"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

"Dear JB" Mailbag #52

Over the course of 2025, I've done 52 of these...an average of one per week. While it made for an amusing (if sometimes frustrating) series, I'm done now. This last one I just dredged up by going to the "r/dnd"...it was the first thing that came up, though it was from four years ago. As usual, Wednesday's child is full of woe....

Dear JB:

Been DMing for 15 years and I think I just played my last session of DnD. I just don't want to do it anymore. Built a world and no one remembers any details. Add a puzzle and no one even tries. 

It might seem minor but this last session frustrated me more then it should have. Players walk into room. Huge obvious McGuffin in room. Only detail provided is a bunch of books are also in the room. No one explores. No one tries to read a single book. "I'd like to examine the bookcases" is literally all they had to do to get the knowledge they needed for the knowledge puzzle. Could have also examined the floor or climbed a staircase but that was less obvious. But no one bothers to do any of it.

I end up trying to change the encounter last minute to prevent a party wipe because they didn't get a piece of info they needed. Whole encounter ends up being clunky and bad because of it. This is a constant thing.

I don't want to DM if I have to hand feed every detail to the players. I also don't want do nothing but create simple combat encounters. So I'm gonna take a week and think it through but I think I just don't want to play anymore. Sucks.

After 15 Years DMing I Think I'm Done Playing DnD

Dear Done:

I've seen (and answered) several "quitting" type letters. Yours is the only one who said he was quitting after DMing for 15 years.

Fifteen years is a long time. I worked for the same organization for fifteen years. Hoo-boy...that is a LONG time to spend on something you don't love and aren't passionate about. Truth be told, I was passionate about it...probably for the first decade or so. After that, it was mainly just a paycheck and benefits.

Did your DMing net you a paycheck and benefits?

According to your profile, you wrote this letter when you were 37 years old. I turned 52 last month; it's been fifteen years since I was 37 years old. That was 2010...I'd been writing this blog for a year and a half at that time. Had been playing D&D (and other RPGs) for more than a quarter-century at that time. Had zero desire (at that point) to quit playing.

Why? What's the difference between you and me?

Am I just a bigger nerd than you are? Or a more stubborn one? Do you just have a "quitter gene" in your DNA, while I do not? Hardly. I've quit plenty of things. Hobbies. Jobs. Relationships. Always for good reason. Fencing for example...I loved fencing. But at the age of 30 my knees were starting to break down and I didn't like the direction my physical health was heading. Rehab (via years of yoga) helped put me back together. 

Hell. I loved smoking, too. Again, I quit that for health reasons. Decided I preferred to live longer than my pack-a-day habit (two-a-day on weekends) was going to allow.

But you, Mr. Done...what's your reason for quitting this activity you've been engaged in for the last 15 years? Because your players are bad at D&D? Huh? What?

Look: you either enjoy being a DM or your don't. If you enjoy being a DM, then it doesn't matter what your players do or don't do. I mean, maybe I'm weird. I just like making adventures and running them. Players that make poor decisions in my games usually see their characters end up dead. Which is (often) amusing for Yours Truly. Most of the time, this incentivizes players to get better...i.e. to become better players. And I do mean "most of the time." I just don't see a lot of players quit on me out of a dislike of the game play...in fact, I can't think of ANY off the top of my head.

[although that's with regard to D&D...I have had at least one player quit on a Vampire saga, because he decided he didn't like the game and its themes]

So, yeah...I run a straightforward game. Players get good or their characters get dead. Players come back for more until other priorities (life, etc.) get in the way. Yeah, that's about the extent of it. 

For me...I don't care. I just enjoy running D&D. I'm a Dungeon Master...that's what I do. I don't build worlds for my players; I build worlds for ME. I don't insert puzzles for my players to solve; I insert puzzles because it makes sense, or feels right, to have such a challenge in a particular adventure I'm designing. If the players can't figure it out...tough. If the players get killed in a fight...tough. THAT'S THE GAME. It continues to amaze me that folks don't seem to get this...even after fifteen years of being a Dungeon Master.

But I'm being silly, I know. I didn't understand what it was to be a Dungeon Master back in 2010 (after 25 years of running games for people). No one ever explained it to me, and I was too dim to see it myself. It wasn't until the last seven or eight years...maybe ten...that I've REALLY, truly grasped what it means to be a Dungeon Master. What it means as a calling...as a vocation. I've had it all along, but I didn't have the words to articulate it or the right ideas to conceptualize it. Now I do. 

