"JB's Mailbag" Returns!

The "Q" post in my A to Z series is on the way, but it needs a bit of a re-write (it's just overlong and "over-meander-y"). So in the meantime, I thought I'd give folks something to chew on.

I still get Reddit spam in my inbox and (when bored) I still check these on occasion. A couple 'good' ones recently made me decide to throw up another Dear Reddit post; hopefully, some will find it useful....

Dear JB:

I would like to apologize for all of this, but it is something that i must take out of my chest. I'm an DnD 5e player for the last 7 years, i still, never finished one campaign at all. That's because all of the groups i end up joining get their campaingns cancelled by problems out of my reach.

• The DM just gives up 
• Players just leave and ghosts the party. 
• A player makes bigs mistakes on purpose and end up breaking up the party. (Last one)

All those things makes me feel frustrated and sad, because i never get to finish my characters stories. I get so engaged and immersed with the story, and then, it all crumbles instantly. All the adventure disappears, the ideas of roleplaying with others just vanishes.

As i am someone who really is fond of the characters i make, I've been reusing them just hoping they would get a good ending, but it never happens. All i wished was a game where i could share a story with others, and others could share theirs stories as well, as we have our adventures to defeat a great villain, or unvail secrets.. I don't know. Really I'm starting to lose hope, as I can't feel happiness with my favourite hobby, which is RPG.  I simply don't know what to do anymore at this point.

Sorry to bother you, I just needed to share it with someone.

The Campaign I Was On Just Died

Dear Sad Player:

I feel your pain. I do. I have empathy for you. I want to write that at the outset, just because the advice I have for you might sound a little...hard.

The frustration you are describing is the product of the type of game you are playing. It is not the Dungeons & Dragons I play...it is the prevalent style of today, and it is a style that is far more conducive to disappointment, exhaustion, and frustration than it is to "enjoyable lasting gameplay." There are reasons why I prefer AD&D (first edition) to 5th edition and this may be the biggest one of the bunch.

But you don't have to play 1E. You just need to change your mindset. You need to stop believing what the internet (and the publisher trying to make a buck) has been shoveling in your direction.

Let's start at the beginning.  You state:

1. You are fond of creating characters.
2. You want to share those characters' stories with others.
3. You want others to share their characters' stories with you.
4. You want to have adventures where you defeat a great villain or unveil secrets, etc.

What this sounds like to me is that you want to star in your own fantasy epic, playing a character like what one might read in a fictional fantasy novel or see on the screen in a film or television show. 

Do you not understand how self-centered and selfish this is?

I say that without judgement (as in, I don't think you're a "bad person"). To accomplish what you want, you need a DM who is willing to cater to your character's story and a group of players who are willing to be foils (i.e. play "bit parts") to the story you want to "share" with others. That's a lot of people working (and working hard) to give you the experience you are hoping for. 

And, of course, you're not alone. There are PLENTY of players (probably even the same ones sitting at your table) who want the exact same thing. That seems to be the main draw (for players) of 5E these days, when you get right down to it.  And I'm not judging THEM either.

But consider THIS: the author of a novel (or the scriptwriter for a film or television show) is ALSO a person who wants to "create characters" and "share stories with others," right? Of course they are. They might want to make money doing it, too (who doesn't?) but storytellers USUALLY get into the business because they have a passion for making characters and sharing stories.

And they do the work themselves. 

That's the important bit. An author is the one who writes the story; they then share the story with others to read. Some folks may not be interested. Some folks may read the story and not like it. Some folks might read it and love it. But regardless, NONE of those people had to do anything but pick up the finished product...the AUTHOR did all the work for them.

You don't want to do the work of an author. You want others to work for YOU.

Can you not see how this can cause DMs to "give up?" Can you not see why other players (whose expectations of their own protagonist character are not being met) "just leave and ghost" the play group? Can you not see how one frustrated player might (in their frustration) choose to "make a big mistake" that ends up "breaking" the party?

This is all the usual results of the narcissistic play you are looking for.

You  are hoping for something that looks like the pantomime you see in an internet-streamed "show;" but understand many of those people are there for VERY DIFFERENT REASONS. They are making money. Or they are promoting themselves. Or they are fueling their egos with their fifteen minutes of fame. For them, there is a REASON why they are performing (not playing) in the way that you would hope your group would resemble. That 'other incentive' (whatever it is) is the glue that keeps them together and keeps them coming back to the table (and the video camera) to perform their pantomime of play.

As a game, this is not what D&D is; it certainly isn't what D&D was. And those of us still playing the game as it was in the early days (pre-1985) can vouch for the fact that the game is still a game worth playing, still a game worth loving, still a game where "fun" is had, even though we do not have the same expectations of play (nor do we achieve the desired outcomes) that you and your likeminded fellows have. 

I'm not saying that to indicate we are "better" than you; I'm just telling you that we are not experiencing the sadness and frustration that you are. 

I've seen what other people have written in response to your post. Most of the folks have shared that they are in the same boat and decry that this is just a "fact (or "curse") of D&D play." No. It is only a fact of this type of D&D play. Some of the people reading your post have suggested you hire a "paid DM" to run the game. Well, sure...because, as I said, with this style it requires ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE (just like those streamers get) to get the type of experience you are seeking.

You want someone to do the work for you? You've got to pay someone to do it.

But if you don't want to hire people to do the work for you and you're unwilling to try for three or seven of 40 years (as your "helpful" responders suggest) to find the occasional bunch of rubes willing to give you the play you want...well, you MIGHT consider playing the game in the style it was originally intended to be played. Which is incredible and amazing and wonderfully energizing.

Can I share with you the basics? You're welcome to quit reading at any time.

First: when you make a character, leave aside any "story" you have about the character. You have a wizard who has a background as a sailor or whatever...fine. Don't make it MEAN anything besides what it says. It's just a character...and all a character IS is a vehicle with which you can interact with the game. In other words, your character is NOT a vehicle for "telling stories."

