• RTFM
• Basic Math Skills

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 16, 2025, 05:43:03 PMEverybody has given pretty good suggestions and I'll add mine, which are kind of specific to my experiences as a GM who tends to run open table games in public.

1) We are all here to have fun, not just fun for one person. Several times I've had to deal with players whose idea of fun is to piss off everyone else at the table. Unfortunately, often times when you realize that this is happening - the game has already been killed by their antics.

2) Know your limitations as a player, but be willing to try and exceed them. There have been a lot of people who play comic relief characters that do not have a sense of the comedic. Their characters then proceed to derail the game. If you are not funny, don't try to be at the expense of the game.

I appreciate the reply.  It sounds like you're speaking from direct experience.  I'm interested in where the line is, in your opinion.  Am I right in thinking that pissing off the characters is fair game, but not pissing off the players?  If anyone else wants to chime in, that would also be great!

Again, can you give me an example of a player who tried to be funny but only managed to derail or almost derail the game?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 16, 2025, 06:53:45 PM

Quote from: VengerSatanis on April 16, 2025, 05:24:51 PMOk, there's a lot there to unpack.  I have some advice/tools on meta-moments, but this helps clarify things - and the meta-moments should help with immersion, rather than hinder.  I'll keep thinking about all of it. Thanks for the comment!

Not exactly what I meant.  If everyone just embraces the meta as a necessary thing (to a certain point), then they can quit chasing immersion so hard that it takes the game in places that the characters like but that the players (or at least some of them) didn't want to go.  Jeff's answer has some good example of what I meant, especially the second one about trying to be funny when you just aren't.  That kind of thing happens in all sorts of ways with characters.

Another way to think about it is that it is not merely people using "just playing my character" to be an asshole. Sometimes, it's "just playing my character" is boring, or stupid, or the like--not so much to mess with people as a lack of self awareness.  Whereas, if you don't fight the meta side, and think about the other people for a few seconds, then the whole table can relax and get on with whatever they are doing--be it immersing or beer & pretzels hacking or anything in between.

I think I understand.  You mean that some players are using immersion as an excuse or maybe crutch to do some asinine things as their character that make the game less fun or derail it in some way.  Is that right?

Meta-moments should work that way, they should allow us to talk about the game as we're playing to address issues about specific aspects of play, the world, story, etc.

Quote from: Fheredin on April 16, 2025, 08:32:46 PMI have an interesting point of view on this one, partially because I have a background in book publishing and creative writing.

What Lesson Do You Want Your Character To Learn In This Adventure?

This is a pretty standard bit of character development for creative writing, but the best way to make a story feel satisfying is not for the guy to get the girl, but for a character to learn a lesson. It doesn't always have to be a positive lesson, either, although dark lessons tend to push characters strongly towards antihero or villain lines. The basic idea is simple; as a GM, I ask the player to provide 2-3 lessons they want their character to learn in roleplay over the course of the campaign and I will see if I can work them in. Typically, when I get writer's block on how to proceed with the campaign, I will look at the list of lessons I need to teach characters and a light will click on eventually.

The odd thing with this one is that you kind of need to have a group which handles metagame communication well. It's almost impossible to write a PC learning a lesson every session (heck, 1 in 3 feels dense), so you need to communicate to the players which player character will hopefully learn which lesson on their character sheet bucket list during which session.

A last thing to remember is that it doesn't feel natural unless the player character goofs their lesson up at least once early on in the session or several times earlier on in the campaign. You kind of need to reinforce the point that this is a character flaw the character needs to overcome, and the campaign will become an opportunity for the player to beat the character flaw out of the player character like a smith forging a sword.

Yeah, that's good.  I'll keep thinking about it.  Thanks!

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 17, 2025, 07:39:35 AMSomething I haven't seen skimming through the replies is inquisitiveness.  I want players who are curious about the world/setting.  They should want to know what's around the next corner, why things are the way they are, who is in charge, etc.  when players are curious, they create all kinds of situations that make for good adventures and good roleplaying hooks.  If they are just passive lumps that only go wherever the DM pushes them, it can kill a game fast...

Yes, I've already covered that because I think we can all agree how important that is. Thanks!

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 17, 2025, 08:02:33 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 17, 2025, 07:39:35 AMSomething I haven't seen skimming through the replies is inquisitiveness.  I want players who are curious about the world/setting.  They should want to know what's around the next corner, why things are the way they are, who is in charge, etc.  when players are curious, they create all kinds of situations that make for good adventures and good roleplaying hooks.  If they are just passive lumps that only go wherever the DM pushes them, it can kill a game fast...

To add to this, bold. Inquisitive and willing to explore the world created.

