TTRPGs & D&D
- Thread starter TheSameIdiot
- Start date
altcunningham
Mr. Ana de Armas
I'll check it out, thanks.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2025
- Messages
- 3,615
I am pathologically driven to dislike the people that everyone claims are important 'authorities' on something, or integral to something. But Gygax legitimately was a fucking twat. Everything I ever read by him sounded in my brain like it was echoing through his own colon. I can't stand him. And it's nice that other people are fully on board with what a twat he was.
docsilence
Dungeon Daddy
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2025
- Messages
- 4,178
Gary falls into that category of "I'm okay with enjoying something he did cos he's gone" category of awful people for me. Never heard a story that made me think the other stories weren't true.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2025
- Messages
- 3,615
Unlike a lot of other people - most other people - I barely even identify D&D with Gary. He didn't create the entire game single-handedly, and the game he created barely has anything to do with the game we play today. In fact, Gary seemed to fucking hate modern D&D (mostly because he was an arrogant piece of shit that couldn't fathom that his version wasn't the greatest version to ever be made).
docsilence
Dungeon Daddy
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2025
- Messages
- 4,178
I'll be honest, Gary's not even a consideration. When I think of modern D&D from a design perspective I think more of Perkins, Crawford, Meals, newer designers like Dan Dillon or McKenzie D'armis... The game is barely recognizable from when Gary made it and I'm okay with that. Hell the best WOTC book on my shelf was headed up by Kate Welch who doesn't even work in TTRPGs anymore, I think.
I forget which creator it was, but someone with a gender-neutral name was working with a D&D project and Gary didn't know she was a woman. Apparently the first time they talked Gary was so shocked she wasn't a man he just said 'But you're a woman" four times on the line, then hung up. She still got paid but what a weird, weird dude.
Speaking of Dan Dillon, I highly recommend Critical Lit - four game designers breaking down old modules and talking about problems and good parts of each. They did Tomb of Horrors already and are looking at Strahd right now and it's become my "this show does not stress me out at ALL" podcast to listen to on my run.
I'm a huge critic of the great man theory. I believe D&D is one of those things, like the lightbulb and most everything else, that would've been invented by someone else had Gygax not come along. Given the game's evolution, someone else might've even done it better. I don't know that much about Gygax, but his quotes about women were more than enough for me.
I haven't fully DMed in almost six months, which led to some extreme early-game jitters. It didn't help that I was DMing for my wife, whom I was trying to impress, in a game system I'd never run before. Worse, as an anxious person, I try to avoid parties at all costs. Well, today's one-shot was a murder at a Halloween party. I realized while prepping that I backed myself into a corner. I'd be making small talk as eight different NPCs. I can't make small talk as me, in real life. Thankfully, once the murder happened, the small talk ended and my DM muscle took control. It was a choppy start, though.
It was my first experience with a Powered by the Apocalypse game system. I liked it more than I expected, though I can't imagine running a long-term campaign (20+ sessions) in the system. I would try Masks in an abbreviated campaign (maybe 5 or 10 sessions). Same for Blades in the Dark, which isn't a PbtA game, but similar.
In any case, my players liked it enough to request a second session. Miraculously, Brindlewood Bay has a Christmas-themed mystery, so I'm going to run my first (and maybe last) Christmas special later this year.
I ran my Halloween one-shot in Brindlewood Bay today. From what I gleaned, my players loved it. It was low stakes and a little silly. I ran it with four people: two of my usual crew, one of their girlfriends, and my wife. It was my wife's first experience with a TTRPG. I think she enjoyed it, though I doubt she'll become a regular. I might get her for a few games a year, but RP isn't her thing. Fantasy settings aren't, either.
I haven't fully DMed in almost six months, which led to some extreme early-game jitters. It didn't help that I was DMing for my wife, whom I was trying to impress, in a game system I'd never run before. Worse, as an anxious person, I try to avoid parties at all costs. Well, today's one-shot was a murder at a Halloween party. I realized while prepping that I backed myself into a corner. I'd be making small talk as eight different NPCs. I can't make small talk as me, in real life. Thankfully, once the murder happened, the small talk ended and my DM muscle took control. It was a choppy start, though.
