TTRPGs & D&D

[docsilence]

I don't think there's any one "right answer." A good DM can sell anything.

I watch a lot of advice videos because I want everything I do to be well-reasoned. I'm not an instinctual DM. I meticulously plan for anything I care about doing well. For DMing, that means watching videos about how others approach it. Sometimes I learn nothing, sometimes I crib a rule or two, sometimes it changes my thinking entirely.

I'm also an extremely anxious person. The more I prep, the less I freeze or go into cold sweats in the moment. (Boy, I have some fun stories about that from my first campaign.) For some reason, that doesn't apply to RP improv. I'm pretty good on my feet in those situations. I've gotten better about changing a monster stat block mid-fight, introducing a new bad guy if things are too easy, or pivoting if my plot isn't working as designed. Part of that is experience, part of that is watching enough experts to where I feel like I know what I'm doing.

There really isn't one right answer, yeah. And weirdly I am a METICULOUS planner when it comes to my writing, I plot out the entire novel ahead of time, but with DMing I go as far as 'what do you lunatics want to get to next time?' and then pull 1-3 monster statblocks, a ready made map, and wing it. Our most memorable sessions are almost always flying by the seat of my pants. (And I am a catastrophically anxious person, but the one time I'm completely free of worry is DMing. I get anxiety walking the dog, FFS, but have six people counting on me to create a scene of emotional resonance, sure thing gang.

It really is just an individual thing. I don't disagree when people say 5e fights can be a slog, but the fighter last night just flat out said on mic in round 3 "I can feel my pulse in my throat, guys" and it really felt like everything was working as needed. I think the chemistry angle comes into it, too--like six players, most of whom had stakes, and NOBODY tried to stake his brother so that he could have that Big Damned Hero moment. They all read each other super well.

I do try to gracefully bow out when a group has no chemistry, though. I sunset a campaign after about 12, 15 sessions in the spring because it just wasn't working. One person wanted to play Adventure Zone style, one person wanted horny RP, one person wanted combat, one person HATED combat, and one person was struggling to retain anything about her character. It was a case where like, okay if EVERYONe had the same issue we could fix that, but everyone was struggling separately and that I absolutely couldn't fix.

 

[Fletch]

I didn't want to deal with all of PF2e's stupid weapon runes, so I just gave them a ton of gold and let them buy what they wanted.

Barely a nitpick because it's just a personal preference, but I find these weapon rune rules to be the logical extension of the handholding trend in Pathfinder.

I was excited that there were magic item creation rules in 3e. They were little recipes where you had to know the right mix of spells and feats for each one and then give up a little of yourself (xp) to make it. I didn't think it was intended as a replacement for discovering magic items, but could help the wizard gear up with scrolls or help the monk who'd for some reason specialized in the spiked chain.

Now, it's just so easily customizable that it loses any significance. In the before times, if you wanted a holy flaming spear, you'd do some research and track down the tomb of the renegade angel Belmoth who was rumored to wield one. Now, you just check the boxes on the shop's iPad menu.

To me it feels like a loss. Like, all the character development is done at creation, and the rest of the game is just following the career path you'd set at level 1. Personal preference and all, but it ties back to what I've said about the ttrpg market catering to character options rather than adventuring options.

 

[Damien]

Dishing out wealth/loot is my least favorite aspect of DMing. It's probably the thing I'm worst at.

I don't think I ever got good at it, either.

Yep. 13th Age is the only book I've seen that balances this. 13A gives you backgrounds. They're functionally useless unless the player is clever enough to find use for them. You allocate a given number of points to your backgrounds, but they aren't skills or abilities. They're backstory. Flavor text. Character history. The game gives a list of examples, but it's not a set list. You can create your own.

For instance, maybe your bard used to be a stable hand at a tavern. You give yourself a background in Horse Wrangling, Hospitality, and Tavern Keeping. Your party happens upon a stallion in the woods. You ask the DM if you can use your background in horse wrangling to see if the horse is domesticated. If not, maybe you can roll to tame it.