Second: ...*sigh*

Unfortunately, this is the really hard part. The part that's hard to hear. Up until now, I was trying to be as gentle as possible and give you information that would apply regardless of whether you played 5E or 2E or Pathfinder or whatever. 

But the hard part is this: SECOND, you have to approach the game as a game to be experienced, not as a story to be told. And...unfortunately...you cannot do this if you're playing with a 5E DM or a group of 5E players who are operating under the same assumptions of game play you describe in your letter. If they think the game is about telling stories, well, you're going to run into the same issues, over and over again: DMs quitting, players ghosting, players "breaking" the game out of frustration. 

So, the real "second thing" you need to do is find a competent DM running a competent game of D&D. And, unfortunately, there's damn few of us around these days. And just as with the 5E crowd, it's more challenging to find people willing to take up the DM mantle than it is to find people who want to play. And you, yourself, are one of those who want to play. Plus, per your letter, I presume you are unfamiliar with older edition games (and thus need someone to teach you the rules of those games). All of these are barriers to you getting the exciting, entertaining experience that made D&D a hit in the first place.

It's not an impossible row to hoe...but it's definitely not an easy one.

As I said, I feel your pain. I understand what you're looking for, because you've been sold a bill of goods. The truth is this: if you really want to make characters and share stories, your best bet is to become an author and start writing. There's still a healthy market for fantasy fiction, and if you don't mind just giving away your stories for free, I'm sure there are some people who will jump at the chance to read your stuff. Everyone needs a creative outlet...you can have yours, especially if you have no attachment or expectation of being financially rewarded or lauded by the masses. 

But if you want to play D&D...a cooperative game of fantasy adventure...with people in a campaign that lasts,a group that doesn't quit on you, your best chance of experiencing that is with a group of "old edition"-minded players. They're out there, and they're not all geezers like me (my kids play 1E and they're in their early teens; the Cauldron convention in Germany features players in their teens through their 60s and draws people from a dozen plus countries around the world). The old books are still available, print-on-demand, and the old ways are still alive and kicking. Maybe it's time you tried something different from what you've been doing?

It would be cheaper than hiring a "paid DM," and there's quite a few of us trying to cut costs these days. PDFs of the "core" first edition books (the PHB, DMG, and MM) can be picked up for under $30...that's a lot cheaper than a tank of gas! For complete beginners, I also suggest Tom Moldvay's Basic D&D set as an introduction (only $4.99 for the PDF). Something to think about.

Whatever you decide to do, I wish you the best of luck.

Sincerely,

JB

Go Long

Eh. I really don't have time for this. But....

So, I was reading this post by Mr. Maliszewski the other day, as well as its associated links. All things considered it feels a little disjointed which is (perhaps) understandable given his focus at the moment on his current writing project. I can dig that.

Still. It bears a response.

There are RPGs and there are RPGs. And in addition there is Dungeons & Dragons. I think it's important to understand how distinct these things are from each other...and from a fiction franchise like the ones described in James's article. Whether you're talking Star Wars or Game of Thrones or whatever, such things are simply settings designed to TELL STORIES. Specifically, to tell a particular story. 

In the case of Star Wars (for example) we're talking about the "story" of Luke Skywalker, from his humble beginnings to his heroic triumph over the forces of evil. The setting of the Star Wars universe...including both its interplanetary geography, its history/timeline, its imagined "culture," its cast of characters, its pseudo-religions, etc....all exist specifically as BACKDROP for the story being told. They provide a rich and (for many folks) inviting tapestry that intrigues and engages the imagination, but they are only as important as they apply to the story at hand. That there is room enough in the setting to tell other stories (the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker, for example, or the story of parental love and identity found in The Mandalorian series) is evidence of the broad consistency and richness of its fantasy landscape. 

[I'd be tempted to say the same about the various book series set in the Star Wars universe, except that A) I've read almost none of them, and B) what I have read all seems to be filled/fraught with blatant "fanservice," in the same annoying fashion as most of the cinematic installments in the franchise history]

Similar statements could be said of Martin's ASoFaI series except that it is far more limited in scope, being (for the most part) medieval mudcore with extremely limited fantasy elements often subverted (especially in the teleplay) to visual porn (both of violence and sexuality).

[I say that as someone who is a fan of the series and who has found it fascinating in spite of its more prurient elements. In other words, not trying to hate, just calling it like I see it]

Franchises...whether you're talking Lucas and Martin or the ones created by Roddenberry, Herbert, Rowling, Tolkien, Clancy, etc....all have something in common: they have become a means of generating reliable income for their producers (either the creators or those who hold the IP) because of their built-in fan/customer base. Every installment of the franchise...whether it be a book, a movie, a TV show, or some example of lifestyle branding/signaling (t-shirts, merch, etc.)...becomes an investment destined to yield a rich return. When Disney allows some company to create coffee mugs with superheroes branded on it, you can be sure that they are reaping some sort of royalty return, even as they allow the cup company to make money themselves (and continue promoting their franchise). Every franchise is a money-making cash cow designed to milk fan loyalty. Pure and simple. This is what the capital behind the franchise is (excuse the pun) banking on.

But D&D is a game, not a franchise.

At least the D&D I play. Unlike certain RPGs that are based on specific, story-based IP (think: most Chaosium RPGs, many "trad" RPGs of the 90s, etc.) D&D invites players to create THEIR OWN WORLD...their own campaign...in which to play the game. Unless you're going to buy into a specific piece of setting IP (say, DragonLance or Greyhawk or whatever), the game you run is your own...with no story involved.