Which is why, of course, I need to get back to writing my book on the subject.

Hey, Mr. "Done With D&D:" you need to stop worrying about whether or not your players are jackasses or fools. You need to stop worrying about whether or not they give a rip about your world building (spoiler alert: they DON'T except insomuch as it directly  affects their characters). You need to stop bitching-and-moaning about the shit your can't control, and start focusing on the shit you CAN control...like whether or not an encounter is "clunky."

Be okay with the total party wipe. Your players are (apparently) okay with it...otherwise, they'd try a little harder and pay a bit more attention. I'm so glad to hear you're tired of feeding them details...I can assure you that you are not doing your players (or yourself!) any favors by hand-holding them.

Just kill them already. Get over it.

*sigh*  Fifteen frigging years. Man, if I could go back to my 37 year old self with the knowledge I have today... Man, if I could go back to my 25 year old self (15 years into starting to DM)...

Eh. I probably wouldn't have listened to me, either.

Allow me to be frank: chances are you're not a terribly good Dungeon Master right now, even after fifteen years of taking the role. Yeah, probably not. Because from the words in your letter it's pretty obvious you don't know yourself very well in the "Know Thyself" Socrates kind of way. Because if you did, you wouldn't be whining NOW about an issue that's probably been going on for every one of these last fifteen years. Oh, what? It's only a problem after a decade and a half?

Hey, Done: this is the last one of these "Dear JB" letters I plan on writing...the very last. So I'm going to pull back the curtain for the people reading this blog. More than 1.7 thousand people replied to this letter of yours. And all the advice is of the stupidest kind: Find new players. Communicate your feelings. Take a break from DMing to "recharge." Use "quantum" encounters. Read "The Lazy  DM." Blah-blah-blah.

Garbage. All of it.

You don't need to communicate your feelings; you need to run the game. You don't need to take a break from gaming; you need to bring focus and attention to your work. You don't need to get new players; you need to train the players that come to your table. You don't need to use quantum encounters; you need to stop having attachments to whether or not the players take a particular specific action. And for the love of CHRIST, please, Please, PLEASE spurn the "lazy DM" and all his unholy works. Get thee behind me, Satan!

Your frustration, your discontent, and your lack of satisfaction all come from your approach to the game. That's it; that's all. If you want to fix those things, you need to fix your mind; you need to fix yourself. Nothing else you try is going to solve your problems until you get your head screwed on right.

After fifteen years, I'd say it's worth a shot before quitting.

Sincerely, 

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #51

This guy.... 

Dear JB:

My friends and I are new to D&D. Actually, I've been consuming D&D content for about a year, so I have a bit more experience. We started with a one-shot, and I had a good time, and I think they did too. Then I decided to run the Lost Mine of Phandelver with them, and that's where the problems started.

The least of them is that after the one-shot, I let them level up, and I think the encounters are too easy now. For example, they defeated Klarg the Bugbear and his wolf with very little difficulty, even though I tried adjusting the encounter to make it harder. I'll try keeping them at their current level for a few sessions.

The real problem is how they're playing. To give you some context, they either chose a chaotic neutral alignment or something in between, but they're actually unbearably evil. They try to rob, have sex with, and sacrifice every NPC, using them as bait, or they simply don't care what happens to the main NPCs. I got tired of this and told them directly that we wouldn't get anywhere if they kept playing like this, since they can't just do the same thing to every NPC. They told me that "that's what their characters would do" and that I should try to make the NPCs meaningful to them and interesting, but I simply can't continue like this. How do they expect me to try to make them more significant if I don't feel heard by them? It doesn't bother me that they don't follow their alignments, and it's true that I'm not very good at roleplaying. The issue is that I'm tired of what they do in-game, and they don't realize that I'm not enjoying it. I don't think they understand that I'm also new to D&D, and the fact that they don't appreciate the effort I put into each session is making me rethink whether I want to keep playing or not. I like to think that through all, there is some hope that they will understand that the only way that i could make the story more meaningful is if they respect the story im trying to tell.

All advice is welcome and very needed.

I Can't Deal With My Players

Dear ICDWMP:

As we approach the end of 2025, it's not unusual for people to want to reflect upon the past 12 months considering missteps and errors we've made, and thinking of ways in which we can improve our lives and actions. Reflection is good; striving to be better is admirable.

