TTRPGs & D&D

[Damien]

You would not like my GM.

Very possible. Or at least, I'd like him in short doses. But, to be fair, there's LOTS of DMs I would never want to play with. It's not a very exclusive club.

I very much think I like the idea of an old school dungeon crawl way more than I'd actually like it. I think I'd probably get with it as a sometimes food, a small arc in a game, or a mini campaign, than spending years and years going down levels.

Yeah. There was a time when I thought I'd really enjoy the old school 'just kill stuff until you get to the biggest treasure chest' game. I did not enjoy it. I still don't enjoy it. I -like- combat a lot -- in fact, I tend to play extremely combat-focused characters even in games that aren't specifically focused on combat in the way D&D is.
But to me the dungeon crawl felt like a Michael Bay movie. Lots of explosions and flags, but I'm not really sure what I'm actually doing here.

 

[JakeEkiss]

But to me the dungeon crawl felt like a Michael Bay movie. Lots of explosions and flags, but I'm not really sure what I'm actually doing here.

Yeah. I can definitely get into combat, even quite enjoy tactical combat when done well, but I like there to be more going on than kicking in doors and splitting skulls. I do have an idea for a game that sort of mimics the outline of a dungeon crawl, but ultimately I think it would be window-dressing for something that was more of a classic adventure tale (adventure in the vein of Master and Commander, traveling to exotic new places, meeting new peoples and creatures, with danger about, but not always of the violent variety).

 

[Fletch]

it doesn't sound like the DM is doing a very good job of leading the game, and doesn't even seem -interested- in leading the game.

Objection

I reject that a DM is responsible for leading a game. He has a different role from the players, but shouldn't feel responsible for making sure everyone has fun.


On the idea of dungeon crawls, I like that risk vs reward/resource management style of play, especially once creators started putting in effort to make dungeons make "sense." I don't think modern game systems support it, though. But I also don't think dungeon crawl means hack-and-slash, which seems like what the real complaint is. A tabletop version of Diablo sounds pretty dull to me too.

 

[docsilence]

I like the IDEA of a dungeon crawl. Actually one of my favorite reads from last year was Mike Shel's fantasy trilogy that kind of obliquely ended each story with what was basically a dungeon crawl for his characters. My favorite "trashy" fantasy novel, The Barrow, begins and ends with truly nightmarish, horrifying dungeon crawls.

But if in a TTRPG they get too mechanical or more about the traps and math than about the story, they bore me as a DM, and bore me to TEARS as a player.

Now, if you can make going into a dungeon, barrow, or cave scary AF and tell a good story with it, I'm very much down for that because legit one of my phobias is dying in the dark underground...

(Oh, like the original cinematic for Diablo IV. The STORY they tell in that like, five minute dungeon crawl? Sexy. Do I like playing Diablo? Not for more than like ten minutes at a time.)

TRANSITION: I also like "dungeon crawls" in space and I just got the update to Free League's ALIEN game and goddamn it's fun. There's a couple of fiddly funky mechanics I don't love (I've never liked how they handle ammo, for example) but that's a game I need to run soon.

 

[TheSameIdiot]

Dungeon crawls follow the same loop as MMORPGs: clear a dungeon -> get better gear -> clear a stronger dungeon -> get better gear.

My GM has us upgrading our town, too. The town follows the same pattern. Upgrade the town so you can go to a stronger dungeon to get better gear. While I can appreciate that loop, it's very much ancillary to what I want from D&D. I'm invested in characters and story. Killing 40 goblins with a big-ass fireball is cool, but it won't have me hooting and hollering the way good RP does.

I'm curious to see how long my GM intends to run this game. We're eight sessions in now. My campaign was 17. I'm not opposed to playing this in the intermediate term, but I'm concerned about how I might feel six months in. That'll certainly be the case if he wants to run the same style game the next time he DMs.

Not to say I haven't had similar ideas for my campaigns. I'm even kicking around the idea of turning one of my future campaigns into a hex crawl. The big difference, though, is that his "meteors have fallen from space" adventure hook leads to six encounters with forest creatures, demented miners, and orcs attempting to mine the meteor ore for themselves. My "meteors have fallen from space" adventure hook leads to wacky hijinks with an extraterrestrial being.

 

[JakeEkiss]

I reject that a DM is responsible for leading a game. He has a different role from the players, but shouldn't feel responsible for making sure everyone has fun.

In this specific case the DM avoided clarifying a meta component of how their world runs (whether or not his game operates on persistent timers like a real setting, or on triggered ones like a video game). That's definitely the DM's job.