Which is important! Stories have beginnings and (generally speaking, Mr. Martin) endings as well. As such, they are designed to stop. That corporations (it is always corporations of some sort) decide to turn a story into a money-making franchise does not change this essential fact. Luke Skywalker's story is over, once it's told. So is the story of succession for the Iron Throne (once the matter is decided). It is a LOT harder to find reasons to create adventures in a setting/world for which the major events have already been chronicled. 

Not impossible mind you. Creative minds will find a way.

But not all RPGs are created equally. Dungeons & Dragons doesn't come with a built in setting. Instead, it provides a set of rules for playing a game. Individual Dungeon Masters are the parties responsible for creating their worlds/settings. And with a focus on that (i.e. world creation) why would anyone ever tire of their campaign?

DMs are not storytellers. We are lords of creation. We are gods.

D&D is not played with an end goal in mind. Yes there are "win" (and "loss") conditions built into the system; yes, there are objectives of play. But these are of secondary importance to the experiential nature of play itself. DMs do not create stories; DMs create worlds. And then they run those worlds using the rules of the game.  

Some might say that any confession that an RPG (especially one not tied to a specific setting or fiction franchise) could, eventually, be "played out" shows a distinct lack of creativity. As was pointed out to me the other day, a piano has only 88 keys, and yet people continue to find ways to create new music with those same keys, even after centuries of use. And that's only using two hands! How many more combinations of situations can one create with a Monster Manual and a blank sheet of graph paper? How many more iterations can you have with multiple human players, each bringing their own experiences and personalities to the table?

I am certain there are those who look at the game of AD&D...the game I've yet to tire of after 40-odd years...and say, what a boring game. What a boring premise. Killing monsters and getting gold. How long can that stay exciting? How long till that grows tiresome? I am certain of this because people have said as much to me...more than once.

And yet most of us have had the experience of having to "work for a living." Even those of us blessed with an exciting, fulfilling job/career/vocation have known days that were humdrum and boring, or challenging in non-fun ways...dealing with irate clients and unresponsive vendors and the fluctuation of markets affected by the stupid, stupid actions of an utterly corrupt and incompetent American president. 

Isn't it nice to have an escape to a world where your problems can be solved with a sword or a magic spell? Isn't it fun to have some pulse-pounding, adrenaline surging excitement that doesn't end in real world injury...or even sore muscles? And for the creative individual, isn't it nice to have an ENTIRE UNIVERSE to shape and mold as you please, and to share that universe with our fellow humans, astounding them with pulse-pounding, adrenaline surging experiences?

There is a deeper game beyond the surface play one first discovers as a kid opening a boxed "basic set" of D&D...but one only finds it if they spend the time and effort to grow and develop their game. Just as we, humans, grow and develop ourselves.  We need to stop selling ourselves short.

Go long.

 

Your "Story" Is The Problem

I am nearly done with Reddit. The other day I wrote I was seeing a "common theme" of discontent, but there is an even greater, pervading and UNDERLYING theme that I see over and over again, in complaint and questions alike...it goes something like this:

"Person (X) is being a jerk but I can't kick them because they're integral to the story..."

"Person (X) and (Y) don't get along but..."

"I'm trying to save my campaign that's been going on for (X number) of (months/years), but..."

"Our campaign is getting derailed because people aren't showing up..."

And blah blah blahdiddy-blah.

It's all the same problem: the "story" is getting wrecked, and everything is (thus) CHAOS. Pain and suffering and sorrow...oh, my!

I can't relate.

I can't relate because this has never been a problem for me. Just...never. Not even when I was a player in other people's games. Not even back when I was running Vampire the Masquerade, acting as the "Storyteller" of a "Saga" (rather than the Dungeon Master of a campaign).

We are playing a game...a GAME. The players are playing a game. No one is so "integral" to what's going on that the loss of one or more is going to END EVERYTHING. I mean...

(*sigh*)

Forget for a moment that we are playing (or discussing) Dungeons & Dragons. Let's just...for the sake of discussion...say you're running a game of Vampire. Oh, man, I ran so many "stories" (VtM's word for "adventures") back in the day. Blood Bond. The Succubus Club adventures. Diablerie: Mexico. Ashes to Ashes. The stuff in Denver by Night. Those are just off the top of my head...after all, it's been 30 years since I did the Vampire thing.

Did I ever have players who didn't show up, couldn't show up, or (in one guy's case) just did not want to show up (because he decided he hated VtM and would rather play Toon instead)? Yes, of course. Did it bother me if one of the regular players didn't show up to a session? Yeah, it did. Did it stop the session from happening? Nope...not once. Did it ever "derail" the campaign...er, "saga?"

Never. 

Because even when I was playing a game that used rather explicit language about how it was a "storytelling" game, even when the "adventure" being told was about a particular "story" (for example, a vampire girl who falls in love with one of the PCs but is already blood bound/enslaved to another vampire, etc., etc., blah-blah-blah)...the story is about the story, NOT about the characters. It doesn't matter how "integral" a character is to the story being told (and...spoiler...no PC is "integral")...you're running a world and a situation and if the PC isn't there (because the player isn't there)...so frigging what?

Look, an example: in the Blood Bond adventure (if I'm remembering right...Jeez it was a long time ago) there's this girl (Alicia? I think) who's supposed to fall in love with a PC. And then maybe she gets murdered. Or maybe she doesn't. Regardless it cause a big cluster that has to be resolved by the players. In my game, the PC she fell for was this guy named Michael. But what if I'd had her fall for Ben instead (the guy who really didn't want to play a vampire game but was only doing it because of his friends)...and Ben decided to ditch the campaign? Well, then, we'd say Ben's character disappeared one night (and who knows what happened to him...another mystery to solve!)...and then Alicia would either die or not die, maybe turn to a different PC for love/affection/protection (or not)...and the story would continue on, being a big cluster BUT WITHOUT BEN. Because you have to treat these NPCs as if they have lives and motivations of their own. And Ben (or Michael or Mike) is just ONE PERSON in the (imagined) "world" of the game. And that's how you treat the world as a Game Master.