But first, of course, we have to be willing to admit our failings. Since you "welcome" "all advice" and, in fact, acknowledge that it is "very needed" ...well, it's only right that I start by advising you to take stock of your situation and realize that all these problems are of your own making.

Not the game. Not the rules. Not your friends. Not even the publisher. Just YOU.

"Consuming D&D content" does NOT translate to "experience." Running a "one-shot" (whatever the hell that means) does not prepare you to run a campaign. Ignoring instructional text and simply "leveling up" players when you feel like it is not a mark of proficiency.

And, no, no player is ever going to "appreciate" what it is you do. If you are DMing solely for the sake of being appreciated by your players, you are going to be DISAPPOINTED. Over and over again.

SO...let me help you. Please. Let me help you. Listen...or, rather, READ...what I have to say. And know that I write these words with a motivation that stems from love.

Mostly. Also, it annoys me to have terrible Dungeon Masters walking this planet.

Now I'm not going to lie: the 5E Starter Set has some pretty TERRIBLE advice in it ("When in doubt, make it up!" and "It's a shared story!" are just two examples). But, a new DM has to start somewhere and if you're insistent on learning that [5E] edition, you might as well start with a "starter set." However, when learning ANY new skill...and running D&D as a Dungeon Master IS a new skill...you want to make sure you follow the instructions.  The first part of Phandelver is written for a group of 1st level characters, who only level up AFTER their encounter with Klarg the Bugbear. If you make them 2nd level to start, than YES, the adventure is going to be far too easy, and NO you do not have the experience or 'chops' at this point to adjust the thing on the fly. You are still a rank novice...I don't give a hoot if you've been "watching D&D content" for a decade or more!

Just run the adventure, dude. Run it as written.

Once you've done that, perhaps you'll be ready to try DMing your own campaign. Perhaps. But first you've got to take a good, hard look in the mirror and make an honest assessment of yourself:

• Do you have the brains and fortitude to read the rulebooks and digest the instruction they provide?
• Do you have the interest and creativity to take on the (often) thankless job of adventure design and world building?
• Will you find the running of the game, with or without accolades, with or without players, to be a joy in and of itself?
• Do you have the courage to commit yourself to the 'long haul?' To run the game consistently even in the face of your players' complaints, objections, and (occasional) idiocy while remaining an impartial referee and God of your universe?

If you can at least answer these questions with the word "maybe" then, okay, we test the hypothesis and maybe you won't be wasting your time. However, if you KNOW that one or more of these questions is a resounding "no," then you should probably hang it up now...find someone else's game to join as a player, if the game still entices you, but do NOT even start down the Dungeon Master's path. You're not ready. And maybe some day you WILL be ready (and that "no" answer will change to a "yes"), but that time is not now. Admit it. Acknowledge it. Accept it.

It's okay. You're not a bad person.

IF you are ready (or think you're ready or are "pretty sure" you're ready) we can get down to brass tacks.  First off, by this point you already have at least one "starter adventure" under your belt (and you've run it twice...once in a fashion that was WRONG, and once "by the book"). Now, we move to "Phase II:" read your instruction manual. That means buying a copy of the PHB and DMG and reading them as many times as you need to A) understand the overall scope and general procedures of game play, and B) know where and how to look up material and spot rules that are likely to come up in play as you (slowly) master the system in practice.

Once you've finished doing that, you take your first steps into world building by designing a small, yet tempting dungeon/adventure along with a town that can act as a base of operations for the PCs. 

Then you run the game. 

Ah, but what about the players being assholes? I hear you asking. Players are largely simple-minded...they get their jollies off of playing D&D and if you, the DM, don't make it fun for them, they will make their own fun. If you force the players to interact with townspeople and 'local color' instead of giving them ACTUAL adventures to pursue, they will treat the town like a dungeon: raping and robbing and murdering their way across it. 

The players have signed up for Dungeons & Dragons. Are you giving them Dungeons? Are you giving them Dragons?

When the players have an adventure on which to focus, focus they shall, assuming they joined your table in good faith of wanting to play the game. NPC "personalities" are a means to an end...and that end is adventure.  If the NPCs aren't advancing the players towards that end goal, things are not going to go well.