I'm sick of the overly paranoid players who won't even go to the shitter without full armor, a vacc suit, and multiple weapons. The ones who automatically assume that every NPC they meet is a Terminator or The Thing. The ones who think that there are Xenomorphs around every corner and a Predator is invisible right next to them. You could have spent hours creating the most entertaining adventure for your group, and it gets shot to Hell because "just to be safe" the players fireball each room as soon as they open the door.

Good suggestion!  Maybe this should be filed under trusting each other, like a revised social contract?

Quote from: blackstone on April 17, 2025, 08:14:30 AMNow, as a DM, what do I expect from my players:

-engagement, within a certain comfort level: some people like to role play. Others don't. My group has a mix of players like that. I think it comes down to experience. Some of my younger players aren't comfortable role playing their PC. As long as they tell what the character is doing, I'm totally cool with that. Over time, some of them have leaned more into the role playing aspect. It's just a matter of being comfortable around one's peers.

-attention: nothing peeves me off more than players not paying attention to what is going on. Sure, you might not be directly involved, but there might be crucial info I may say to the group. Not everyone is going to catch everything said, so the more ears paying attention the better. Plus, I have repeating myself. It really bogs things down.

-give feedback: every so often I asked my group over the year how they think the campaign is going. If there are ways I can improve and make the experience better, I will do it. I'm always learning how I can be a better DM. I can put my ego aside and take a unbiased view of how I'm doing through the feedback I get. I trust my players enough that they'll be honest and not say things out of spite.

-HAVE FUN!

And what are typical responses to your asking for feedback?

Quote from: DataDwarf on April 17, 2025, 08:30:30 AM

• RTFM
• Basic Math Skills

I understand, but will probably leave that stuff for the Players 101 class that every blog post on the subject already mentions.  This is an advanced course.  Thanks for the reply, hoss!

I want most of the things listed here but I also appreciate a few other things...

1. Follow the bread crumbs when they are there. While I agree that you shouldn't be railroaded, I do find it annoying when players completely disregard the objectives in favor of pursuing total nonsense.  This is especially true when no one else is onboard.

2. Over-optimization of characters.  This is why so many DMs limit to core rulebooks and classes.  Every system can be broken and the more books in the that particular game the more breakable it becomes.  This is mostly a problem with younger players.  It's annoying for everyone when a single PC nukes every encounter.

These are preferences mind you, not hard rules. As DMs we have to be flexible and adapt as necessary but... it's a whole lot easier and more enjoyable when things go (mostly) according to plan. 

Quote from: VengerSatanis on April 17, 2025, 09:32:29 AM

Quote from: blackstone on April 17, 2025, 08:14:30 AMNow, as a DM, what do I expect from my players:

-engagement, within a certain comfort level: some people like to role play. Others don't. My group has a mix of players like that. I think it comes down to experience. Some of my younger players aren't comfortable role playing their PC. As long as they tell what the character is doing, I'm totally cool with that. Over time, some of them have leaned more into the role playing aspect. It's just a matter of being comfortable around one's peers.

-attention: nothing peeves me off more than players not paying attention to what is going on. Sure, you might not be directly involved, but there might be crucial info I may say to the group. Not everyone is going to catch everything said, so the more ears paying attention the better. Plus, I have repeating myself. It really bogs things down.

-give feedback: every so often I asked my group over the year how they think the campaign is going. If there are ways I can improve and make the experience better, I will do it. I'm always learning how I can be a better DM. I can put my ego aside and take a unbiased view of how I'm doing through the feedback I get. I trust my players enough that they'll be honest and not say things out of spite.

-HAVE FUN!

And what are typical responses to your asking for feedback?

Most of the time my players, who are good friends of mine, will not pull any punches. I generally pose the question "How are you guys enjoying the campaign? How am I doing as DM?" Most of time the response is positive: "I'm having fun." "You're doing a good job as DM." things like that. When any negative criticism comes, it's always given constructively. Never out of spite. We have too much respect for each other.

The thing is, the group I've been with is now been together, in one form or another, for almost 25 years. We've literally seen out kids grow up, get married, and have their own kids. It's a tight knit group. We're like family, dysfunctional and all. We've been through good and bad times together. In fact I consider my friend Jeff, one of the co-founders, like a brother.

I don't know if that makes my situation unique, but I do consider it quite special and fortunate. I read about other DMs and their groups and how...well...unfortunate they are that one or more people are disrespectful and/or disruptive. Sometimes they can tell the person to leave, while others are in a situation where if said person or people left, the group would fall apart. They feel their hands are tied.