Can't speak for the game itself because I've never sat down and read through the rules, let alone played, but this sounds like a much tidier, better version of the kind of stuff I always tried to work through. Having your character actually know stuff and be able to do stuff without being reliant on 2 skill points per level, maybe 1 of which you can use for something besides 'Athletics.' (Isn't that what my fucking Strength score is for?)

Players build their characters deliberately. If the party wizard has a background in history, reward him for it. He thoughtfully built his character for that exact moment. Don't make him roll a history check.

Yeeeesssss. One of my favorite houserules that I've almost never gotten to actually play with is 'only roll if there's a legitimate chance of failure.' If you're talking to the wizard about the history of magic, do you really need to give them a chance to fail at knowing? Maybe it is slightly more realistic (scientists can, after all, fail at science rolls), but it's not an engaging way to play a game.

Or, if you do make him roll for a history check, don't let another party member without a background in history do the same. It sucks when the guy who built his character around history rolls low and misses the check, and someone else in the party gets lucky and rolls a 20. It doesn't make narrative sense, it doesn't reward thoughtful character building, and it doesn't force the party to rely on one another.

I do the same thing in my games when I have a party without a charismatic character. I don't want you to roll, I want you to make a compelling argument.

1000%
With the caveat that I'm okay letting a character roll if they're not comfortable being something they want their character to be. We played Mutants & Materminds a long time ago and the guy playing the Tony Stark/Reed Richards character came right out and said 'I'm going to roll for all my great ideas because I am not smart enough to think stuff up on the fly at the table.' I respect that. Same for a Bard - I don't expect a Bard to sit there and compose the lyrics to an inspiring song unless they like... really want to.

But yeah, I genuinely dislike the problem where anyone can roll for any issue, regardless of if they even have any compelling argument for why their character wouldn't utterly fail at that thing immediately.

All those issues with "what do I know" skill checks, we're able to just weave through in the moment. My fighters are engaged outside of combat and don't feel like they only have one option during it. I kind of wonder if it's just chemistry

I think for me it goes back to DMs that basically started DMing at the same time as I started playing more often. 3E/3.5 was a huge boom of new players and DMs. But that means if a lot of your experience comes from that era, you probably also played with a lot of people that were new. And it feels like a common issue with new players/DMs is being aggressively RAW. Want to do a thing, or know a thing? Roll the dice. Don't think about if you should know it, or can know it, or should do it, or can do it... just roll and let the dice tell us what happens. And that can be frustrating when it's used constantly for out-of-combat situations and you're a class that doesn't really get skill points to spare, because you're going to just end up not really being good at very much.

Especially when skills are also tied to ability scores, but your ability scores are handicapped by NEEDING certain ones to constantly go up. Basically, any character that's a class that doesn't NEED Intelligence for combat effectiveness just happens to also be kind of dumb, I guess? It's not a perfect system by any means, but it's especially bad when a DM feels the need to be very rigid about how the rules are supposed to work and what they govern.


It's funny, I don't like being a DM as much as a player, but I actually feel less anxiety as a DM. Weird, right? I guess as a DM I always felt like I was doing the rest of the group a favor by running the game that THEY did not want to run, so if they don't like it they can do it themselves. But when I'm a player, I feel like I want to be useful to the group, be my own important character but not make myself the MAIN character and therefore be careful not to step on anyone else's time to shine, assist the DM by making it easier for them to do their job and not only be engaged but help keep others engaged.. etc etc. Like, I get a lot of anxiety about being a good player and a good party member.
Like, I genuinely never like 'the most powerful' meta options for classes, but I also don't want to intentionally underpower myself and let my team down.

To me it feels like a loss. Like, all the character development is done at creation, and the rest of the game is just following the career path you'd set at level 1. Personal preference and all, but it ties back to what I've said about the ttrpg market catering to character options rather than adventuring options.

Agreed. Well, I agree that a lot of TTRPGs are perfectly set up to allow this. But I do think a good DM can avoid the pitfall of letting players just sort of drift through collecting levels on their pre-determined path to ultimate power.

 

[docsilence]

And it feels like a common issue with new players/DMs is being aggressively RAW.