At the same time, your adventures have to be rewarding. If you put a "magic shop" or "gold bank" in a town, it may seem infinitely easier for the players to rob THOSE places, instead of risking their characters in some filthy hellhole filled with monsters and boobytraps. While it's easy enough to make the consequences of such actions discouraging (having the town guard show up in force and hanging the PCs from the nearest tree), it is even easier to simply NOT have such places available. A village or town should be a place to resupply, sell loot, and (perhaps) pick up healing or advice from a sage...and that's it. If you, as the DM, want the players to throw over the "evil Baron," or knock over the Duke's palace, well, that's just designing a different type of 'dungeon.' Which is totally cool and fair game. But recognize that YOU, as the DM, control what incentivizes your players based on what you put into your world.

Here's the hard truth: players don't care about NPCs...and neither should you. NPCs are completely imaginary, invented as needed, and are completely and utterly expendable. 

Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

Look. You want an Elric or Conan or Red Sonja or Gandalf clone in your game? Fine: make one. And if the players kill 'em? Make another...the long lost twin of the one they just killed. Now bent on revenge (if that serves your purpose). Or simply bring them back to life...this is D&D we're playing, right? There're still wishes and raise dead spells, yeah?

But really, you just need to stop worrying about making "meaningful" or "significant" or "interesting" NPCs. There's no such thing. Just worry about making adventures (i.e. "dungeons") that are dangerous and rewarding. Do that, and you won't have to worry about players "following their alignment." Heck, you might even (one day) come to the same point I'm at and just chuck alignment out the window. 

However, that's down the road. Learn to play 'by the book' first. 

Make adventures that are dangerous but rewarding. Run those adventures. Give your players experiences..these create memories which, in turn, provide the campaign with "meaning." Not individual NPCs. Not even individual adventures. The game and the campaign you run using the game rules is what the players will (hopefully) sing the praises of. 

Not that you'll care all that much. You're not doing this for accolades. You're DMing for the joy of creation and the satisfaction of mastering your craft. If you do it right, your players will keep coming back for more, allowing you more joy of creation and more satisfaction of mastering your craft.

That's what it is to be a Dungeon Master.

Sincerely, 

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #50

I think I can do one more of these before 2026...man, these were nearly one-third of my posts in '25...

Dear JB:

Honestly I just need help trying to decide between AD&D 1e or 2e. I like both games, and different aspects of both. I lean more towards 1e but think 2e is easier to use at the table. 

What are y’all’s preference?

1E or 2E

Dear Questioner:

I prefer first edition AD&D. That is the short answer to your final question.

But you want more than just my "preference;" you want "help trying to decide" between the two editions. I know there are quite a few people out there who, if asked, would simply suggest you combine BOTH editions into one Franken-brew mash-up that you can live with...but I assume you've already considered this option and discarded it, else you'd have no reason to write.

SO...you want me to go all "Edition Wars" in print?

Here's the level truth, friend: beginning with 1E, every edition of D&D was purposefully designed. Regardless of whether I (or anyone else) says otherwise, there are reasons each rule set includes the instructional text it has. And let me further add THIS: when I (or anyone else) tells you that one ruleset works better or best in comparison to other editions, what we mean is "better" or "best" for ME. For MY sensibilities.

Got that? I dislike 2E, but I dislike it because it fundamentally changes aspects of game play in a way that the game then fails to fulfill the promise of what it was in the version I learned, thus failing to meet the expectations that were instilled in me from the game that initially introduced me to Dungeons & Dragons.

These expectations are no small things, and is why D&D gamers tend to be most loyal to whatever edition they first grokked and that first EXCITED them about D&D.  IF (for example) you were first drawn to D&D because it provided you with the means to tell epic stories of heroism (a la 2E) with a more streamlined ruleset, then guess what? 2E may well be your huckleberry, and you'll find 1E's draconian nuance as off-putting as 3E's micro-managed construction set.

What is it that you want from your D&D game? This is the fundamental question you have to ask (and answer) for yourself. You write that you "lean towards 1E?" Why? What is it about first edition that tickles your fancy? Half-orc assassins? Wandering harlots? Obfuscated combat procedures? Random disease and parasite tables?  I mean, sure...what's not to like?

