market" (available as both ebook and print-on-demand).

Am I one of "the first ones to chastise someone else for simply playing a different way?" Absolutely, I am. Because I don't buy into the corporate slogan of the game being "everything for everybody (just give us your money)." But I'm not just telling people YOU SUCK and slamming the door in their faces...I am trying to help people find a better way of playing D&D, so that they can maximize their enjoyment and satisfaction. 

To be clear: I do not think of myself as terribly special when it comes to running D&D. There may not be a lot of people who can "do what I do" but MOST people can get to a fairly close approximation, and I'm sure that quite a few people do it better than me, or could do it better than me with a little time and effort. Even a game with as much "overcomplexity" as AD&D isn't rocket science.

Oh, and also? I don't keep away people "who don’t share [my] near obsessive need to know all the rules." The only person I expect to know the rules of the game is the Dungeon Master (at my table, that's usually me) because the DM is the referee, the facilitator, and the final authority of the game being played. This imperative ("know the rules, DM") applies REGARDLESS of which edition you play. If the rules of 5E are too much for you to glean as a DM, I'd suggest a system with a smaller page count...AD&D, for instance.

#3 I feel for you, that you are facing (what seems to be) "backlash against any pushback of the vagueness and what seems like the dumbing down or simplification of the rules;" this, again, is the way of any insular community that feels 'attacked' from people within their own group. I am sorry you feel afraid for being branded an "insufferable Grognard" and a "racist" simply for being ballsy enough to stand up and say the Emperor has no clothes. Welcome to my world! Remember that ALL of us...geezers and young 'uns alike...started out under the banner of "D&D gamer." The faction-izing of the RPG community is (in large part) TIED TO MONEY. Just remember that.

Seriously. Groups with labels (like the OSR or the NuSR or whatever) have a vested interest in keeping their brand intact because "brand loyalty" equals "returning customers." This is the way business works. Are there other ways business works? SURE. But this is a relatively easy and unimaginative one. Business isn't really rocket science, either.

IMAGINE THIS: what if the business decided to RE-PUBLISH 1st edition AD&D as its ONLY edition, simply updating the artwork and tidying up the rule inconsistencies that came from publishing the books in sequential order, and perhaps organizing the information in a way that was easier to absorb while otherwise keeping the system exactly the same. And, let's say, that they simply became "the company that publishes AD&D" and threw all their corporate support for that system, creating on-line DM tools, adventures, FAQ pages, forums, etc. What would happen?

They'd still sell books. They'd still make money. They'd still attract new people. But the APPEAL of the game would be to a much smaller crowd...meaning they'd sell fewer books and make less money. Which would not satisfy the corporate shareholders who would then oust the CEO in order to find someone with "new ideas" about how to create "more revenue streams."

Because that's the world we live in.

You, Disappointed, are running up against the people who have BOUGHT IN to what the company is selling, the people who see D&D as lifestyle, as an identity, as a way of belonging to a community. And even though that community has been shaped in large part (either purposefully or "organically") by corporate ("business") interests, it still operates like any other community: you're one of us or you're one of them.  You now have four choices available to you:

1. Quit your bitching and get back with the program (buy, sheep, buy!)
2. Join the self-exiled (and possibly stumble into another "community" like the OSR)
3. Waffle between the two (and continue to suffer the pangs of frustration as you are now)
4. Opt out, find a new hobby, or just ignore what's going on in the wider hobby while focusing on your home game.

None of these are particularly easy choices, but they're all doable, and you have the power to make your own choice in the matter...no one's holding a gun to your head and making you buy or play D&D in a particular way. Own your power, pal.

Sincerely,

JB

***EDITED to add Reddit user's handle (per request)***

"Dear JB" Mailbag #47

A birthday present for Yours Truly...

Dear JB:

How much roleplay is there in your games?

Seriously, everytime people here [at Reddit] discuss character choices theres usually a big thread of coments about "oh, that's a great option to roleplay your concerns/fears/doubts/powers into the game". In theory it does indeed sound great but most games I've been a part of are very gygaxian. So any roleplay scenes we do have is usually very short and "oh no, this is terrible" doesn't really go beyond the flavor of the scene for me. So really, how much do you folk actually go into character on your games?