Back to Dungeons & Dragons.

First off, what part of "Dungeons" and "Dragons" don't these whining people understand? Do their games not have dungeons? Do they not have dragons? What a jaded, sorry-ass world we live in when these things are not enough to get the juices of adventure flowing. NO. We must add DRAMA. And STORY. And BACKSTORY. Because MEANING.

Okay, sure, whatever. So you have some Big Bad Person who has "beef" with one of your PCs and you've laid out this whole series of events...plot points...to try to make an "engaging story" (i.e. "railroad") for the dumbass, er ignorant, er young and inexperienced players to enjoy. And then one of the players turns out to be a secret Nazi or something and the group needs to kick her Hitler-saluting ass to the curb. 

Oh, Nos! Our story!

What on earth is the problem? So, the PC just got eaten by a passing wyvern while relieving herself by the side of the road (it's D&D...shit happens) and now you simply need to adjust your Big Bad's actions to account for the fact that his beefing partner is out of the picture. What? Is he going to retire to a hermit hut and grow strange fruit a la Thanos? Or does he have some other nefarious plan to carry out now that the object of his ire is gone? 

Dungeon Master! Wake up! It is YOUR JOB to think for the NPCs!

You are not writing a script. Stop it! You are not writing a teleplay. Stop it! You are running a D&D game...I don't care if its 4E or 5E or 5.5 or Pathfinder 2 or whatever. You are supposed to BUILD A WORLD with CHALLENGES for the players to EXPLORE. Yes, it is OKAY for those challenges to take the form of an Apocalypse Clock situation or Yet Another Big Bad Evil Guy (emphasis on the YA part of the acronym)...but once you create the thing and set it in motion you must run it without attachment to an outcome. 

This is not scripted television. You are not Matt Mercer. You will (probably) not be paid money for running this game. FORGET PLOT. Forget it! Stop it! Your attachment to outcomes is the thing that causes every one of your complaints. "But, but, Sheila's supposed to defeat Baron Badness and avenge her father's death! I can't let Sheila walk from the game!" Why the hell not? Baron Badness can't make enemies of the other PCs? Heck, the other PCs can't avenge Sheila?

"But, but I created this awesome encounter that can only be resolved by a cleric of the time sphere with a specialization in abjuring magic..." [or insert some other gibberish that means nothing to me...a "Circle of the Moon Druid" or an "Oath of Vengeance Paladin"...whatever] So f'ing what? What would happen if something happened to the character BEFORE your quantum ogre encounter showed up? Huh? Would it happen at all? Is it logical for this shit to go down and mash the PCs? Then best to telegraph it so they know (and can either avoid the encounter or find a suitable replacement for the missing PC). That's nicer than how things work in the real world (where they'd just get mashed) which is FINE because, guess what, it's a game, not the real world. But don't throw a hissy fit about it!

Your "story" IS the problem...that's what this all comes down to. You want to tell me that you're the one who plays D&D the right way, that I am behind the times, that the game has moved on from my clunky 1E, etc., etc....fine. But I'm not the one bitching and moaning about how my game has gotten wrecked because one player or another misses a session or quits or had to get shit-canned for being an [insert-]phobe of some type. I've been playing RPGs for a long time and I've NEVER had this problem...but sure, pal, YOUR way of playing is the "right" way. Got it.

*sigh* Tell your stories if you must. Play your no stakes, no threat, "tea party" version of D&D if that's what floats your boat. Dive into "character development" and your character's inner mental space with all the fervor of a Freud fanboy psych major. Coolio...you do you. 

BUT, for the love of all things holy, STOP having an attachment to how you think said story "should" go or which particular PC is supposed to be "protagonizing" in any given session. Rather than spotlighting players, spotlight the WORLD...the campaign that you are created through the adventures/situations you are (hopefully) designing for your players to tackle. Let the "story" unfold as it unfolds, not as scripted by you...that script is the reason you can't have nice things.

Okay. I'm done.

Scheduling Conflicts

Let's just dive right in.

In slum-bagging it through the ol' Reddit detritus for a cheap-ass "Dear JB" to write, I am constantly assailed with post after post of people bitching about "scheduling:" how hard it is to get a day and time set when EVERYone can attend, or moaning and complaining when people miss a session or drop out because of rando stuff like "work" or "school" or "family."

*sigh*

Once upon a time, we lived in a world where there were far less concerns pressing down on us for our time and attention. There was no internet, no YouTub, no streaming services, no 5 billion different TV shows and movies to watch "on demand." There were no smart phones, no SnapChat, no Instagram, no "Meta," no discord channels to surf for hours on end. There were no pay-to-play phone games that ate up every last free minute that we might have to otherwise use for...oh, I don't know...THOUGHTS and REFLECTIONS or SIMPLE DAYDREAMING. The kind of stuff that would lead to ideas that one could work into their D&D game.

We lived in a simpler age where children were not being trained as polymaths, with music lessons and athletic activities and language classes all going on Every Night Of The Week. Instead you were either a "sporty kid" (with a couple of practices per week and a game on the weekend) OR some sort of arty kid (with a weekly piano lesson or acting class or something) and pretty much no other obligations aside from school, an hour of spiritual worship (pick your religion), and maybe a night of Boy Scouts or Campfire or whatever.

TIME. That precious commodity. We have given away So Much Of It over the years. I know I have...and my family as well. Now it's just a struggle...a struggle to find time to exercise (because it's good for me), to find time to sleep (because it's good for me), to find quality time with my family (because it's good for me), to find time to pursue my own ambitions and creative endeavors (because they're good for me, too). 

Where to fit gaming into this mix? There's not enough hours in the day.