I do think that leading the table is on the DM though. That doesn't necessarily mean they're on the hook for everyone's fun. In fact I think a big failing in a lot of groups is nobody considers that the DM needs to be having fun too. That part is definitely influenced by the players. Not enough folks think "am I playing this in a way that matches the tone the DM is putting out, am I taking the bait on plot hooks and such". The DM does need to give direction on the game overall, though. They need to be aware of the difference between players speculating/planning, and players floundering. And they've got to be willing to step in for those cases.

I don't think modern game systems support it

Definitely not 5e. They keep pretending it can, but there are far too many powers in it that, once you get them, completely trivialize whole segments of survival horror play, which is what a better dungeon run should be IMHO.

But I also don't think dungeon crawl means hack-and-slash, which seems like what the real complaint is.

True. The combat can be fun, but it's not the whole meal.

TRANSITION: I also like "dungeon crawls" in space and I just got the update to Free League's ALIEN game and goddamn it's fun. There's a couple of fiddly funky mechanics I don't love (I've never liked how they handle ammo, for example) but that's a game I need to run soon.

I'm probably one session, at most two, away from finishing my alien game using the original Free League rules and it's been fun. They were sitting pretty good until the most recent session where I decided there were far too many NPCs in tow and not enough bad things had happened. I had them get ambushed by 3 xenos and they barely escaped with their lives (and they lost 3 NPCs in the melee). The last leg of the game is for them to find the head of the facility they're in to unlock the ship so they can escape. So far nobody knows that one of the players is actually a Thing in disguise. That's going to be a fun bit at the end, but what they haven't gotten to yet is figuring out how even with their diminished numbers, they'll all fit on the ship. There's not enough cryo-pods for everyone.

My "meteors have fallen from space" adventure hook leads to wacky hijinks with an extraterrestrial being.

As it should. Not enough fantasy RPG stories are hella weird these days. People need to up their weirdness quotient.

 

[altcunningham]

A Dungeon Crawl that can adapt a roguelite system... Like OG Diablo's loop, but Hades Boons. That would be interesting.

I need a narrative hook for the crawl.

 

[altcunningham]

Objection

I reject that a DM is responsible for leading a game. He has a different role from the players, but shouldn't feel responsible for making sure everyone has fun.

I agree with the Fun part, having run and on and off again 20 years of content in various systems.

But if we're talking about my specific situation, I've come to believe the DM is actually railroading us while drowning us in new content and toys that we never even get to assemble.

I don't think I laid it out in the original posts, but right now we are Inceptioned in some Elden Ring Inspiration... in the Fey... Within an adaptation of Strahd... That is a chapter in a longer form Final Fantasyesque campaign that often introduces steampunk, cyberpunk, whatever gets floated by another player as interesting. Objectively I really think it comes from collectively endorsing everyone's ADHD and shifting attention spans and interests with TV shows or video games, with a dose of trying to please everybody all of the time.

And hey if that works for everyone else, I'm the odd one out at the table. That's fine.

I compare that to the current AT game where we collectively agreed on a theme and then is the theme we are doing. Is it would be like if Damien expressed that the tundra setting is wearing then, so the next session suddenly we are in the Sahara for paper thin reasons.

Or my big Star Wars game where I explained I wanted to go for an Indiana Jones/western theme on the outer rim and everyone agreed. While we eventually did go to Coruscant, we did have a re-zeroing where we figured out what we wanted out of that setting, which was an organized crime Michael Mann in Space vibe. And that's enough to make sure everyone is having fun.

But you're right that in general you should not be trying to please everyone all of the time. Sometimes it is a player issue. I acknowledge in my conclusion that this is clearly me not fitting in with their direction and comfort zone.

And again, I left the game for a 15 months or so due to School, so this is what I came back to. It was not always like this. The scrimshaw jackstraw mess of a World build happened in my absence.

But you reject the idea they should lead the game. Since we are being railroaded, they are electing to lead. And some people enjoy a railroad or linear plot. There are quite a few modules that cater to that. My experience in this situation, and I'm only speaking on this one, is that when you railroad you should lay the track. Or do the old video game "You can't do that right now" to establish the barriers on your sandbox.

But I do think if a party wants to just sit in the Inn and do nothing, it is a cardinal sin to not bring the action or plot to them if they're not going to go out and get it. Because at the end of the day it is a story and stories need inciting events, agency, and stakes.

Analogy: Dispatch is a popular game right now. There's no actual gameplay. But at least the story is compelling. If you don't want to master dodge rolling and counter parry timing that's fine. But I'm going to need a story. And that is where the DM should be leading.

