Quote from: Captain_Pazuzu on April 17, 2025, 09:45:23 AMI 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.

This might sound radical or loony toons, but have you (and I'm extending this to everyone) ever considered lessening the perceived need for over-optimization on the GM's? 

If players are worried about their character dying when they roll a couple pips too low or decide to go into the tunnel on the right instead of the left, part of me can't even blame them.  Let me propose this - assuming the PCs don't jump into a swarm of swirling blades, they don't die.  Inconvenienced, crippled, weakened, exhausted, cursed, dazed, sent to another dimension, imprisoned, blinded, maimed, etc.?  Yes.  All those are fair game (on a temporary basis), but if the social contract between players and GMs was not to outright kill them, would the feeling of min-max necessity go away?  For the majority, I say yes.  There will always be some who just can't help themselves, of course.

Quote from: blackstone on April 17, 2025, 10:40:56 AM

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.

That's great!  One of my players is a friend from High School.  Everyone else I used to game with from the early days, either doesn't play anymore or we're not friends or they moved away.  Another player is one I started gaming with when 5e first came out.  He's been great and been there as a player whenever I run something.  The others are recent converts that I found after putting the word out that I was looking for players in my home Cha'alt campaign. 

Sometimes, I wonder "what if there was a gaming group swap?"  So, an established group of players could switch with another established group and both groups could experience another GM, or both groups would be reconstituted and everyone got a variety of new and familiar gamers.  I think that would be cool, cause then you'd eventually go back to normal.

In my opinion, I think everyone would learn something new and both groups would end up stronger.

There, I got philosophical, too. 

Quote from: tenbones on April 17, 2025, 11:24:32 AM

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.

Great point and example!  If some GMs didn't rely on low-effort "video game logic," that paradigm wouldn't be as prevalent.  Yes, I think this is important enough to include in the book.  I'll do some thinking about how I want to approach it.  Thanks, hoss.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 17, 2025, 01:18:51 PM

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.

Do you or players ever explicitly talk about ratings and tone before, during, or after the game?  If so, what's a typical response (include both positive and negative, if you can)?  Thanks!

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 17, 2025, 02:42:34 PM

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.

Fascinating behavior...

With the first example, I get it, but... I don't get it.  I assumed the results fell flat and the player realized it was just a dumb move without any payoff.  Hopefully, that incident curbs their enthusiasm for future shenanigans.  I feel like the other PCs owe that guy a "prank" or "code red" in return in order to balance the scale... perhaps facilitated by the GM if the players had no plans to initiate that kind of thing on their own.

In the second example, I can see where the player was coming from, and can also understand the GM and fellow player frustration.  However, there must have been a dozen points along the way where the GM could have done something to "save" the situation / session / campaign.  Either by rolling with the comedy/gonzo vibe or sticking with a serious tone.

I would hesitate to simply write "Don't do dumb stuff." as a player commandment or something because it's subjective, and sometimes "dumb stuff" is just what the doctor ordered.  But I also see the benefit of keeping players from going too far in terms of "dumb stuff."  I'll have to think about that.  I appreciate the reply, hoss!

These days it comes down to this:

as a GM, I want players to have realistic and appropriate expectations about the game and what it will involve.

I made a video on YouTube about this called "The Mercer Effect vs. the Gingerbread Effect". The former is a game characterized by flawless game administration, voice-actor presentation, etc. The latter features expensive miniatures and props, dungeon tiles, video screens, sound effects, etc.

As a DM, I do NOT want to be put into either camp (although I can do a pretty good job running a Mercer-style game).

With my home group, the DM uses thousands of dollars in custom dungeon tiles, special miniatures (for every PC and every monster, no matter how obscure), terrain boards the size of large dinner tables, special lighting, etc.

all of that is great, and makes for an immersive experience. But it also means that no one can DM except the guy who has all this stuff, because that is now the expectation among the players. I am not going to go spend 10k (at least) on this stuff just so I can run a game. I also don't like using miniatures, as I find them useless (I can't tell who is who from a distance--they all look the same, and they force tactical miniatures-style play). I much prefer to use tokens.

Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on April 18, 2025, 11:50:18 AMThese days it comes down to this:

as a GM, I want players to have realistic and appropriate expectations about the game and what it will involve.

I made a video on YouTube about this called "The Mercer Effect vs. the Gingerbread Effect". The former is a game characterized by flawless game administration, voice-actor presentation, etc. The latter features expensive miniatures and props, dungeon tiles, video screens, sound effects, etc.

As a DM, I do NOT want to be put into either camp (although I can do a pretty good job running a Mercer-style game).

With my home group, the DM uses thousands of dollars in custom dungeon tiles, special miniatures (for every PC and every monster, no matter how obscure), terrain boards the size of large dinner tables, special lighting, etc.

all of that is great, and makes for an immersive experience. But it also means that no one can DM except the guy who has all this stuff, because that is now the expectation among the players. I am not going to go spend 10k (at least) on this stuff just so I can run a game. I also don't like using miniatures, as I find them useless (I can't tell who is who from a distance--they all look the same, and they force tactical miniatures-style play). I much prefer to use tokens.