My fix for this is what you get varies on your individual character. Like, if the wizard makes a history check and rolls high, I'll give him academic lore he would have read at the academy or whatever. But if a barbarian wants to roll an untrained history check and happens to roll high, I give him something he heard over a campfire out in the wilds, an old faerie tale or folk story with some information they might need. I do a LOT of on the fly adjustment to tailor every situation for the player/character on the spot. But that is a lot of extra work for a GM who isn't comfortable with improvising that much.

I also like a smaller list of skills and asking the player: pitch me what skill works here. I'm probably going to say yes, but just let's work together to create a moment/scene. You want to use medicine instead of insight to read someone's reaction because you think you can pick up on dilated pupils or flushed skin from fear? Sure, let's use that instead. I wouldn't hate seeing 5e and its clones have, oh, five or six more skills (STR gets hosed, absolutely HOSED in skills) but I can make it work. I'm also WAY not opposed to being like "use STR instead of CHA for intimidation" or that kind of stuff to let characters lean in on stuff they're better at. My main goal at every table is to make sure players don't feel useless and having fun. (I also do my damnedest to go with fail-forward on skill checks. I want giggles when a nat 1 happens, not rage.)

 

[Damien]

My fix for this is what you get varies on your individual character. Like, if the wizard makes a history check and rolls high, I'll give him academic lore he would have read at the academy or whatever. But if a barbarian wants to roll an untrained history check and happens to roll high, I give him something he heard over a campfire out in the wilds, an old faerie tale or folk story with some information they might need. I do a LOT of on the fly adjustment to tailor every situation for the player/character on the spot. But that is a lot of extra work for a GM who isn't comfortable with improvising that much.

I also like a smaller list of skills and asking the player: pitch me what skill works here. I'm probably going to say yes, but just let's work together to create a moment/scene. You want to use medicine instead of insight to read someone's reaction because you think you can pick up on dilated pupils or flushed skin from fear? Sure, let's use that instead. I wouldn't hate seeing 5e and its clones have, oh, five or six more skills (STR gets hosed, absolutely HOSED in skills) but I can make it work. I'm also WAY not opposed to being like "use STR instead of CHA for intimidation" or that kind of stuff to let characters lean in on stuff they're better at. My main goal at every table is to make sure players don't feel useless and having fun. (I also do my damnedest to go with fail-forward on skill checks. I want giggles when a nat 1 happens, not rage.)

I was thinking all this over and you know what D&D reminds me of sometimes? In the video game Kingdom Come: Deliverance, you are a blacksmith's son that helps him with blacksmithing. When you gain full control of the character and can start exploring the world and doing your video game things, you have zero skill in crafting/blacksmithing.
D&D feels like that. I can write whatever backstory I want, but the rules have already decided that whether my character knows how to do anything, or understands anything about the world around them, will be entirely dependent on how many skill points I get, and how many I'm willing to waste on stuff that won't matter for 60-80% of when I'm rolling dice.

As I said above, I think D&D just has a real problem with not rewarding or even pitching the idea of characters as actual living people with backstories that include 'I was alive for some time before I became an adventurer.' The idea that this character -existed- prior to Session 1 can feel foreign.

Obviously, this can be a DM skill issue and it's good that you can work around it. Lots of DMs can. But it's still something you're working -around- rather than something the game sets you up to do.

 

[TheSameIdiot]

Basically, any character that's a class that doesn't NEED Intelligence for combat effectiveness just happens to also be kind of dumb, I guess?

Yeah, this is a huge downside of the standard six attributes in TTRPGs. Intelligence is a dump stat for almost every class.

If I'm RPing according to my character sheet (which you generally should, IMO), my character is probably a dumbass.

My grizzled veteran Fighter who commanded battalions at war? Stupid.

My woodsman Ranger who survived off the land for a decade? Dumb as dogshit.

My poet Bard who composes ingenious limericks on the fly? I wouldn't trust him to manage a lemonade stand.