How Much Roleplay

Dear HMR:

I've been playing RPGs for more than 40 years. Started around 1982 (age 9); today, I am 52 years old. Over the decades I've played with more than 100 different individuals (that's a rough count, but I can get to at least that number of people off the top of my head)...from elementary and middle school, through high school and university, a handful of times (briefly) after graduation, and then quite a bit since 2005 or thereabouts, including participation in 4 or 5 gaming conventions.

I've played a variety of RPGs over the years..not just editions of D&D, but all sorts of Palladium games (Heroes Unlimited, TMNT, Rifts), Chaosium games (Stormbringer, ElfQuest), White Wolf games (Ars Magica, Vampire, Mage, etc.), Atlas games (Ars again, Over The Edge), indie games (Risus, FATE, InSpectres, Fiasco, etc.), and, of course, TSR games (MSH, Gamma World, Boot Hill, Top Secret, Star Frontiers). Throw in some Traveller as well (Classic and Mongoose only). Lots and lots of games...ROLEPLAYING games.

By definition, an RPG is a game in which players play a role in the game. You are not a meeple moving around a board; instead you play some sort of character. A soldier. A magician. A scientist. A vampire. A mutant animal. Whatever. How much role-playing have I seen in my role-playing games? I've seen nothing BUT roleplaying in my roleplaying games.

But you're talking about something else.

You're not talking about playing a role. You're talking about role-playing, in terms of the psychiatrist definition, specifically:

"to act out or perform the part of a person or character, for example as a technique in training or psychotherapy"

[that's from Google dictionary]

I've never been to psychotherapy, but I've done more than a few "role-playing exercises" over the years, usually as part of on-the-job training dealing with a customer service component facing our external customers (man, it's been a long-time since I held a real job...I forget all the "corporate speak" I used to know). Usually, this was all done in aid of developing tactics for, um, "crisis mitigation" or "de-escalating conflict" and, uh, "active listening"...or something. Jeez, I don't remember all this jargon. It was...fine. It's stuff I can do in  my sleep, partly because I'm a trained actor and partly because I'm not braindead and I have enough empathy that I can shift my perspective to someone else's shoes. MOST people can do this...so long as they don't have crushing anxiety about "playing pretend" in front of other people. Then again, part of these trainings involved "cultivating a safe environment" in which to do these exercises.

[man, I do NOT miss the office life]

This, however, is not what occurs when I sit down to play an RPG. With a couple-three exceptions, I have ALMOST NEVER SEEN PEOPLE "PERFORMING" IN THIS WAY AT MY TABLE. 

The caps are for emphasis, not "yelling," but perhaps I do want to yell a bit. First, though, I'll talk about the exceptions:

AS A PLAYER: 

I've had the chance to play FATE a couple times at conventions. Once was a 1930s period piece (Spirit of the Century), the other was a Dresden Files session. As a game, FATE provides systems that interact with the "portrayal" of character traits on one's character sheet...in other words, act a certain way and get a bonus, fail to act and take a penalty. It's all good fun and allows a washed-up, ex-performer like myself to 'ham it up' and reap fat mechanical benefits from doing so. That's part of the game.

ALSO, there have been times where I was required to play (again in a tournament setting) a pre-generated "character" that had a literal personality/background to it. This did not require me to play "in character" (i.e. it did not require me to perform or use a silly accent) but it DID require me to "think" or "take action" based on the CHARACTER's motivations, rather than my own. I am thinking specifically of one convention game in which this occurred (a game of Mongoose Traveller)...but, now that I consider, playing Steve Jackson's Paranoia also requires this kind of "brain-shift." Hmm. So does Steve Jackson's Toon.