; )

Each edition is designed to meet certain types of play objective. I'm not talking about objectives like "game goals" (finding treasure or creating stories)...I'm talking about the STYLE of play that occurs at the table. Each edition of D&D creates a very different gaming experience when run in the manner in which it was intended. The play of By The Book second edition is DIFFERENT from first edition despite 2E's "backwards compatibility" with 1E materials and surface similarities. Customization of characters (specialist wizards, adjustable skilled rogues, themed clerics, "kits," etc.) focus players on their characters; advancement systems based on profession encourage players to have different priorities IN PLAY. That makes the 2E game VERY UNLIKE first edition AD&D, despite the inclusion of similar spells, monsters, and terminology. It is a different way of playing, not "better" or "worse," but DIFFERENT.

And that difference is going to hold different levels of appeal for different people. For me, it holds little appeal...but I can only speak for myself. Other people have different expectations of play.

SO...it would behoove you to determine what are YOUR priorities and expectations of play. "Easier to use at the table" is a dumb reason for choosing a system...plenty of editions of D&D have simpler systems than 2E if that's the main thing driving you! But the fact of the matter is this: you can get good at ANY edition's system with practice and dedication...or, what some might call TIME and EFFORT. I find first edition AD&D to be quite easy to use at the table (certainly a lot easier than editions that require me to create "battle maps" for every encounter)...but, as I wrote in an earlier post, the process of learning AD&D took a few years.  For me, I'd say it was worth the trouble. Then again, back in the min-80s I had no other choice (there was only ONE version of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons prior to 1989)!

Anyway, reading over this missive, I can guess I'm probably not giving you what you want. Here are what the two editions in question have to offer:

• 1E: cooperative, tactical game play, with a robust rule system that encourages long-term (extended) campaign play and world building with attention to "real world" considerations like economic stresses and political/military movements, while still providing fantasy escapism on an undreamt of scale, supported by system.
• 2E: character customization, prioritization on "story" or "meaning" with focus on the individual, generally of a "good" or "wholesome" nature (I think it's easier to make 1E clean and shiny than it is to make 2E grim and dirty), rewarding groups who are "on the same page," thematically. Unclear how extended game play is supported by system, but short-term thematic play is definitely supported in 2E.

You'll note that neither of these descriptions say anything about "ease of play" at the table. Figure out which one you want to run/play and then learn the rules (which were designed to facilitate their objectives of play). Don't be lazy; the job of being a Dungeon Master entails a lot of work, so you might as well start on the right foot by studying up the system that best delivers the game you want.

Sincerely,

JB

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.

No Compromise

AKA "Dear JB" Mailbag #50

Happy December! I am not quite waist-deep in the holiday season, but the water's certainly rising. With a trip to Los Angeles coming in the next couple weeks, followed immediately by a two week "jaunt" to Mexico, we'll see how the pressure ramps up. For today...I'm okay.

[and to be fair, other than the actual commute involved, Mexico should be fairly relaxing]

But I figured I might as well throw out a little something-something for the month of December...just on the off-chance this is my last opportunity to blog in 2025, a year that's been a bit of a banner year for my blogging (the most posts I've gotten up in ten years!). Not sure if they're any good, but at least I'm putting a little time and effort into the thing.

SO...yeah, the post. 

I was combing the Reddit "slush pile" this morning, and a common theme was popping up...people flummoxed or bitter or unhappy about being unable to work with (or continue to play with) players, despite attempts to communicate, negotiate, and compromise on various things, and asking how, HOW can they prevent their group from splintering, from completely demolishing the campaign into which they'd poured so much time and effort.

Typical DM problem, right? I'm sure you've heard it before...I'm sure some of you have experienced it before. You spend a few weeks or months or YEARS building a play group, learning to get on with everyone, dealing with people's flaws and foibles (everyone has them, and being able to remain friends AND accept each other for our flaws is not only a sign of maturity, but also a mark of real friendship), negotiating the group dynamic/chemistry, and then BAM...the "rift" occurs. Not because someone has to move away, or gets married, or has a kid, or changes jobs, but because the person WANTS DIFFERENT THINGS FROM THE GAME. Or, to put it another way, has DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS OF PLAY. 

And now it's threatening to derail everything.