It was my first experience with a Powered by the Apocalypse game system. I liked it more than I expected, though I can't imagine running a long-term campaign (20+ sessions) in the system. I would try Masks in an abbreviated campaign (maybe 5 or 10 sessions). Same for Blades in the Dark, which isn't a PbtA game, but similar.
In any case, my players liked it enough to request a second session. Miraculously, Brindlewood Bay has a Christmas-themed mystery, so I'm going to run my first (and maybe last) Christmas special later this year.
I ran my Traveller game about two weeks ago. This is the group with the poorly behaved player.
I couldn't believe how well it went.
As the game neared, I wanted nothing to do with it. You DMs will know that this is the worst spot you can be in. If you can't sell the game, no one will buy it. My first thought was to run a pre-written adventure. The great thing about running a 50-year-old game is that there's an abundance of quality material. When I began reviewing my notes from session zero, I remembered that I had prepped a mini-adventure for the end of the night. Session zero went on way too long, so I shelved it. Rather than half-assing a pre-written module, I decided to pad out what I had originally written to fill three hours.
I took massive inspiration from @docsilence. Instead of yada yadaing the small details (or skipping them altogether), I luxuriated in them. In Traveller character creation, the players simulate their careers to the point that they want to begin adventuring. Part of that is connecting themselves to their fellow players through life events so they join the crew organically.
I kicked things off in a bar where they met up for the first time (while they had some prior relationships, they didn't know every traveler on the ship). From there, I sent them to a bank to 1) explain how they came across the ship (ostensibly, they stole it, so I knew this would make for good RP), 2) name their ship, and 3) sign the mortgage paperwork. I shamelessly stole my in-universe bank from Joe Abercrombie's First Law series. My bank is the banking house of Valint & Balk by another name. Expressing—as a nasally bureaucrat—that the bank was not to be trifled with was some of the most fun I've had RPing.
To my utter shock, the players responded with the single best RP I've ever seen. The two party "leaders" had a sidebar just out of earshot of my nasally bank teller, while two others made small talk with me. The face of the group, a self-obsessed celebrity, fretted over how they'd pay the ship's mortgage while the other leader, a morally compromised shoot-first corporate agent (the bad player), talked him down. I was crying laughing. Incredibly meta to watch a player argue against adventuring in an adventure game.
I finished it off with a bounty. The bank asked the players to hunt down a ship that had forgone its mortgage payments.
I took a couple of big lessons from the session:
1) Group dynamics matter. While the bad player never fit in with two different groups of do-gooders, he's perfectly suited for a group of morally ambiguous space outlaws. In a group like this, being a rogue or a wildcard isn't out of place, or even a bad thing. The big question is whether his good behavior can continue. Is he going to say some shit that sends me off the deep end? Almost definitely yes.
2) Changing the game cadence changes the game entirely. If I wanted to run the game, I would've run my standard fare. I would've started them on the ship with an adventure hook. We would've gone from A to B to C without taking a breath. Like alt's group, if I don't keep my players in line, either we'll get nothing done or they'll yap for three hours. I'm undecided about smaller, more focused sessions, but running one was eye-opening.
Do we have a name for doc's style? I don't know that it's fair to call them smaller. We did a lot in today's session, but it took place in three or four longer scenes instead of my usual eight or 10 shorter ones. It's less ADHD.
In any case, the good news about the Traveller game is that I found a second wind. If the players are going to take it seriously, I will too.
I couldn't believe how well it went.
As the game neared, I wanted nothing to do with it. You DMs will know that this is the worst spot you can be in. If you can't sell the game, no one will buy it. My first thought was to run a pre-written adventure. The great thing about running a 50-year-old game is that there's an abundance of quality material. When I began reviewing my notes from session zero, I remembered that I had prepped a mini-adventure for the end of the night. Session zero went on way too long, so I shelved it. Rather than half-assing a pre-written module, I decided to pad out what I had originally written to fill three hours.
I took massive inspiration from @docsilence. Instead of yada yadaing the small details (or skipping them altogether), I luxuriated in them. In Traveller character creation, the players simulate their careers to the point that they want to begin adventuring. Part of that is connecting themselves to their fellow players through life events so they join the crew organically.