[as an aside, I tend to dislike Steve Jackson games...Car Wars, as a non-RPG, is an exception...and I especially DETEST Toon. It is really, really crappy]

[***EDIT: both Toon and Paranoia were written by Greg Costikyan, NOT Steve Jackson...although Toon was published by Steve Jackson Games. Costikyan also did WEG's Star Wars and the game Violence, both of which I own, neither of which I play, but (as with his other works) still make for entertaining reading. Thanks to Faoladh for pointing out my mistake!***]

AS A DM/GM:

When acting as the Game Master it is my job to play the part of all the non-player characters, nearly all of which are "not me" and are supposed to have their own motivations, many of which are specific to their "character" and vastly different from my own. In this way, I am "roleplaying" CONSTANTLY as a DM/GM, as I must get out of myself and into the head of the NPC/monster in order to determine what is the thing's appropriate actions/behavior. Sometimes, it is appropriate for an NPC to surrender rather than fight to the death. Sometimes it is appropriate to treat the players' character with deference...or scorn. It just depends.

Now, does this mean I am using odd accents or funny voices? Generally, no. If I "speak" for a character, it is generally because I've got a bunch of information to impart that's not easy to sum up, and it's EASIER for me to simply converse with the players "in character," rather than saying "He tells you this" (and then the players say something) "Well, then he tells you THIS" (and then the players ask some questions) "Then the guys answers this other thing" (etc.). Sometimes it is FASTER and more EXPEDITIOUS to respond as the person being interrogated/questioned. 

And the "funny voices?" That happens for one of three reasons: A) to distinguish ME (the DM/GM) talking versus THE CHARACTER, B) to distinguish one NPC from another NPC, or C) because I'm tired/silly/bored and lapse into something. However, "C" is a much rarer occurrence.

Here's a typical example of "A:" when the neonate vampire PCs are dragged into the room of Axle, the Prince of Seattle, I'll use a "voice" for the Prince (when he's speaking) while I use my "normal voice" to describe what else is happening around the players that their characters can see, hear, etc.

Here's a typical example of "B:" in my home campaign, when players pick up a retainer or NPC party member, I will (RARELY!) give this character a "voice" of its own...usually because the players had reason to interact with the individual. THEN, if I am describing a situation in which the party is conversing with a DIFFERENT NPC (who needs a voice to distinguish themselves from my "normal voice" DM descriptives), that character might get its own distinct voice to create separation for my players' ears. Still, this is something I ALMOST NEVER do, largely because I don't tend to create scenes where I'm talking to myself. That's...ridiculous.

[by the way, it IS helpful to have different voices in your "repertoire" if you (like me) enjoy READING BOOKS TO YOUR KIDS. It's helpful to the listener to be able to distinguish when one character is talking from another. I did this for years (duh). Of course, I was also on the speech team in middle school where this kind of practice is quite necessary. However, playing RPGs is NOT the same thing as "reading to people." At least, it shouldn't be...]

But these "voices" are a tool in the DM's toolkit, used for a specific purpose (or, as said, because it's late at night and I'm loopy from booze and just acting silly)...not because the act of play is performative. Even as a DM my responsibility is to RUN THE GAME; that's the only duty I need to perform. Being a dancing monkey for the players' entertainment? No. If they are 'entertained,' that is a tertiary benefit, at best.

So, then, HMR: to your question.

You talk about wanting to "go into character." You say you've read discussions of "character choices" that provide opportunities to "roleplay your concerns/fears/doubts/powers into the game." You seem to lament that most of your games have been "very gygaxian," whatever that means (I infer you mean it to be the opposite of what you presume an RPG is supposed to do). You SEEM to be talking about scenes in which PLAYERS are performing the act or portraying characters.

Look, pal: I don't run acting seminars. This isn't scene work. We are not working our script, rehearsing for some performance, or improvising high drama. NOT. AT. ALL.

We are playing a game. And that game does NOT have, as its objective, PUTTING ON A SHOW.

If you think that's what playing an RPG means, then sorry, you're wrong. Yes. You are wrong. You are playing the game WRONG. 