 

[JakeEkiss]

And some people enjoy a railroad or linear plot. There are quite a few modules that cater to that.

Sort of a side discussion, but one thing I think more groups would benefit from is the DM (or someone) laying out the distinction between railroading, linear plotting, being in a sandbox, and being in an open world. They're all really important distinctions and I think a lot of groups just don't think about it.

Like, for me the distinction goes:
Railroading: You as the player have a good idea that the rules and setting support, and I as the DM fiat things to prevent you from doing that to force scenes to happen the way I want them. You are Frodo and you choose to go into the mountains to get to Mordor, you've packed rations and cold weather gear, etc. But I as the DM didn't want you to go into the mountains and spent the last week prepping Moria, so I say there's suddenly an impassable storm.

Linear plotting: The game has a defined goal from the outset and everyone knows it. There is some precursor to completing the plot that likely cannot be circumvented with clever thinking. You need to destroy the One Ring and the only place you can do that is in the fires of Mt. Doom, etc. I think there's some differing levels to this. Linear plotting can be very directed, or lightly directed. Giving folks an end goal and just signposts along the way vs them literally taking missions from some NPC of authority in your game.

Sandbox: This is the way almost all ttrpgs work most of the time. You have a problem in front of you, but not necessarily a prescribed solution. You have to get the One Ring to Mordor, and you don't know the way. You can choose to go by your wits alone, stick with your fragmenting party, or you can choose to bring the traitorous Gollum as your guide. All choices are valid, but their success or failure will depend on the player making them work.

Open World: There is no overarching plot to the game (or it's not a necessity to engage with it) and you an open map to explore and get into trouble in. The plot is generally emergent from choices made on where to go and what the players decide to interact with.

But I do think if a party wants to just sit in the Inn and do nothing, it is a cardinal sin to not bring the action or plot to them if they're not going to go out and get it. Because at the end of the day it is a story and stories need inciting events, agency, and stakes.

Word. I think there's something to be said for a group that wants to play in a game that's more slice of life in a secondary world. I can envision how that might be interesting. Not to my tastes but I can dig it in the abstract. But if the DM sets up that this is something a bit more traditional and players aren't engaging they gotta expect orcs to come bashing down the nearest door.

 

[Damien]

I reject that a DM is responsible for leading a game. He has a different role from the players, but shouldn't feel responsible for making sure everyone has fun.

I think Jake and Alt had really good responses to this, but I also didn't want to seem like I was just ignoring the comment so... I agree with those guys.

I think it's important to differentiate 'in charge of fun' from 'in charge of -the game itself-.' I can't imagine a convincing argument that the DM (at least in current edition D&D and probably the majority of tabletop games) is not leading the game. We've spoken at length here about how the only person truly responsible for whether you have fun is you.
A DM can do a perfect job leading a game; that doesn't mean you're going to enjoy it. But if the DM does a bad job leading a game, it's almost a guarantee you won't enjoy it.

 

[Fletch]

But I do think if a party wants to just sit in the Inn and do nothing, it is a cardinal sin to not bring the action or plot to them if they're not going to go out and get it. Because at the end of the day it is a story and stories need inciting events, agency, and stakes.

It sounds like I have a misunderstanding of what we mean by "leading."

I had taken it to mean that the DM just takes the adventure wherever he wants to go. I've been on both sides of the screen where the DM is just trying to use the players to tell the story he wants, and it's frustrating for everyone.

I also don't think it's the DM's job to rein in the players themselves such as keeping distracted players focused or arbitration disagreements between players. I've read a few articles in my life that describe it as being "your" table, and I hate that.

For sure presenting plot hooks and scenarios is the DM's role, though. Laying down setting rules and campaign assumptions, all that. If we're talking about that, I withdraw my objection. I just never want to sit behind the screen and have anyone look at me like it's my job to entertain them.

 

[Damien]

For sure presenting plot hooks and scenarios is the DM's role, though. Laying down setting rules and campaign assumptions, all that. If we're talking about that, I withdraw my objection. I just never want to sit behind the screen and have anyone look at me like it's my job to entertain them.

Certainly not. But it's your job to know what kind of game you want to run. Ultimately, we all use the words 'running the game' for a reason.
If everyone comes into your game and isn't sure what's going on, what the 'rules' are (setting rules, actual rules, stakes, etc) that's definitely a DM problem. If the players can't figure out what you want them to do next (too many options, no options) that's a DM problem.