I kicked things off in a bar where they met up for the first time (while they had some prior relationships, they didn't know every traveler on the ship). From there, I sent them to a bank to 1) explain how they came across the ship (ostensibly, they stole it, so I knew this would make for good RP), 2) name their ship, and 3) sign the mortgage paperwork. I shamelessly stole my in-universe bank from Joe Abercrombie's First Law series. My bank is the banking house of Valint & Balk by another name. Expressing—as a nasally bureaucrat—that the bank was not to be trifled with was some of the most fun I've had RPing.
To my utter shock, the players responded with the single best RP I've ever seen. The two party "leaders" had a sidebar just out of earshot of my nasally bank teller, while two others made small talk with me. The face of the group, a self-obsessed celebrity, fretted over how they'd pay the ship's mortgage while the other leader, a morally compromised shoot-first corporate agent (the bad player), talked him down. I was crying laughing. Incredibly meta to watch a player argue against adventuring in an adventure game.
I finished it off with a bounty. The bank asked the players to hunt down a ship that had forgone its mortgage payments.
I took a couple of big lessons from the session:
1) Group dynamics matter. While the bad player never fit in with two different groups of do-gooders, he's perfectly suited for a group of morally ambiguous space outlaws. In a group like this, being a rogue or a wildcard isn't out of place, or even a bad thing. The big question is whether his good behavior can continue. Is he going to say some shit that sends me off the deep end? Almost definitely yes.
2) Changing the game cadence changes the game entirely. If I wanted to run the game, I would've run my standard fare. I would've started them on the ship with an adventure hook. We would've gone from A to B to C without taking a breath. Like alt's group, if I don't keep my players in line, either we'll get nothing done or they'll yap for three hours. I'm undecided about smaller, more focused sessions, but running one was eye-opening.
Do we have a name for doc's style? I don't know that it's fair to call them smaller. We did a lot in today's session, but it took place in three or four longer scenes instead of my usual eight or 10 shorter ones. It's less ADHD.
In any case, the good news about the Traveller game is that I found a second wind. If the players are going to take it seriously, I will too.
docsilence
Dungeon Daddy
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2025
- Messages
- 4,178
There's gotta be a name for it, but I don't know. I couldn't even tell you exactly where I picked it up - I just love letting players tell the story and building on what pulls THEM in, and I know a lot of improv-leaning DMs think the same way. My best sessions are when a player eats a hallucinogenic mushroom and sees god or the group becomes obsessed with a drug-dealing pixie. I delight in the little things that players are keyed in on. (My hope with our game earlier was that the hag poking and prodding at your individual fears would give you all a chance to chew on that a bit and inform the story by your worries.)
Luxuriating in small moments - man, if a player says "I want to do this little thing" and the other players lean in and are invested, that's where the magic happens. Whatever story I want to tell is secondary to letting players interact with the world. (I do always try to read the room - I think you can tell when the non-focus players are leaning in like "yes let's see what happens" vs. not interested or bored by it. Sort of like how I mentioned earlier about trying to read the room for when a group is horny for combat and needs to fireball something before they fireball themselves.)
Luxuriating in small moments - man, if a player says "I want to do this little thing" and the other players lean in and are invested, that's where the magic happens. Whatever story I want to tell is secondary to letting players interact with the world. (I do always try to read the room - I think you can tell when the non-focus players are leaning in like "yes let's see what happens" vs. not interested or bored by it. Sort of like how I mentioned earlier about trying to read the room for when a group is horny for combat and needs to fireball something before they fireball themselves.)
docsilence
Dungeon Daddy
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2025
- Messages
- 4,178
Got two players out potentially til the end of the year in my weekly Endless Imperium game (set in a necropolis/city of the dead). One of my favorite "push the red button" players pitched a guest character to fill in for a bit, a bard from a clan of elves who write histories on their skins and when they die, preserve the skin of their ancestors like ancient scrolls. I'm dragging ass when I get logged in and I'm underprepared, but it's going well, I tell them the skin is probably in the possession of the Deathless Philosophers, a cadre of mummies. And one of the players, who is playing a cursed puppet, says "I know a mummy."
Me: You do?
Him: From my backstory, yup! I know a down on his luck mummy.