BUT...here's what DOES happen, when you play the game RIGHT:

Played correctly, your players should become fully immersed in the action at the table, so engaged with the game play that they lose track of space/time outside of the game. What's more, the MORE they are 'pushed' through the game play, the more they will identify (strongly!) with the character they are playing. They WILL speak as their character. They will act (i.e. BEHAVE) as their character, in game. Not because they are trying to portray "a character." No! Because the character IS the player. And the character subsumes more and more of the player's identity. 

It is not that players portray characters. It's that characters REPRESENT PLAYERS. We are not "acting as" characters; instead, the character is the vehicle which allows US to "act," i.e. take action in the game world.

And what does that look like? It can look like the PLAYER being angry or scared or upset or triumphant or doubtful or righteous...actual, honest-to-goodness emotions. Because the players are so invested in game play that they (momentarily) forget they are playing a game. A game that does NOT have "life-or-death" stakes...just a game! But they won't treat it like a game...instead, they will treat it with deadly seriousness. "We're all going to die!" is the kind of delightful exclamation that every DM wants to hear at their table because it means they are doing their job correctly.

The GM/DM's job is to run a tight game that keeps the players firmly glued (as best as possible) to what's going on. No, that doesn't mean you are putting on a show; heck, it doesn't even mean that you are constantly barraging them with life-threatening perils ("you're jumped by 15 assassins...again!"). No, you keep their attention by keeping them interested and engaged with the game being played...for example, if they hear a rumor of an adventure site, certainly loaded with treasure, while resting in town, let THEM (the players) decide how best to approach the situation. How to get there? What are the logistical difficulties? Do we have the resources to pursue the quest? Is it worth our time, effort, and risk? Let the PLAYERs debate this (while YOU just interject little tidbits to keep their fire stoked), and soon-enough-they'll be worked into a froth just trying to figure out how many wagons to outfit for the excursion.

RPGs are a way of "playing pretend" but they are not ABOUT the "pretending." The pretending is not an object in and of itself. This is not ComicCon...we are not "cos-playing." Cosplay, like LARP, is a different animal from an RPG. RPGs are still games to be played...even if modern RPG gamers seem to have forgotten this fact. 

Yeah, it's a nerdy hobby. So is wargaming and stamp collecting. Doesn't mean it's not enjoyable.

So, yeah: all my RPGs see a ton of roleplaying, but not very much "role-playing" at all. Even so, the players STILL get to feel genuine emotions (as opposed to portraying "fake emotions") and that, HMR, is one of the great joys of this type of game play. Embrace it.

Sincerely, 

JB

Good Bones

In the past, I've watched a lot of "house flipping" and "remodeling" shows on television. My wife digs this kind of programming (she finds it relaxing) and I find it...well, interesting enough. I am rather the opposite of a "handyman" type. But I don't mind spending a lazy weekend afternoon, sitting on the couch and drinking coffee.

[we rarely have the time to "veg" that much these days, considering all the weekend kid events...but I did start this post with the phrase 'In the past...']

Anyhoo, I myself have done very little "remodeling" in my life...I've certainly never "flipped" a property. But as I said, I've watched these shows and there's this phrase that I sometimes here come up about a house...that it has "good bones." Which, I assume, means it has a good foundational structure on which to build or hang new drywall or, well, whatever. I don't know...I said I wasn't "handy" like that.

What I AM somewhat handy with is adventure writing/design (well, I think I am anyway...). The last couple-four days I've been working on my rewrite of I4: Oasis of the White Palm. Oh, man, it's really good. Not to toot my own horn, but I'm kind of in love with what I'm writing...this looks like it's going to be really fun to run. I'm digging it. 

But I want to give some credit to Philip Meyers and Tracy Hickman, the original writers. Because the thing has good bones...there IS a strong foundation here, mainly in the maps and some of the overall 'Big Concepts." Not the story, mind you...the story is terrible and I've discarded it completely. But many of the situations and factions are quite workable. Well, re-workable. Er...I mean, they're stuff that I can work with and pound something good and decent out of. If that makes sense. Which, maybe it doesn't. But I mean it as a compliment...if a back-handed one.