Another aspect of playing I never anticipated - thank you!

Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on April 18, 2025, 11:50:18 AMThese days it comes down to this:

as a GM, I want players to have realistic and appropriate expectations about the game and what it will involve.

I made a video on YouTube about this called "The Mercer Effect vs. the Gingerbread Effect". The former is a game characterized by flawless game administration, voice-actor presentation, etc. The latter features expensive miniatures and props, dungeon tiles, video screens, sound effects, etc.

As a DM, I do NOT want to be put into either camp (although I can do a pretty good job running a Mercer-style game).

With my home group, the DM uses thousands of dollars in custom dungeon tiles, special miniatures (for every PC and every monster, no matter how obscure), terrain boards the size of large dinner tables, special lighting, etc.

all of that is great, and makes for an immersive experience. But it also means that no one can DM except the guy who has all this stuff, because that is now the expectation among the players. I am not going to go spend 10k (at least) on this stuff just so I can run a game. I also don't like using miniatures, as I find them useless (I can't tell who is who from a distance--they all look the same, and they force tactical miniatures-style play). I much prefer to use tokens.

-minimalist approach is what I've been going for lately, from accessories to rules.

-I blame Mercer and Critical Roll for giving the theatrical impression on how RPGs are played. Some people watch Critical Role and think that's how it done. There's no other way. While in reality, we all know it's much less flair and pizzazz, and more rolling dice and low key in comparison.

Quote from: VengerSatanis on April 18, 2025, 11:13:46 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 17, 2025, 02:42:34 PM

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.

Fascinating behavior...

With the first example, I get it, but... I don't get it.  I assumed the results fell flat and the player realized it was just a dumb move without any payoff.  Hopefully, that incident curbs their enthusiasm for future shenanigans.  I feel like the other PCs owe that guy a "prank" or "code red" in return in order to balance the scale... perhaps facilitated by the GM if the players had no plans to initiate that kind of thing on their own.

In the second example, I can see where the player was coming from, and can also understand the GM and fellow player frustration.  However, there must have been a dozen points along the way where the GM could have done something to "save" the situation / session / campaign.  Either by rolling with the comedy/gonzo vibe or sticking with a serious tone.

I would hesitate to simply write "Don't do dumb stuff." as a player commandment or something because it's subjective, and sometimes "dumb stuff" is just what the doctor ordered.  But I also see the benefit of keeping players from going too far in terms of "dumb stuff."  I'll have to think about that.  I appreciate the reply, hoss!

Is it the GMs job to rescue the players when they deliberately do something stupid with their character? There were options available other than butt-chugging the drugs. They could have blown it out the airlock. Dumped it in the fusion plant. Incinerated it with a laser weapon. Flushed it down the recycler. Dumped it into the liquid hydrogen fuel tank. But no, butt-chugging the drugs was what the player chose because it would be, "stupid but hysterical".

I dunno, what would the author of .....Like A Fucking Boss have done in that situation? I'm eager to learn.

Quote from: VengerSatanis on April 18, 2025, 11:02:20 AMDo you or players ever explicitly talk about ratings and tone before, during, or after the game?  If so, what's a typical response (include both positive and negative, if you can)?  Thanks!

Yes we do, mostly before and after, occasionally during if something gets too out of whack. 

Before is me using telling a prospective player in a typical game that it is PG-13.  That things that would be stronger than that happen all the time in the game world, but are either implied, referenced indirectly after the fact, or sometimes we'll fade to black.  If the torture is going to happen, then we'll just skip over the description and get to the results.  If they find the horribly tortured guy after the fact, then characters with sufficient abilities know what happened. 

After is usually someone mentioning either that X skated right up to the edge of the line of what they consider appropriate or sometimes they'll be a brief discussion where a newish player mentions that they didn't do Y because they were unsure.  The latter is nearly always something that would have been fine had they done it, because people that self aware are usually too cautious.  Nor is this just gore/violence stuff.  It could just as easily be too much/too little silliness or drama or OOC comments or whatever. 

During is usually but not always fairly sharp. Someone was getting uncomfortable.  It's usually raised in a reserved but fake exaggerated way, as in a understated tone of "Ouch!" or "TMI!" or "Close the blast doors. Close the blast doors!"  Or if it's derailing the tone by going too soft, then it's "Meanwhile, back in the dungeon ..." or some such comment.  Whenever possible, we'll handle this kind of thing in character.  Sometimes, though, it's just better to say "Please fade to black," or "Can we get back to tracking down that killer instead of partying all night?"

About once every 6 months, something will come up that makes it apparent that there is a complete disconnect on tone.  In that case, I'll flat out stop the game to have a 5 minute discussion to get everyone on the same page.  Last time it happened was the "Game has no alignment so I can do anything I want?" followed by me explaining that the "Game has no alignment but it has inhabitants that learn about what you do, your reputation, and so forth, which will catch up with your sooner or later--and probably sooner than reality would suggest, given the heroic tone we are after."  Which the two players completely understood, meaning that break was well worth the jar to immersion in order to get a lot better flow from then on.