I flip through his notes. Yep, he knows a down on his luck mummy. I end up riffing the second half of the session as they all grill this mummy and find out he gave his heart, literally, to the love of his un-life, and if they can get it back he can get them in with the Deathless Philosophers. I was slinging pure, unadulterated bullshit. But it somehow WORKED and everyone had fun, tattoo bard will come back next week.
Also I had them being surveilled by vampire bats and one of the wizards sends her bat familiar, who is canonically like a little Disney bat not a scary one, to scare off the vampire bats. I ask for an attack roll on a whim (I'm not going to kill her bat.)
She fucking crits. Bats do 1d1 damage. Bats have 1 hp. Her familiar MURKED ANOTHER BAT. I have never had a wizard's familiar get a kill shot in like 35 years of running this game. So anyway her bat is now a legend in the bat community...
Me: You do?
Him: From my backstory, yup! I know a down on his luck mummy.
I flip through his notes. Yep, he knows a down on his luck mummy. I end up riffing the second half of the session as they all grill this mummy and find out he gave his heart, literally, to the love of his un-life, and if they can get it back he can get them in with the Deathless Philosophers. I was slinging pure, unadulterated bullshit. But it somehow WORKED and everyone had fun, tattoo bard will come back next week.
Also I had them being surveilled by vampire bats and one of the wizards sends her bat familiar, who is canonically like a little Disney bat not a scary one, to scare off the vampire bats. I ask for an attack roll on a whim (I'm not going to kill her bat.)
She fucking crits. Bats do 1d1 damage. Bats have 1 hp. Her familiar MURKED ANOTHER BAT. I have never had a wizard's familiar get a kill shot in like 35 years of running this game. So anyway her bat is now a legend in the bat community...
That tattoo character is gnarly. Your players do a good job of leaning into the setting.
docsilence
Dungeon Daddy
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2025
- Messages
- 4,178
That player is one I call "my ringer" because whenever he jumps in on a one shot he's just pure DM enabler, always pushes the red button if I put one in front of him. Good fun, great guy.
altcunningham
Mr. Ana de Armas
Had an above the table situation last night. Curious for input.
I know stories have different sides, but I'm making the effort to be objective and logical with my breakdown here.
Couple backstory details.
Current objective in Questing is to collect up to 8 McGuffins. There are four items that can do a good ritual. Four items that can do a bad ritual. Party decided two goals: collect all four to do the Good. Collect at least one of the four so the opposing forces can't do the Bad.
Due to clues and decisions, we have two of the bad, one of the good. Three important subdetails here:
Four sessions ago I asked if there was a timeline. Every player assured me there was not, "It's like Skyrim". The DM never gave an answer. Two sessions ago the DM said the timeline was almost up and we only have two more to go before Deadline and Consequences. This threw the table into a panic.
The last two sessions the table has accomplished very little. This is mostly because in game a few players are consistently second guessing any course of action the other half of the players are doing, and then the game isn't moving.
Actual examples:
"I open the door."
"But what if you open the door and there's a monster on the other side. Better to not open the door. Let's play 20 questions with an NPC that eats the entire session timer."
"Let's go to here."
"What if we go here and there's a curse? I don't want to be cursed. Let's sit in the tavern and flirt with the barkeep."
A Cool NPC was teased. One player was very excited about this Cool NPC as a concept. I admit I can take or leave it, I'm just trying to get Plot Devices at this stage.
Last night, we meet this Cool NPC. The cool NPC is not answering any of our questions. My Wizard and the druid use magic and familiars to circumvent this and discover one of the objects of power is in the area. We would like to make a play for it. Socially or otherwise.
Through spells, familiars, cooperation with the rogue, we confirm and secure the item. This gives us Negative Rep with Cool NPC and his Faction.
Personally. Whatever. Eggs and omelettes. But two players don't like that.
I'm also curious in character and as a player, if we're not going to use the bad items, why not throw them into the fires of Mount Doom. Metaphorically. If we don't want the bad guys getting them, and we're not using them, should we just be destroying them as we acquire them.
Half of the table has no answer. The other half is vacayment that we do not because....What If destroying it just makes a copy somewhere else and then there was no point in destroying it. What If destroying it lets the bad guys know we destroyed it and then summons a bigger bad guy. What if. What if. What if.