I'm currently working backwards through the thing because dungeons are more fun (and, in many ways, easier) to stock than other areas. Eh, what am I saying. It's all pretty easy to stock. But the dungeons are definitely more fun. Because they have more obvious threats (and bigger treasures...I like treasure). So I did the Crypt of Badr al-Mosak first (even though it's Part III of three) and then, today, I finished up the Temple of Set (Part II). Yes, these have all been renamed. No, there are no "EverFall Pits" with flying mummies, nor any kidnapped princess-brides...you want that, you can buy the original as a $5 PDF and run it. This is going to be clever, okay? Without the silly puns and with a modicum of sense and sensibility.

I mean...*sigh*  So, NOW, I was just about to sit down to start in on Part I (the Oasis itself), and...as is my wont...I started diving into my analysis of just what is here. What IS this town? I already know a lot of what MY town is going to be, but I want to look at the BONES of the place, the underlying structure. Because the structure is functional...I've run I4 before, back in the day, pretty much exactly as written and I don't remember any hiccups or problems. So let's see what we've got...first up, the Oasis random  encounters, lifeblood of a dynamic environment (or, at least, that which provides verisimilitude of a living-breathing town). What have we got?

Women carrying water. Women carrying clothing. A trader "with beads." Traders with palm dates. Traders with camels. Home Guard. A drunk. 1-4 Male Drow. A noble. A slave on an errand. A....

Wait, what? 1-4 male Drow?! In the desert? Who cares if it's at night...how the hell did they get there? What the heck are they doing? They're not even one of the "special" encounters...just a normal evening encounter around the village.

*sigh* This is why O Great & Glorious Hickmans...this is why I rewrite your adventures. Crap like this. There's a lot of whimsical stuff here that doesn't really fly in my view of an AD&D adventure, but I can stomach a certain amount of whimsy (even if...sorry...I'm writing the pegasus squadron OUT of the adventure). But there's "whimsy," and then there's nonsense. A thriving oasis town filled with fantasy-Islamic/Bedouins is not a place where Drow are just "walking around."

Many, many problems here.

Ah, well. The first two bits have turned out great; no reason to think the town part can't be spruced up. I've even added a couple new NPC personalities to the mix, which is also good fun. One nifty thing about my version: the writing's quite a bit tighter (which is to say, I don't pad it out as much as the original). Consequently, I've already trimmed about four pages from the text. That is GREAT; I really want to keep this thing to 32 pages (max), but I want to add more actionable, game-able content, not just:

D. Hills

Craggy, low hills of broken and baked stone jut upwards at weird andles and cast tortured shadows.

Play: Movement rate is half normal in such areas for all persons except dwarves. There is a 60% chance per hor spent searching of finding a cave shelter large enough for the party.

Or this:

E. Bleached Bones

The trail suddenly broadens amid the dunes. The clean, white bones of camels stand in a roughly 100-foot circle.

Play: There is a 30% chance that a party member will discover that the bones have only recently been picked clean. All worthwhile objects have been taken from the area. A set of three sled tracks leads east to location F.

Or this:

L1-L4. Ruins

Jutting jaggedly from the midst of the desert are ancient broken pieces of hand-hewn stone.

[no other info given, just the boxed text description]

This is what I like to call "tourist crap." It's not nonsensical, but it serves little or no purpose. Regardless of whether or not the players figure out that the bones "have only recently been picked clean," so what? It makes no difference to the adventure. Even if there ARE dwarves in the party, they still can't move any faster than the other, non-dwarf members. This is just extraneous detail for a "tour guide DM" to dole out, presumably to "break up the monotony." Hey, try to roll under 30% on percentile dice? Yeah, you made it? You can see these bones were only RECENTLY picked clean...dun-dun-DUN!

Far easier to simply:

• Calculate the distance between point A and B
• Calculate the time needed to travel there.
• Roll for random encounters based on the time traveled

...and just get to the play at the important bit (wherever that final destination is). 