Our time on this planet as humans is finite. We get (roughly) 120 years allotted to us, and this gets reduced considerably by our lifestyle choices...to the point that if we can cross the 90 year mark, most of us are celebrating like we won the lottery (and those last 15-20 years can be fairly burdensome ones to get through, depending on overall health). Those years are broken up into seasons filled with months filled with days and nights filled with hours...and many of those hours are accounted for, just for the sake of the necessaries of keeping us alive. We must sleep, frustrating as that may be...in a million years of evolutionary adaptation, no mutation has come along that keeps us from needing to spend one-third of our lives in an unconscious state.

SO...16 hours a day, 7 days a week for a grand total of 112 hours. Say you spend 40 hours of that on your "job" (whatever that is), 4 hours a day (28 total) on food preparation and consumption, another eight hours per week on bathroom activities (including bathing, grooming, teeth, waste elimination), three hours per week on "moderate exercise" (a bit more than recommended for optimal health but whatever), and, say, another 8 hours for home cleaning / maintenance (varies depending on division of labor in the household, need for lawn care, etc.). Of course some people commute (let's go five hours per week), and maybe you have a weekly "movie night," play, or sporting event with your family or roommates as a bonding activity...call that four hours. That leaves you with...what...16 total hours? That's a full day, right?

But, of course, it's never that easy. And even with those (fairly conservative) estimates time just keeps on slippin-slippin-slippin into the future. The only way you can guarantee your D&D game will happen is if YOU, Mr./Ms, DM makes it a priority to happen. 

Give yourself a four hour window. Pick a day and time that works for you Every Single Time, and commit to that. You don't schedule other activities that day. You plan your daily routines AROUND that time. You honor that time slot the same way you would honor any other important commitment...the same way you would with, say, your job or a university class. You put it on the calendar...weekly, semi-weekly, monthly, whatever...and you stick to it. And when the time comes up, you sit down in your seat (wherever that seat might be) prepared to run the game. 

That's how it works. Long term, that's the ONLY way that works. This haphazard, catch-as-catch-can method of tooling around everyone's schedule, making adjustments on the fly, etc. is all just exhausting, non-productive NONSENSE...and it will, eventually, derail your campaign, no matter how much effort you apply to "making it work."  

The session day/time only has to work for one person: the Dungeon Master. Without the DM, there's no game so, guess what? The DM is the priority.

Once you have your set session date, you inform your potential players of the date. And the players can decide if it works for their schedule, and whether or not the DM's game (YOUR game) is going to be a priority for their busy-busy lives. And maybe it won't be. Maybe they're not available on Thursdays from 6pm to 10pm. Maybe they have church obligations on Sunday mornings. Maybe their kid's soccer club takes them out of town on a lot of Saturdays and that's just not in the cards for them.

That's okay. You're not running a D&D game for your players. You're running D&D because you love it and you want to run it. 

If that's NOT the case...well, heck, I don't know what I can tell you. I love running D&D for my kids...Love! It!...but I don't run D&D for THEM. I run D&D because I love running D&D. If they did not want to play (because they have other obligations, priorities, friends, whatever), I would still run D&D. Because I love running D&D. I ran it before they were born. And I plan to run it even after they've moved out of the house and have lives (and, perhaps, D&D campaigns) of their own. 

It's not about the players. A solid, committed Dungeon Master can always get new players.

So, then, what happens if you HAVE players but one or more of them don't show up to the game? What do you do then?

Easy. When that happens, you just run the game for the players you do have.

As said, the players really don't matter. I don't design adventure scenarios for specific players...I just design adventure scenarios. My mind is on the world and the scenario, NOT on how the players will interact with it. I can't predict how the players will interact. I can't anticipate what they'll do when/if bad luck strikes and (for example) kills the cleric. Will the players abandon the dungeon? Roll up a new cleric? Decide to hire the village priest (because now Bob wants to play an illusionist or something)? Who knows? Who cares? 

Not I. 

I don't worry a whit about what PCs Sally and Bill and Terry are bringing to the session. What concerns me is the part of my game world they're in, and what adventures are open to them in that part of the game world. These days, my players (kids) tend to head "straight to the dungeon" (as soon as they can locate one)...in my youth, my players would futz about a bit more in town, getting into trouble or pursuing various ambitions. All that's fine...eventually their wallets will be empty enough that they'll start looking for some loot-filled adventure or quest. All their grandest schemes (generally) require money anyway. Just as in real life. My job is to make sure there are things for them to do (i.e. adventures) because I'm the DM running the thing and that's my responsibility as a DM.

So it doesn't matter to me whether Sally blows off the session because she's got a date that night, or is writing a term paper or whatever. Sally's character won't be available to the party (because Sally's not available), but the rest of the players can still posse up and trek out to the dungeon. Sally's PC is "off doing something" (sleeping off a drunk, or shacked up with some dude, or meditating at the abbey, or whatever)...adventurers, like their players, are a notoriously flaky bunch. The question isn't "where's Sally's character," but rather "what do Bill and Terry want to do?" Sally's PC can always 'catch up later.'

But what about players skipping a session in the middle of an adventure?

Ah, yes...always a possibility as, depending on how a session goes, it is not unusual for me to end a session with the PCs still two levels underground in some (probably corpse strewn) chamber, bagging coins from some newly discovered treasure chest. This is COMMON...I don't force players to 'return to town' at the end of sessions, and for long adventures (like the D-series of modules or some plane-traipsing extravaganza) such a return trip might be practically infeasible. So then: how do you, DM, explain when the next session opens and Bill can't make it because he came down with the flu? His ranger was bagging gold with the rest of the party at the end of last session, what now?

Again, easy enough: the ranger has gone missing. He stepped outside the chamber to answer the call of nature, or eat some rations without being assaulted by the smell of dead hobgoblin, and got turned around and lost somewhere in the dungeon. While the rest of the party sets about exploring (i.e. participating in the adventure) THIS session, Bill's ranger is hiding and/or wandering trying to find his way back to the party, avoiding wandering monsters, and trying not to get killed. Hopefully, Bill the player will be back to full health by the following session, and the ranger can "rediscover" the party...either in the dungeon or back in town.