Now I know people play different ways. But a huge part of role-playing and story games to me is being an active variable in these what-if scenarios. You cannot ignore the girl because what if she doesn't accept your invitation to a date. You have to ask her out and then you go from there. You cannot tell Gandalf, I'll just stay in the Shire because what if I fight ringwraithes and what if I get corrupted. That's just not interesting.
So I was overruled on destroying it which was fine by me. I just wanted to know why that wasn't an option. I'm not going to go behind their back.
I just really needed to see what the logic was behind this decision because I wasn't seeing it. And to be honest, I still don't see it with the excuses I was given.
However.
This land to an above board blowout. A single player, the one who was excited about the cool NPC that I have now earned negative rep with, told me that I am steam rolling, that it is a group game and it's not my job to move the plot forward single-handedly, and that as a human being I have disrespected him because I ignored him and do not make him heard. Actual quotes
I was taken aback and honestly a little incredulous. Certainly with the steam rolling because this is the player anytime I have played at this table before I left and now that I'm back, is the player who will do the steam rolling. This is the player where all the casters are at 10 HP and have no spell slots and he will instigate a fight because he's bored. And he also role plays so hard he never rages as a barbarian because his character doesn't get mad. Which is fine for role-play but if you know the D&D system not really helpful to the rest of the party.
kept it respectful and I tried to keep it objective and explained what my thought process was.
I want to be clear this is not a. This is what my character would do situation, this is a "I am using the tools in the game to pursue what I thought the objective of the game was"situation. In truth, I did not feel like apologizing simply for Playing the Game. This wasn't PvP. This wasn't betrayal or sabotage. The DM put something in front of us and everyone else chose not to touch it. I chose to touch it. It played out and paid out. One player was very upset by this because it's not what he would have wanted.
The other players (even the other one who disliked my approach), did support me though. The rest of the table believes he is the steamroller and has a list of examples and grievances about it.
When the DM weighed in on the player's behalf explaining that if he was excited about an NPC, we all should have known not to mess with the NPC. Except we didn't pickpocket him, I didn't disintegrate him, I didn't cast fireball on his Entourage. We investigated with game mechanics.
But I've never had that at a table.
And after things settled down in the final hour of the game when we got to another objective... Guess who touched something and attacked somebody and made every decision for the group without actually asking.
And if the core question is, is this affecting your fun. Yes. I can see why the seat might have been vacated a few times.
I know stories have different sides, but I'm making the effort to be objective and logical with my breakdown here.
Couple backstory details.
Current objective in Questing is to collect up to 8 McGuffins. There are four items that can do a good ritual. Four items that can do a bad ritual. Party decided two goals: collect all four to do the Good. Collect at least one of the four so the opposing forces can't do the Bad.
Due to clues and decisions, we have two of the bad, one of the good. Three important subdetails here:
Four sessions ago I asked if there was a timeline. Every player assured me there was not, "It's like Skyrim". The DM never gave an answer. Two sessions ago the DM said the timeline was almost up and we only have two more to go before Deadline and Consequences. This threw the table into a panic.
The last two sessions the table has accomplished very little. This is mostly because in game a few players are consistently second guessing any course of action the other half of the players are doing, and then the game isn't moving.
Actual examples:
"I open the door."
"But what if you open the door and there's a monster on the other side. Better to not open the door. Let's play 20 questions with an NPC that eats the entire session timer."
"Let's go to here."
"What if we go here and there's a curse? I don't want to be cursed. Let's sit in the tavern and flirt with the barkeep."
A Cool NPC was teased. One player was very excited about this Cool NPC as a concept. I admit I can take or leave it, I'm just trying to get Plot Devices at this stage.
Last night, we meet this Cool NPC. The cool NPC is not answering any of our questions. My Wizard and the druid use magic and familiars to circumvent this and discover one of the objects of power is in the area. We would like to make a play for it. Socially or otherwise.
Through spells, familiars, cooperation with the rogue, we confirm and secure the item. This gives us Negative Rep with Cool NPC and his Faction.
Personally. Whatever. Eggs and omelettes. But two players don't like that.