It's not that we need to 'get to a place where we roll dice,' but it IS about getting to a decision point where the players can make a meaningful decision. Looking at the wilderness map of I4 (which I will be redrawing to match my southern Idaho desert), I can see there's no reason the players would ever have to go to area #D ("Hills")...no road leads there, no plot requirements mandate them passing through the area, nothing. It is just USELESS FILLER.

My adventure doesn't have useless filler.

Anyway, I'm enjoying myself and my little project. Ugly as the original house is, I think my "remodel" will look quite swell. Despite my complaints the thing does have "good bones;" that makes a difference.

Later, gators.

[also, just for fun: this came to mind when I wrote "tour guide DM;" it's kind of catchy!]

"Deat JB" Mailbag #46

This one is just so, soooo...aaaargGH!

Dear JB:

My DM won't run combat.

I know, I know. "Just talk to your DM or get a new one"

But how odd is this? Has anyone else ever experienced this?

My DM won't call for initiative. We've been playing half a dozens sessions now. Even in the first "combat" encounter we had, the enemies didn't attack anyone. We came upon them about to attack someone else and then they just... didn't.

Bandits stalking us in the forest? They don't attack on being spotted.

We attack something? It doesn't hit back. For several rounds.

It's just bizarre.

My DM Won't Run Combat

Dear Player:

I am sorry to be the one to break this news to you (sorry, because anyone with a modicum of sense should have already figured this out): your "DM" is a dipshit who doesn't know or understand the game they are purporting to run. 

They are an idiot. They are clueless. They don't know what they're doing. They're playing the game wrong. 

I am trying different ways to communicate the same thing because...well, I mean, because this should be obvious to you but for some reason it's not. THAT's the bit that is "bizarre:" how can you not see that your "DM" is a fucking clown who has no business masquerading under the title?

You've been playing for half a dozen sessions...you probably should have figured this out by session two, session three tops (I know how 5E players tend to sit around doing a lot of nothing...). 

This person claiming to be a Dungeon Master is a hopeless poseur and class-A loser. But what about you? That's the real question here. Is this what you want to do with the finite amount of time allotted to your time on this planet? How many HOURS did you waste in these half dozen sessions of accomplishing nothing with a DM who is clearly incompetent? 

How do you feel about yourself? How do you feel about your life? Where is your self-respect?

Find a real Dungeon Master or learn to be one yourself. But don't spend one more minute of time with this jackass. No, do not even bother "talking to them;" this is not about this dumbass getting their shit together (clearly they are incapable)...this is about YOU getting your shit together. 

Sincerely, 

JB

Poison

This is not what I should be doing.

I am sitting at the car dealership, getting a 75K service and oil change (as one does). I am eating a fresh baked cookie some lady just brought around (chocolate chip), and I am putting off the adventure writing that I've been doing the last two days, in order to write this post. Because I feel bad I haven't posted anything in a couple days.

What I should be is writing that darn adventure...and I will be getting back to it today (maybe after a second cookie). But I fell down the rabbit-hole of checking Ye Old Reddit feed and Oh. My. F'ing. God.

It makes me want to cry. Just sob.

The title of this post is "Poison." Because I was just listening to the band (Poison) in the car on the way up here. I was not a fan of Poison back in the day...they were all that was wrong with the crass commercialization of rock music, they were all about the "big hair," they were a "chick band," whatever. Reasons, all right? But they have exactly TWO great songs: Talk Dirty To Me and Nothing But A Good Time.  Both of which, at first pass, feel like throwaway pop metal with a catchy guitar riff (which they are) but which have the ability to evoke far deeper emotion...a nostalgia that conjures memories of early sexual encounters as a hormonal teenager and the alternating hopelessness and hedonism of a young person in their twenties with a few bucks to spend but nowhere near enough to 'make a life.' I don't know about kids these days who just live at home till there 30 and crush out on video games and internet porn, but back when I was growing up (the 80s and 90s) these were fairly universal experiences for "us kids" to go through.

Point is: I appreciate them now.  I wonder if they'll ever speak to my own kids some day.