But what happened to Bill's ranger "off screen?" Nothing of import. He fought nothing. He found nothing. He expended no resources. Maybe he used a torch...and subsequently found a replacement. Through ranger craftiness or blind, stinking luck he somehow managed to avoid combat and confrontation, and avoided falling prey to a trap. Perhaps he was paralyzed with fear and simply didn't move around much. Perhaps he knows the old ranger adage "when you get lost, stay in one place" and just waited for the other party members to find him. Who knows? But GAME-WISE he did nothing to warrant any change in his character sheet with regard to hit points, experience points, treasure tallies, nada. Somehow, his character just "lucked out."

And if Bill actually quits the game...say, he gets a job that precludes him from re-joining the Tuesday evening session the DM has scheduled...then something terrible has befallen his character. It was eaten by a wandering otyugh or something. Them's the breaks.

[unless the DM wants to use Bill's character as an NPC, of course]

You see, it really doesn't matter whether or not a player or three skip a session; the D&D game is not about individual players. Frankly speaking, the D&D game is not "about" anything at all. The D&D game is just a game. As a DM, I run the game, and I get the great joy that such a creative endeavor brings. The players? They just get to play...if they show up.

Now I understand that a lot of folks who learned the game in a post-DragonLance era are going to have difficulty shifting their brain into the proper mindset because (since DL) so much ink has been spilled and words vomited proclaiming that D&D is "telling a story." And all stories are "about" something. And usually that thing they're "about" are the characters in the story. And you see how THAT logic...built on a faulty premise...leads one to the (wrong-headed) conclusion that the players (or, at least, their characters) are necessary to play the game.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The only thing that's necessary to play the game is a Dungeon Master, armed with the proper tools (rule books, dice, etc.). Got it? The ONLY thing. So as far as scheduling "conflicts" are concerned there's only one person whose time and availability matters. 

D&D is an activity...a powerful activity that has the ability to forge bonds of friendship between people. But the game isn't necessary for those bonds to be sustained...people can remain friends long after their time and participation in the game has ended. We make the mistake of thinking that these relationships we create through the activity are contingent on continual engagement with the activity...that we will LOSE our friends if we don't find a way to make the game work for everyone to play. This is inaccurate. As we move through life, we encounter different people in many different activities and environments: at jobs, at school, at clubs, at church, at events, in sports teams, etc. Some of the people we encounter "stick" with us...for whatever reason...and become part of our social circle. And just because we change jobs, leave school, quite the team, etc. doesn't mean we LOSE these friends...we can still see them, and interact with them, as much as works for our (finite amount of) time. It's not the schedule that matters; it's the prioritization of engagement. 

Don't fear loss. Embrace the friends you have. And make MORE friends, build MORE relationships, while engaging in the various activities (like D&D) that you do.

Happy Thursday, folks.

: )

"Storygamers"

Oh, boy. A loooong one for a Friday.

"Storygamer" is a term that gets bandied about the internet a lot these days, generally in a pejorative fashion. I seem to see it a lot amongst those folks identifying themselves as "CAG (classic adventure gaming) gamers," generally setting themselves up in opposition to this particular type, or style, of player.

First allow me to reiterate (or explain) that this label of "adventure gaming" is simply meant to distinguish what I do from what is usually considered "role-playing" these days (i.e. in the 2020s). Up until the 2010s, I certainly would have called myself a "role-player," and these games I play "role-playing games" or RPGs. When it comes to running AD&D, I take the same approach I have (pretty much) always taken...generally speaking, the same approach I've taken towards ALL role-playing games I've run over the years.

That being said:

1) it is remarkably difficult to run most RPGs in the style of AD&D (and as evidence, I will point to the consistent LACK of my ability run other RPGs over the long-term; most non-D&D games...with some exceptions...have been extremely short-lived affairs).

2) the AD&D I run these days is a much more mature, calculated, and conscientious than the AD&D of my youth. Credit this with having grown as Dungeon Master, and the years of work I've done on self-analysis and self-development.

But just because I distinguish myself as an "adventure gamer" does not mean I consider myself part of a particular tribe. I'm less interested in being a part of any particular community, and more interested in the game itself...what it can do for me, what I can do for it.

[it is similar to my feelings of the "OSR" back in the day; as I've written before, I never saw myself as part of a "movement," so much as an old geezer that wanted to play old games]

So, while I'm happy to die on this hill of championing 1E play, I'm far less interested in digging a trench around said hill, and spiking it pickets to keep out the "storygamers." ESPECIALLY because I feel that, these days, we may be using too broad a definition of just what a "storygamer" IS.

Here's a good blog post defining story games from Ben Robbins (of Ars Ludi). It's from October 2012, but holds up today, echoing many of my own thoughts (from 2013 and now). Here's a solid quote:

"A story game is a role-playing game where the participants focus on making a story together instead of just playing “their guy.” The alternative–which I played 100% of the time for more than two decades–would be adventure games like D&D, where your character is your turf.

"Yep, I said adventure games. I’ve used the term “traditional games” a lot but in hindsight it’s a terrible term for the games we’ve loved for decades. Back in the 70s and 80s these same “traditional” games were frickin’ radical. I think “adventure game” is a better term. In an adventure game it’s the job of the players to beat the adventure the GM presents. Again, not my invention: “adventure game” was a common term for D&D etc. back in the day."

Yep. I'm not the first one to call my kind of gaming (i.e. Dungeons & Dragons gaming), "adventure gaming." And neither was Ben, as he readily admits. But I digress; we were talking about "story gaming;" and here ya' go:

"In adventure games your job is to play your character and make good decisions for them. If you mess up (or roll badly) your character can die and be removed from the game. In a story game any character you play is a facet of the shared story. You may even sabotage your own character or spin them into tragedy because it makes the story more interesting. It’s a shift from “what would my character try to do” to “what do I want to have happen to my character” and in the story at large."