That's why I feel fortunate and grateful for the group I have: The Burning River Sell-Swords. they're a great bunch of friends and are like family to me. In this day and age, that's something hard to come by. For me, going into the downhill of life (I'm 54), I'm blessed with a good group of friends that when retirement comes, we'll get together like a bunch of old school fogeys, and continue to slay dragons, save villages, and discover new lands.

Sorry I got all philosophical. Train of thought went that way and I went with it.

Quote from: VengerSatanis on April 16, 2025, 05:15:18 PMI think 1 and 2 are no-brainers, and I've already written a lot about both.  As for 3, I *think* I know what you're talking about, but if you could give me a specific example, that would help solidify what the potential issue is. 

Thanks for the comment, hoss!

It is an observation that I've made over all these years, that when players show up to game, they show up with pre-conceived notions of how "the game" is going to go, regardless of what you say in Session Zero, mostly due to outside/external reasons. Especially these days.

Case in point - many, if not most, players today have *some* experience playing videogame RPG's. They show up at the table with "videogame logic" assumptions about what a "D&D game" is supposed to be vs. what older gamers might simply call "roleplaying". Yeah, I don't mean *just* "roll vs. role" - it's that plus more. There is this detachment from the endeavor that seems to be much more heightened these days than in the past.

I run games with a lot of detail that I organically introduce into the game. Nothing like lore-dumps or anything, I try to keep it directly tied to what your character is experiencing in the moment. Based on what we establish in Session Zero about your character, I modulate what your character might know about a situation that the player may not realize. So this way they can organically play their character with confidence. Many times I get players that make large-scale assumptions on how the game is based on their limited experiences of playing "modern D&D" which immediately puts them in a non-receptive frame towards immersion in what I'm doing.

These players often hold back on what they think is "roleplaying" because they assume things like "Oh the GM described <X> he must want me to go do that. That's the hook for this 'adventure'." They don't realize that the adventure is already happening, just them standing there. The things I'm describing are the things actually happening in their vicinity - and if they keep walking down the street, they'll more and more and more. My NPC's are doing their things, which may/may not involve their PCs.

Sometimes I'll have a new player that *assumes* they're not supposed to do anything I don't initiate because they "don't want to push me as the GM" not realizing my bandwidth is as deep as it is. So it confuses them when things that are typically outside the scope of normal "Adventure Path" hamfisted hooks occur around them. Yes, if you stand around, *nothing* might happen. But conversely, your PC *might* look like an easy mark for some of my con-artist thieves that take you for everything.

The only solution to this is for players to show up, understanding who/what/why about their PC's. This doesn't have to be *that* deep. But habits die hard, especially in my games, where it might get you killed because rarely does "videogame logic" apply. "Oh look we got locked in the Baron's dungeon. Surely the GM must have a way out of here for us..."

My players usually are good about trying to help impart this to new players, but I find that it's more pronounced now than ever. Yes, this is very much an experience thing - I get that. But it helps to reiterate that roleplaying is highly rewarded by *actually* roleplaying.

Quote from: tenbones on April 17, 2025, 11:24:32 AMCase in point - many, if not most, players today have *some* experience playing videogame RPG's. They show up at the table with "videogame logic" assumptions about what a "D&D game" is supposed to be vs. what older gamers might simply call "roleplaying". Yeah, I don't mean *just* "roll vs. role" - it's that plus more. There is this detachment from the endeavor that seems to be much more heightened these days than in the past.

This is why I cannot stand the latest versions of D&D since 4e by introducing computer RPG mechanics, especially when it comes to character death. IMO, anything around damage/death to PCs now in D&D is nerfed. There are too many ways to NOT die. Healing is way too easy. These are heavy handed, awkward ways of introducing the "save game" feature or easy-to-find health potions found in C-RPGs.

You see it with players introduced to old school games where death is much more common for PCs. As soon as a character dies, they get confused. If the character is low enough in level, their character is probably not gonna come back: Raise Dead or Resurrection isn't available from the party Cleric, or the cost is too high from the nearest temple of your faith. Who knows...and do you want to take a chance with Reincarnation?

The idea of a more permanent death to PCs is something that isn't present in D&D anymore. Characters are coddled and kept safe. Danger isn't real to the PCs because D&D as written now allows way to many ways to escape death.

Quote from: VengerSatanis on April 17, 2025, 09:25:28 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 16, 2025, 06:53:45 PM

Quote from: VengerSatanis on April 16, 2025, 05:24:51 PMOk, there's a lot there to unpack.  I have some advice/tools on meta-moments, but this helps clarify things - and the meta-moments should help with immersion, rather than hinder.  I'll keep thinking about all of it. Thanks for the comment!