I WOULD argue that someone taking on the role of DM has volunteered to also be a little bit of the group babysitter as well. By that I mean helping focus the group when things are going a little off the rails and also arbitrating disputes to some extent. But I do actually subscribe to some version of the 'it's YOUR table' argument. Ideally, everyone works together. That's just not always reality and sometimes someone needs to be understood to be the authority that has the final say. I think most of us would defer to a DM as having that role inherently unless someone else in the friend group is kind of already that person.

Oh, and this goes for the actual game rules too. Even most game books stipulate that the DM gets final say on a rules issue in the interest of just keeping the game going and not getting bogged down in 3 people arguing about what the rule 'really means' in the middle of a game. So even game books give the DM a bit of fiat.

 

[altcunningham]

It sounds like I have a misunderstanding of what we mean by "leading."

I had taken it to mean that the DM just takes the adventure wherever he wants to go. I've been on both sides of the screen where the DM is just trying to use the players to tell the story he wants, and it's frustrating for everyone.

I also don't think it's the DM's job to rein in the players themselves such as keeping distracted players focused or arbitration disagreements between players. I've read a few articles in my life that describe it as being "your" table, and I hate that.

For sure presenting plot hooks and scenarios is the DM's role, though. Laying down setting rules and campaign assumptions, all that. If we're talking about that, I withdraw my objection. I just never want to sit behind the screen and have anyone look at me like it's my job to entertain them.

Sounds like we're on the same page now. : )

I agree with you. I don't like DMs like that and I would never want to. In my earlier days I might have tried but I learned very quickly that it's more satisfying helping the players get to where they're trying to get with their power fantasy.

I do agree with you it is not their job to rein in players who sit on tik tok, and in an ideal World, the players would filter that problem out. The particular table I am at does not want to so I think that's just a sign for me. It is never your table. It's a shared community. It's a team sport. So I'm with you there.

To your last point, and I've brought this up a lot this year elsewhere, it is my experience, with recent tables and game store experiences, that critical role and streaming in general has kind of tainted expectations of what D&D is. Because there are people that tell you they want to play but then look at the DM or even the other players as their entertainment while they give minimal effort. And they might demand sweeping plots with subplots and character arcs and the reality is those streaming games are meant for the audience. But a living room game or a mini campaign at the store is meant for you.

And it's not everyone. I'm not saying critical role sucks. I'm not even blaming them. But I do think it has skewed expectations with people that want to onboard. I have scraped that reef a few times on the high seas of adventure.

 

[Damien]

And it's not everyone. I'm not saying critical role sucks. I'm not even blaming them. But I do think it has skewed expectations with people that want to onboard.

I'd say this is probably pretty accurate. Because Critical Role is entertaining passively, some people go into a game thinking they will continue to just be passively entertained. I think those people are clowns, personally. Anyone with a brain should be able to figure out the difference between the audience and the cast. You're joining the cast. It's not complicated. But it definitely does seem to happen.

I also think there's more generally a problem with people that are just checked out in general. The world sucks. Everything sucks. People just want something to distract them, but when they do it they also don't have the mental or emotional energy to even be invested in it. To the point above, what those people really want is to watch a movie or something, but also not be alone.

 

[JakeEkiss]

I WOULD argue that someone taking on the role of DM has volunteered to also be a little bit of the group babysitter as well. By that I mean helping focus the group when things are going a little off the rails and also arbitrating disputes to some extent. But I do actually subscribe to some version of the 'it's YOUR table' argument. Ideally, everyone works together. That's just not always reality and sometimes someone needs to be understood to be the authority that has the final say. I think most of us would defer to a DM as having that role inherently unless someone else in the friend group is kind of already that person.

I think this gets at the heart of something that is often unspoken. Whether or not it's correct, social structures put DMs in a position of authority by default. While I don't think it's a DM's job to police a table or whatever (everyone should be policing themselves), I do think they're often in the best position to do it. And I do think the best DMs know this and treat the position that way. Like, you're the one initiating the game at the table, you are an authority there whether that's a comfortable position or not.

I'd say this is probably pretty accurate. Because Critical Role is entertaining passively, some people go into a game thinking they will continue to just be passively entertained. I think those people are clowns, personally. Anyone with a brain should be able to figure out the difference between the audience and the cast. You're joining the cast. It's not complicated. But it definitely does seem to happen.

I also think there's more generally a problem with people that are just checked out in general. The world sucks. Everything sucks. People just want something to distract them, but when they do it they also don't have the mental or emotional energy to even be invested in it. To the point above, what those people really want is to watch a movie or something, but also not be alone.

I was typing up something on this same line and you beat me to it. I've got nothing to add. I think it's this exactly.