I also like a smaller list of skills and asking the player: pitch me what skill works here. I'm probably going to say yes, but just let's work together to create a moment/scene. You want to use medicine instead of insight to read someone's reaction because you think you can pick up on dilated pupils or flushed skin from fear? Sure, let's use that instead. I wouldn't hate seeing 5e and its clones have, oh, five or six more skills (STR gets hosed, absolutely HOSED in skills) but I can make it work. I'm also WAY not opposed to being like "use STR instead of CHA for intimidation" or that kind of stuff to let characters lean in on stuff they're better at. My main goal at every table is to make sure players don't feel useless and having fun. (I also do my damnedest to go with fail-forward on skill checks. I want giggles when a nat 1 happens, not rage.)

I do the same. It's one way to overcome inherently flawed character sheets.

As I said above, I think D&D just has a real problem with not rewarding or even pitching the idea of characters as actual living people with backstories that include 'I was alive for some time before I became an adventurer.' The idea that this character -existed- prior to Session 1 can feel foreign.

Obviously, this can be a DM skill issue and it's good that you can work around it. Lots of DMs can. But it's still something you're working -around- rather than something the game sets you up to do.

This is one of the main reasons I harp on 5e. The personality traits/ideals/bonds/flaws are seriously underbaked.

 

[docsilence]

I have run, thousands of hours of 5e and I have had maybe two players ever use the traits/bonds/flaws stuff. Ever. I mean they make their OWN ideals and bonds and stuff, but almost literally nobody uses what's in the character sheet.

We've managed to have elderly adventurers here and there, mostly through creative suspensions of disbelief, but the game really doesn't give a mechanical way of being that type of character. We had a real babushka of a druid last campaign and she was a favorite, but that was mostly me and the player just bounding improv off each other. I should post a pic of her mini--I hand-painted a bend-backed old woman who by campaign's end was TERRIFYINGLY powerful. I had to look at her spell list at one point and I'm like fuck, Stella's a beast.

 

[TheSameIdiot]

I think @Damien and I are even talking about a 35- or 45-year-old character. You can play a seasoned character, sure, but the game doesn't have any built-in mechanics or rewards for it. You may as well start as a fresh-faced 20-something every time.

 

[Fletch]

I personally really like a good skill system because of how it outlines how characters interact with the world when not trying to kill it. It highlights interests while reining in options. What I don't need is something too granular, where we're concerned about his Arcana 16 vs. her Arcana 12. I think PF2 and ACKS (and probably others) have the right of it with just general, sort-of-narrative ranks like novice blacksmith or expert demonologist. That way you get to get better at something, but don't have to calculated your skill points or anything.

Also, I really like the statement made earlier about not needing a dice roll if failure doesn't matter. I would for sure want a roll for something that earns gold or keeps them from getting lost in the wilderness. Otherwise, let dude know the name of a rare wine or recognize the purpose of a protective ward. It just adds to the world's lore.

I once had a DM who, when we asked things like "do I recognize the workmanship?" she'd say "I don't know, do you?" It was obviously a prompt for us to help fill in the world, but we were dumb kids and it made us nervous. Thinking back on it, I think it's a nice technique.

 

[TheSameIdiot]

Also, I really like the statement made earlier about not needing a dice roll if failure doesn't matter. I would for sure want a roll for something that earns gold or keeps them from getting lost in the wilderness. Otherwise, let dude know the name of a rare wine or recognize the purpose of a protective ward. It just adds to the world's lore.

You have to be careful with dice rolls, too. My last GM tied something important to a high perception roll (something like 18+). We couldn't move on without it. One party member rolled and failed, then the next, and finally the whole group. We failed it as a table over and over and over again. There was no narrative reason that we'd keep looking, so it was an exercise in throwing dice until we hit the right number. Very silly.

I once had a DM who, when we asked things like "do I recognize the workmanship?" she'd say "I don't know, do you?" It was obviously a prompt for us to help fill in the world, but we were dumb kids and it made us nervous. Thinking back on it, I think it's a nice technique.

Anything that makes the players co-authors is a good idea in my book.

 

[Damien]

I once had a DM who, when we asked things like "do I recognize the workmanship?" she'd say "I don't know, do you?" It was obviously a prompt for us to help fill in the world, but we were dumb kids and it made us nervous. Thinking back on it, I think it's a nice technique.