Not exactly what I meant.  If everyone just embraces the meta as a necessary thing (to a certain point), then they can quit chasing immersion so hard that it takes the game in places that the characters like but that the players (or at least some of them) didn't want to go.  Jeff's answer has some good example of what I meant, especially the second one about trying to be funny when you just aren't.  That kind of thing happens in all sorts of ways with characters.

Another way to think about it is that it is not merely people using "just playing my character" to be an asshole. Sometimes, it's "just playing my character" is boring, or stupid, or the like--not so much to mess with people as a lack of self awareness.  Whereas, if you don't fight the meta side, and think about the other people for a few seconds, then the whole table can relax and get on with whatever they are doing--be it immersing or beer & pretzels hacking or anything in between.

I think I understand.  You mean that some players are using immersion as an excuse or maybe crutch to do some asinine things as their character that make the game less fun or derail it in some way.  Is that right?

Meta-moments should work that way, they should allow us to talk about the game as we're playing to address issues about specific aspects of play, the world, story, etc.

Well, some do that, but what I'm specifically talking about is a milder form, where even excuse or crutch isn't really explaining what happens.  They simply aren't thinking about it all--beyond just playing the character. 

An example might be violating tone. I'm running a PG-13 game. Joe Asshole is constantly trying to introduce too much gore, torture, whatever because his character is a bad ass in his mind. That's the kind of thing you are mentioning.  Meanwhile, Bill Clueless is bebopping over the line too, maybe not as much as Joe, because he just simply isn't paying attention. He kind of just drifts naturally into a horror flick without even thinking about it.  Then Sally McGoody is going the other way, trying to play My Little Pony, and freaking out at any death at all. 

I don't see this often. When I do, it's nearly always a younger player. Maybe it is just an inability to pick up on these kind of things in general due to lack of life experience. I bring it out as something with a metagaming cure because it's the opposite of the X-Card nonsense. "Policing the tone" is the job at everyone at the table. I'm not going to be perfect even as the GM, though I'll naturally pay more attention than everyone else. A really good player as internalized this need so much that they can do it naturally without it affecting their immersion. Most people didn't come to the game that way, but have to learn it first, which means consciously thinking about it.

Quote from: VengerSatanis on April 17, 2025, 09:21:26 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 16, 2025, 05:43:03 PMEverybody has given pretty good suggestions and I'll add mine, which are kind of specific to my experiences as a GM who tends to run open table games in public.

1) We are all here to have fun, not just fun for one person. Several times I've had to deal with players whose idea of fun is to piss off everyone else at the table. Unfortunately, often times when you realize that this is happening - the game has already been killed by their antics.

2) Know your limitations as a player, but be willing to try and exceed them. There have been a lot of people who play comic relief characters that do not have a sense of the comedic. Their characters then proceed to derail the game. If you are not funny, don't try to be at the expense of the game.

I appreciate the reply.  It sounds like you're speaking from direct experience.  I'm interested in where the line is, in your opinion.  Am I right in thinking that pissing off the characters is fair game, but not pissing off the players?  If anyone else wants to chime in, that would also be great!

Again, can you give me an example of a player who tried to be funny but only managed to derail or almost derail the game?

To answer your first, the GM should be annoying the characters (and the players a bit) with setbacks and complications so that the adventure is a challenge for them and not too easy. Trying to deliberately piss off the players is just passive-aggressive bullshit on the part of the GM or player - if the person is doing that, then shouldn't be in the game.

Two examples of inept comic relief both come from Traveller games.

Had a player playing a Vargr whose personality was a copy of Quark from ST:DS9. He had the best computer skills, and during an adventure discovered that the opposition had an extra starship hidden on planet with minimal guards. Now instead of telling the rest of the party, he decided that it would be funnier to not share the information. So when the final confrontation happened, the bad guys escaped in their hidden starship instead of potentially taking it for the party as a prize. Rst of the players were pissed while mister comic relief just smiled and was pleased with himself.

Second example, one player had found a small baggie of K'Kree High leaf which was a highly addictive drug (think extra-strength sci-fi fentanyl) and kept it. Well, while nearing the subsector capital they got hailed by the local customs ship requesting a standard boarding check. The players agree and when I asked what his character was going to do with the High leaf, the player responded with, "Guys, this is stupid, but will be hysterical! I roll the baggie up tight and stick it up my asshole!"

- Hilarity did not ensue. -

The Imperial customs team detected the Highleaf, cornered the player character, and arrested him. There was a brief scuffle while he resisted arrest - the baggie tore from the rough handling and the character began to overdose as the drug entered his lower intestine via butt-chugging.

The rest of the players are immediately also arrested and their ship is impounded. The entire campaign got destroyed and became something else which wasn't what the players had originally wanted. The ODing character's player thought that it was the funniest thing ever.