Or, to put it another way:

"In an adventure role-playing game you can only accomplish something because your character can do it. In a story role-playing game you can make something happen because as a player you want it, not just because your character can make it happen. In an adventure game like D&D you decide what your character does, but your ability to succeed is a reflection of your character’s traits...

"In a story game...the character isn’t the limit of your power in the game. The rules give the players authority over things that are outside their characters’ control..."

Got that? A story gamer is playing a different kind of game (a "story game") with mechanical differences that support that type of play. Lots of examples abound, many of which came out of the Indie RPG (Forge) think tank. But what about all those folks who play D&D with funny voices? Check this out:

"Take D&D, old school D&D even. The players control their characters and the GM controls everything else. The characters’ chance of success is based on their character’s fictional abilities (good fighters win fights, poor fighters lose fights, etc.). But the GM could say to a player “Hey, tell me about the monastery your character came from.” Suddenly the player has some story game-style input into the fiction: their character didn’t create the monastery they were trained in, that’s the player making up things they want in the game. Or the GM could ask the group whether they want the next adventure to be more wilderness or dungeon crawling or political intrigue. Again, now the players are making contributions outside their characters. 

"Those examples are not that uncommon in adventure games. So hey, that makes them story games, right? 

"Not really. The important difference is that those contributions are arbitrary and non-binding. The GM is deciding when to ask the players for world input (if ever) and if the GM doesn’t like what they propose she can decide not to use it. The GM holds the veto. In an adventure games rules system, story game-style participation is an ad hoc privilege, not a right, and it can be rescinded at any time or never extended at all. It’s not a system.

"On the other hand, if you’re a player in an adventure game and you can always decide to make “bad but interesting” decisions for your character but the penalties can be pretty brutal. Yep, it was awesome and dramatically moving to have your paladin take off his armor before the big battle to show his unshakeable faith in his god’s prophecy, but in game terms it meant you had a terrible AC and got cut down in a few rounds. Oops. Now sit and wait while everyone else finishes the fight. The adventure game doesn’t have a method to reward your decision because that’s not what it’s built to do. It doesn’t expect you to play that way."

I am quoting heavily from Robbins's blog post because he echoes my understanding and feeling on the matter. What he is calling "story games" I (as a Forum alum) would probably call "story now" games...games designed to tell a story and unconcerned with aspects of exploration of challenge. They're nice parlor games, but not anything designed for long-term play (i.e. play of more than a handful of sessions). And they're not bad! At least they have an objective of play (tell a nice story) and mechanics to support that.

But Ben was writing in 2013. In 2014 we see the advent of 5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons...and shit starts to hit the fan. Because the publishers of 5E (i.e. Hasbro/WotC) had absolutely zero concern whether or not their game is coherent, instructional, functional, etc. nor even if consumers have any idea/consistent standard of how the game is meant to be played. Instead, their sole concern, was reestablishing market dominance, i.e. reclaiming the market share they'd lost to Paizo/Pathfinder after the debacle that was 4th edition. They did not Give A Shit how or why people played D&D, just so long as people were playing D&D...and they were going to do their damnedest to make sure THAT would be the game RPG folks were playing. Everything to Everybody.

SO...the  "brutal" consequence of trying to do "story" while playing an adventure game? All that had to go out the window. Characters have to be EXTREMELY hard to kill (if not impossible). Players have to "give consent" for negative consequences to affect their character. Creating character backgrounds and establishing stories for PCs became part of the actual chargen process. "Balanced" character archetypes ensure that no matter what a player's particular preference of "flavor," the characters will be on equal footing. Screw asymmetry. Thus the ascendance of My Guy/Gal syndrome and let's-tell-our-precious-little-stories-about-ourselves.

*sigh*

After my last post about the Euro OSR, I had a private conversation with an individual who discussed some of the issues they've had with their players, despite running a 1E game:

"...my players do not want to be motivated by gold, they find the notion of upkeep and training costs silly from an in-game perspective. 

"We ran indeed into a conflict...I wrote in a short reflection on the state of the campaign and their player skill that "saving the NPC is essentially a pretense for adventurous play - as adventurers, you want to loot treasure as much as possible while on the mission" and they were offended. ...They do not play to level up (and perhaps to a small extent even are used that the GM just awards level up after 'successfully' finishing an adventure without the tracking of XP)...

And:

"To a large extent my players are able to formulate their own objectives of play, especially during a long term campaign (i.e. unfinished business, taking revenge etc.), although in practice I seed the world with adventure locales...

"They pick perhaps also to some extent in line with their character motivations, or - at the same time - what they as players find interesting and then retroactively, if at all needed, formulate a motivation for their character. Especially this 'thinking meta as a player and bending my PCs' motivation to what I want' is very foreign to players invested in their characters..."

This, in my estimation, is NOT "storygaming." There is a disconnect between the players and the DM, but it isn't a bridge too far to span. In fact, it would seem to require only a step sideways by the DM to make things work: these players are still interested in "adventure" gaming, they just need some facilitation.

Among many (most?) D&D players who look down on old style play, there is a perception that killing and looting is too simplistic, too coarse, too dumb an activity to engage in. "Kill monster, loot treasure, repeat, how boring!" Most of these players...at least the ones that haven't jumped on the YouTube train of playing D&D like Improv Night at TheaterSports...still want adventure, but they want meaningful adventure, if not grandiose. Just like a fantasy story they've enjoyed reading (or watching on a screen). Collecting gold, doesn't seem "meaningful"...it seems mundane. And they want to be transported...the "fantasy" of fantasy adventure gaming is, essentially, an escape from the mundane hum-drum of the normal world.