Yeah, I like this a lot. Definitely depends on the DM. On the one hand, it takes weight off the DM because you're allowing the world-building to be collaborative. Let the players create details about your world. On the other hand, I've definitely dealt with DMs that are very possessive of the world they've created (or rules-lawyery about an established setting) to where they don't want to let players do that.

I think @Damien and I are even talking about a 35- or 45-year-old character. You can play a seasoned character, sure, but the game doesn't have any built-in mechanics or rewards for it. You may as well start as a fresh-faced 20-something every time.

Exactly. Obviously, I don't think it's fair to ask a DM to let you be 8 skill points deep in every skill "because my character is 50." That makes no sense. But equally, I would argue that your average 20-year-old in the real world right now knows more and can do more (in terms of regular everyday stuff) than your average 8th level Paladin. Which is crazy sauce.
As I've said, this is VERY dependent on the DM, but it -is- also RAW. Put it this way; an illiterate Anglo-Saxon in real world 10th century East Anglia 100% would be a 0-level NPC 'warrior,' at best, and could pass basic geography, animal handling, and nature-related checks that your literate 12th level ADVENTURING Paladin in D&D probably can't unless the DM is doing his own thing a bit. That's just D&D. I'm not saying I hate D&D, obviously. It's just... weird.. when you sit and think about it.

 

[Fletch]

You have to be careful with dice rolls, too. My last GM tied something important to a high perception roll (something like 18+). We couldn't move on without it.

Not being allowed to fail is its own issue with me. A risk of failure is what makes playing adventures fun and what makes rewards valuable. For me.

Tangent, there's a game system called Gumshoe that I'm interested in trying. It's designed specifically for investigating (and has an extensive library of Cthulhu adventures). I'm not super-savy on the rules, but it's set up so that the characters will always find the clues which actually sounds kind of boring when described that way but seems really fun based on reviews I've read.

 

[docsilence]

The more I think about it, and the more I deeply analyze different game systems, the more I realize we as gamers kinda just got to pick games and run with what they do, because not only is no game system going to be perfect for one person, or one table, it's going to become something entirely different once it makes contact with oxygen.

I think the reason I tend to fall back onto systems I know well is because I know how I can break them without BREAKING them. It's an operating system I can tweak without accidentally bricking the campaign. Like, I want to bolt a better combat system onto Dune but I'm not comfortable doing that. Or I hate how damage works in Daggerheart but I don't know how to fuxxed with it to make it work for me.

Tangent, there's a game system called Gumshoe that I'm interested in trying.

Gumshoe is really fun. 10/10 recommend. Haven't run it in a dog's age but it's really great.

 

[Damien]

The more I think about it, and the more I deeply analyze different game systems, the more I realize we as gamers kinda just got to pick games and run with what they do, because not only is no game system going to be perfect for one person, or one table, it's going to become something entirely different once it makes contact with oxygen.

Oh yeah, I totally agree. I've really enjoyed tinkering with games over the years, but ultimately you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the fun. Sometimes the tinkering works and we kept it, sometimes it didn't work and we just went back to RAW and carried on. I can pontificate for days (and have, and will again) about what I do or don't like about different systems or what, in theory, my perfect game looks like. But I don't -think- I'd ever let it get in the way of just enjoying games for what they are.

 

[docsilence]

Oh yeah, I totally agree. I've really enjoyed tinkering with games over the years, but ultimately you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the fun. Sometimes the tinkering works and we kept it, sometimes it didn't work and we just went back to RAW and carried on. I can pontificate for days (and have, and will again) about what I do or don't like about different systems or what, in theory, my perfect game looks like. But I don't -think- I'd ever let it get in the way of just enjoying games for what they are.

Yep. And this is why my favorite rule in gaming isn't "rule of cool," it's the old Johnny Cash quote: I reserve the right to change my mind. Look let's try it this way in this moment, but if it's wrong or sucks, we're not committed to it forever. We can adjust as we go to find what is the most fun.