This Reddit roll, man...just look at these titles from the DnD channel with the topic heading of "DMing:"

Any Tips For A New DM?

Where Can I Find The Text In Each Book Describing How The DM Can Change Or Ignore The Rules?

Awkward Silences With The DM

How Do You Create A Campaign?

Any And All Tips For A Brand New DM?

How To Make Low-Level Encounters Fun And Challenging?

Story Telling Struggles

How To Make Players Engaged In RP?

I'm Very Confused On New DND Content??

Trying DMing For The First Time

How Do You Kick Off And End A Session?

DMing My First Table

Guys, It's My First Time DMing. I Am Starting A PbP Campaign. Am I Being A Bad DM?

Potential Ideas For My Campaign?

What's The Best Starting Campaign For A 1st Time DM?

DMs, What Are Some Skills/Things You Had To Learn Before A Session?

About To Be A New DM, Any Advice You Wish You Got?

Need A Campaign Idea

Need Some Advice On My Story

Need Help Looking For Boss Music [sigh]

All of these have been posted in the last 48 hours. Almost all of them start with some sentence or two describing how they are new to DMing or first time DMing or have no experience DMing or...whatever. The point is: most of them are newbies. AND THEY ARE COMING TO REDDIT TO FIND OUT HOW TO RUN A DUNGEONS & DRAGONS GAME.

Do people not see how RIDICULOUS that is? Is this not the kind of information one might assume would be in the INSTRUCTIONS MANUAL of the game they are playing? And be fairly clearly laid out? Like, maybe on PAGE ONE? Or (if not on page one), wouldn't you think that Page One would say "Hey, in Chapter 5 we describe how to run the game as a DM." You'd think this, right? I mean, I would think this.

But I am old. See my reference to "Poison" above.

On the first page of the Introduction to Moldvay's Basic set (in the first column) I find this:

"Part eight, DUNGEON MASTER INFORMATION, gives a step-by-step design of a sample dungeon level plus tips to help the referee."

I mean, it's D&D right? Not rocket science (which I presume is difficult). All these questions, all these subjects should be addressed right out of the box. Why are people going to the internet for answers to basic questions about DMing? WHY?

And, just by the way, not ALL of the questions are from "newbs." Here's a gem:

So im running a new game for some friends who are brand new to dnd. Ive been dming for 12 years now so i tend to run my own adventures instead of the books. However this is my first time running more than one campaign at a time and ive put so much time and effort into my main group that ive drawn a complete blank on what I should do with my new group. If you guys have any ideas for cool stories I could run them through that would really jump start my creativity and then I can take it from there. I just need something to get me going. So any suggestions?

Yeah, I've got a suggestion: run your new group in the same campaign world as your current, on-going group. Why are you trying to make more work for yourself (when you're already making more work by running multiple groups)? Again: not rocket science. You have 12 years of experience. You are adept at making and running your own adventures. Surely you have already created/run material that could be recycled for the new folks...why are you trying to reinvent the wheel from scratch?

Also: learn punctuation. It's a life skill.

I really, really, really want to take a break from the internet...at least, from all the "interactions." The blogs, the discords, the reddits, the forums, etc. It is all so non-helpful, so non-constructive. And it makes me sad. It saps my energy. I, again, (briefly) considered actually creating a profile on the reddit to address these querying questioners, to get involved in the verbal sparring and disinformation and misinformation that is being promulgated by "D&D experts." I considered it...as if this would be a good use of my time. As if trying to put out each small fire on an individual level would somehow keep the  forest from burning down around my ears.

No. Poison. This shit is poison. 

SO, I'm going to step away. Going to take a deep breath. Brew a pot of coffee, throw on a little Sade Love Deluxe (I thought about the Eagles, but that way leads to day drinking). Going to buckle down and see how much of this adventure I can knock out today. I'm hoping to, at least, finish the crypt portion...that part's easy.

Let Rome burn, while I fiddle away. Ain't looking for nothing but a good time right now.

High Level Adventuring

[apologies...this was supposed to post on Thursday. Then I got distracted by other stuff]

So, once again someone was asking questions about running "high level" adventures because they were planning a convention event for PCs of around 8th level...