I'm also curious in character and as a player, if we're not going to use the bad items, why not throw them into the fires of Mount Doom. Metaphorically. If we don't want the bad guys getting them, and we're not using them, should we just be destroying them as we acquire them.
Half of the table has no answer. The other half is vacayment that we do not because....What If destroying it just makes a copy somewhere else and then there was no point in destroying it. What If destroying it lets the bad guys know we destroyed it and then summons a bigger bad guy. What if. What if. What if.
Now I know people play different ways. But a huge part of role-playing and story games to me is being an active variable in these what-if scenarios. You cannot ignore the girl because what if she doesn't accept your invitation to a date. You have to ask her out and then you go from there. You cannot tell Gandalf, I'll just stay in the Shire because what if I fight ringwraithes and what if I get corrupted. That's just not interesting.
So I was overruled on destroying it which was fine by me. I just wanted to know why that wasn't an option. I'm not going to go behind their back.
I just really needed to see what the logic was behind this decision because I wasn't seeing it. And to be honest, I still don't see it with the excuses I was given.
However.
This land to an above board blowout. A single player, the one who was excited about the cool NPC that I have now earned negative rep with, told me that I am steam rolling, that it is a group game and it's not my job to move the plot forward single-handedly, and that as a human being I have disrespected him because I ignored him and do not make him heard. Actual quotes
I was taken aback and honestly a little incredulous. Certainly with the steam rolling because this is the player anytime I have played at this table before I left and now that I'm back, is the player who will do the steam rolling. This is the player where all the casters are at 10 HP and have no spell slots and he will instigate a fight because he's bored. And he also role plays so hard he never rages as a barbarian because his character doesn't get mad. Which is fine for role-play but if you know the D&D system not really helpful to the rest of the party.
kept it respectful and I tried to keep it objective and explained what my thought process was.
I want to be clear this is not a. This is what my character would do situation, this is a "I am using the tools in the game to pursue what I thought the objective of the game was"situation. In truth, I did not feel like apologizing simply for Playing the Game. This wasn't PvP. This wasn't betrayal or sabotage. The DM put something in front of us and everyone else chose not to touch it. I chose to touch it. It played out and paid out. One player was very upset by this because it's not what he would have wanted.
The other players (even the other one who disliked my approach), did support me though. The rest of the table believes he is the steamroller and has a list of examples and grievances about it.
When the DM weighed in on the player's behalf explaining that if he was excited about an NPC, we all should have known not to mess with the NPC. Except we didn't pickpocket him, I didn't disintegrate him, I didn't cast fireball on his Entourage. We investigated with game mechanics.
But I've never had that at a table.
And after things settled down in the final hour of the game when we got to another objective... Guess who touched something and attacked somebody and made every decision for the group without actually asking.
And if the core question is, is this affecting your fun. Yes. I can see why the seat might have been vacated a few times.
docsilence
Dungeon Daddy
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2025
- Messages
- 4,178
Honestly, that entire situation would tell me there's at least one, and possibly several, folks at the table I don't have the hours in this lifetime to game with.
On a purely mechanical level, the DM is to blame. Too much choice - you want to give the players agency, but don't give so much choice that you create player conflict at the table. There's also a point in the player disagreement where it's on the DM to say it's time to shit or get off the pot.
But also the whole scenario sounds incredibly un-fun. Are you enjoying it like 90% of the time, or is it always this kind of wishy-washy-indecisive-disjointed vibe going on? Because character conflict is fun and necessary, but if a table isn't feeling like an unified group of out of character friends, I just run out of patience. GMing is like being a dating consultant, you gotta put people together who belong together otherwise you're going to be fighting over who gets the kids in six sessions.
On a purely mechanical level, the DM is to blame. Too much choice - you want to give the players agency, but don't give so much choice that you create player conflict at the table. There's also a point in the player disagreement where it's on the DM to say it's time to shit or get off the pot.
But also the whole scenario sounds incredibly un-fun. Are you enjoying it like 90% of the time, or is it always this kind of wishy-washy-indecisive-disjointed vibe going on? Because character conflict is fun and necessary, but if a table isn't feeling like an unified group of out of character friends, I just run out of patience. GMing is like being a dating consultant, you gotta put people together who belong together otherwise you're going to be fighting over who gets the kids in six sessions.