But when we look at the classic adventures that everyone still adores...Hommlet, Against the Giants, etc...we'll see that none of them are bereft of story. Good adventures are scenarios: they have a premise, an idea or concept that gives them meaning. There's a reason players are there. 

And the characters' "story?" They build that through actual play, the longer they survive. It is inevitable in campaign play: the PCs will build friends and enemies, allies and rivals. They will have ambitions and victories and setbacks and comedy and tragedy...the longer they play. 

DMs want our players to live in the world we're building. We want them to want to spend time there. And most players who want to play D&D (and, yes, I'd even include modern 5E players) want a fantasy world worth living in. It's the DMs job to create that world.

When we sit down to play D&D, we all need to agree with the core concept of the game: players are adventurers in a fantasy world. "Adventurers" are individuals with a certain skill set that use those skills (and their wit) to risk danger as their occupation. That's their job. They are not town guards, or bakers, or kings-in-waiting, or court jesters. They are adventurers.

And because they are adventurers, we "keep score" (in this game we've agreed to play) by measuring how successful they are at their job (i.e. how much money they make), with some bonuses (x.p.) earned for defeating opponents with violence...because violence is inherent to the adventuring profession. They risk danger with their skill sets, i.e. sword and spell. Again: this is the game we've all agreed to sit down and play.

That doesn't mean the players can't choose to buck the premise. One of the great joys of D&D is that players have agency to operate outside the strict parameters set by (for example) a video game or a Fighting Fantasy novel. They are here to live in this world...not follow a script (and if the players assume they're supposed to follow a script, it's the DM's responsibility to disabuse them of this notice up front ASAP! That's not the game!).  

And living in a world requires some means of supporting yourself. 

It is the DM's responsibility to run the world...and that means providing consequences both for action and for inaction.  Players...because they have agency...have their choice of how to deal with the dangers of the world and the costs of living there. The DM has to make sure that there ARE "dangers" and "costs" so that the players are properly motivated to engage with them. The players can choose not to seek out treasure...and they will eventually be out of cash to feed themselves or their horses, reduced to living like penniless vagabonds (and treated the same by the locals). They can choose not to stamp out the monstrous ogre tribe that's moved nearby...and they'll see the village where they're staying dwindle as people move away (or are eaten), shops close, beer barrels run dry, etc. 

It all comes down to the DM's world building.  The (1st Edition) game already has rules for handling most pertinent situations that arise during the game. But it's up to the DM to build the world in which those rules get used...and it's up to the DM to present the world in a way that engages the players.

The players have no interest in investigating the caravan raids that have been halting trade with the southern jungles? That will affect the local economy. The players aren't interested in the giants expanding their territory into civilized lands? Civilization will start to shrink. The players aren't enticed to break up a slaver ring that's preying on the innocent? More people will continue to disappear in the night. 

It is UNIMPORTANT that the players wish to create mannerisms for their character, or write up a backstory. That's FINE if they want to do that. Most 1st edition PCs already have a "backstory" of sorts: they have a race. They have a class. They have a name. You can already tell a lot about the character's pre-game "history" just from these things (and more if you want to use secondary skills). It doesn't make them a "storygamer" to want to do these things...nor even if they want to "self-sabotage" (like the paladin removing his armor before a fight). 

That doesn't make the player a "storygamer," because we are not playing a story game. We are playing an adventure game. If it means anything at all, it just means they're not a very good adventurer (certainly in the case of the dipshit paladin)...and that doesn't mean they can't get better!

As the Dungeon Master, YOU have all the power. You create the world; you run the campaign; you arbitrate the rules. Any issue or disconnect here really falls squarely upon the shoulders of the DM. At least it does for those of us running old edition D&D. Choosing to DM this older version of D&D means choosing to take up this mantle of responsibility.

Old edition D&D is not "collaborative" in the same way a story game is. Players looking for a collaborative game...one where they provide input that impacts the game in spite of the rules and the results of the dice...would be best served to look elsewhere. Because old edition D&D doesn't support that kind of game play. It never has. Yes, you can glom on rule additions (hand out "narrative change" points to players or whatever), but the more adaptations you make, the more bits you're likely to muck up (requiring more changes), the farther you get away from what works WELL about the D&D game, and the more you'd (probably) be better served by finding a game that already has the objective of "creating a story."

Or, you know, such players could simply write their own fiction...either solo or in collaboration with others. Just saying.

Those players who stick around are signing up to play an adventure game, regardless of whether or not they are giving their characters fictional "motivations." That's FINE if they want to do that. A motivation rooted in fiction ("The six-fingered man killed my father; one day I'll have revenge!") is nearly as good as a motivation rooted in game play ("I want to find a fireball spell...and get to a level where I can cast it!"). Motivations are good, because they incentivize action. Doesn't mean they're ever going to be fulfilled or come up in play (that magic-user might die before 5th level...). Them's the breaks.

As DMs we are not true "storytellers," because all stories have an ending to them, and our responsibility as a neutral arbiter to the game prevents us from having an attachment to ANY possible ending. We create adventures (scenarios) with which the players interact. These scenarios make sense in terms of the fantasy world we've created. Our world is run to the best of our ability with the help of the rules. It is a world of adventure: a world with monsters and treasure, dungeons and dragons. The better we build it, the more players will want to adventure within it, and the more adventures they will have. Until their characters die or retire. And it's only then, when a PC has ended, will we be able to say "Okay, hear's the story of Stoutheart the Grim..." Or whatever.

DMs are world builders; D&D players are adventurers. The interaction of these roles (builder and explorer) is the game. Not a "story game." An adventure game. And, if YOU (DM) are running an old version of D&D...like 1st edition AD&D...you have nothing to worry about when it comes to "storygamers." Storygamers will find story games to play in, and that will be a 'win' for everyone involved.

Build your world, run your world, love your world. Do that and all the other "noise" will cease to matter.

: )