Stop. That's not "high level."

I know, I know 8th feels IMPOSSIBLY huge...if you're used to playing Basic-system games where you encounter (and sometimes fight) godlings at levels 3-5. 8th must be super-duper stupendous, right? Your character might have an armor class of -3 and 60+ hit points, yeah?

Oh, boy.

No. 8th level is NOT high level. It is still "mid." Adventures geared for PCs of this level are "mid." Oh, what? You're going to come at me with Against the Giants and its listed level range of 8th-12th? Ever checked out the pre-gens for that one?

12th level magic-user, 13th level thief, 12th level cleric, 14th level fighter, 5th/8th level fighter/magic-user (equivalent of 9th level), 9th level cleric, 9th level fighter, 9th level magic-user, and 9th level ranger

Against the Giants IS a high level adventure and suggests NINE characters with an average level of 9th. Any 8th level you're bringing to the module is probably just a henchman.

I've discussed this in prior posts, but they may be hard to find; you can check them out:

Tiers of Play

What High Level D&D Looks Like

Here's the TL;DR version: 9th level is the MINIMUM level needed to be considered a "high level" character, and honestly those L9ers are just the babies of high level play. In my book, you need double-digit levels to really be considered a lofty, high level character...most demi-humans need not apply.

• For fighters types of 10th level you should have a barony and the money to pay for a force of men (or bunch of followers). You are a beast in combat with magical equipment and multiple attacks EVEN IF YOU GET LEVEL DRAINED a couple times. You should be able to finish/survive most fights unless you get magically held or poisoned.
• For thief types of 10th level, your skills work more often than not, and you have no hesitancy in using them. Your backstab damage is at least quadruple and, coupled with a magic weapon, means you can inflict DEVASTATING blows from stealth. You have ability to read magic scrolls (both magical and clerical) and can act as an emergency caster of either variety.
• For magic-users, by 10th level you have access to multiple 5th level spells. You are NOT a high level magic-user if you cannot cast 5th level spells, including such fantastic numbers as contact other plane, passwall, teleport, and wall of force. These are GAME-CHANGING spells...if ice storm is your best spell, sorry: you're still "mid."
• For clerics, by 10th level you have access to multiple 5th level spells, most of which are fantastic, including commune, dispel evil, plane shift, and raise dead. If your best spell is still the 4th level cure serious wounds then, sorry, you're still "mid." A 10th level cleric has a chance to turn any undead on the board (55% chance against vampires!), and can fall back on dispel evil for those pesky demons and devils.

None of which, by the way, is "game breaking" stuff...at least not with the AD&D game. Attrition is a thing. Resource expenditure is a thing. None of these abilities are going to allow a party to "pwn" hordes of giants and dragons and beholders and mind flayers. None of these are going to be an "auto-win button" when it comes to creatures from the nether planes: demons, devils, daemons, slaadi, night hags, etc.

What these powers DO give the players are a fighting chance against the most powerful forces of badness in the game. What it means to the DM is that you're able to access MORE CONTENT when creating adventures for the players. Do you think its an accident that mind flayers can be encountered in groups of four? Or that fire/frost giants might number eight in a meeting? Or that magic resistance is based on casters of 11th level?

Characters aren't being awarded intelligent dancing swords just to fight orcs.

If you've been running a campaign for over a year, you should have PCs that are in the 9th - 11th range, assuming weekly games; if bi-weekly it might take two years depending on how long your sessions are. Gygax (in The Strategic Review) estimated 50-75 game sessions to reach these levels, which doesn't sound unreasonable...I often see big "jumps" in x.p. when a party, acquiring a treasure designed for seven, only make it back alive with three or four members of the group. These "jumps" offset x.p. lost for energy drain, keeping a nice ascending trajectory of advancement...assuming the players are learning and growing and not getting over their skis too often. If you run D&D in long form, campaign style play it is INEVITABLE that you'll see high level characters.

Best be ready.

; )