How could this have happened in our carefully cultivated and curated play group? Well, IF the play group was "carefully cultivated" it usually only comes up because a new player enters the game (a good friend, or significant other of the DM or another player) and throws a wrench in the machine. However, in newer groups it could simply be that A) the group was formed with the assumption everyone was, more-or-less, on the same page ("we're all best friends, right? We can make it work!") and/or B) because one or more players were ALWAYS dissatisfied but was simply hiding their resentment but has now found the stones to assert themselves in a fashion that's counter to other players' wants/needs/expectations.

Sad when it happens. Usually not "tragic," but it's generally okay to shed a tear for the end of an era.

BUT...is this a preventable problem? Are there ways to "work this out" and "save the campaign?" 

The answers to those questions are "yes" and "maybe," respectively.  I say, maybe because it can be tough to shut Pandora's box once it's opened. Jim's girlfriend might be a pain in the neck, but kicking her out is probably going to cost you Jim, and might cost you Bill, too, if Bill only plays because he's Jim's best friend (see how that works?). But, sure, it's preventable from the get-go, in a fairly simple manner:

Never compromise.

If you want a campaign that's going to endure, you must be the rock against which the waves of whimsy break. You must be immune to the wheedling and cajoling of players who'd have you modify the game to their preferences. You must be steadfast against a "rule of cool" mindset, instead steeling yourself to be firm AND fair because, when it comes to being a referee, firmness is fairness. 

I probably sound harsh. It's not meant to be. Just assume I am giving you this practical advice in a soft, kindly voice...like a parent  putting their child down to sleep on a school night rather than allowing them to stay up till the wee hours eating ice cream and watching TV. You may think it's a delightful idea to give in to the player's whimsical request of the moment, but it's not. It's really not. 

Do not compromise. If you're running a game of AD&D and someone shows up asking you to adapt some 5E-ism to the game, you must say no. If someone asks you to make the game "less dangerous" or implies there's "too much combat" you have to say, sorry but we're playing D&D here. If you have a personal house rule that you don't allow evil characters or PvP at your table, you cannot make an exception for the player who "loves" Drow or who wants their thief to pick the pockets of fellow party members.

As the Dungeon Master it is your job...your responsibility...to set the ground rules and terms of play. If you want to go full-bore 2nd edition with only "rogue" types getting x.p. for treasure, that's FINE...that's your choice of how you want to run your game; don't let the players talk you out of it. If Sally doesn't like it, she can walk.

I understand that it sounds like I'm extolling the virtues of being a stubborn ass, but it is important to be unwavering in this regard...important for both YOU and your players. Players who know and understand the game that is being run have the freedom to work and grow within the system, playing the game...as opposed to having to learn how to play the DM. Which is what happens when the DM "loosens up" and starts acting in a fickle or whimsical manner. The dice are fickle enough. The game has plenty of whimsy. What is needed from the DM is not someone who's "adaptable," but someone who is dependable and trustworthy.  

You only get that reputation by refusing to compromise.

Does that mean your particular game "isn't for everyone?" Yes it does, and there may well be some players who you wish would stay who won't. But making accommodations for people is simply putting off the inevitable...it's attempting to mask a foundational flaw that will fester like an untreated wound. Do not bend: be up front with what your game is, and run your game. There is no D&D game without a Dungeon Master. And there are plenty of players or would-be players in the world. How many people are in your small town? 500? 1,000? And you can't find two or three who are interested in playing D&D the way you want to play D&D? Are you sure you've been turned down by ALL of them?

Well, there's always a few billion people on the internet to solicit.

I'm not going to bother transcribing any of the Reddit letters on this subject because it always boils down to the same thing: DM capitulation. Doesn't matter if they play 5E or "old school" D&D...once you start trying to please people because of the endorphins you get from a momentarily happy player, well, the jig is up. You have to stick to your guns from session 1 (I don't do "session zero") and accept that what you run or enjoy isn't the same for everyone else. And that's okay.  Variety is the spice of life...you can play games with one type of person and drink beer while watching hockey with another type of person and make love to a third type and argue politics with a fourth. 

Never give in. Never surrender. No compromise. Not for the DM. Other areas of life...sure, absolutely. For Dungeons & Dragons? No. Hard pass.

"Dear JB" Mailbag #49

*sigh*

Dear JB:

I joined a D&D campaign in person and have been mostly having a great time, but the DM seems roleplay averse, even when he doesn't have to roleplay.

We're a group of six plus the DM, and his fights are brutal and long. We generally lose a character every dungeon and individual encounters can last weeks. The last fight took us three sessions to finish, during which time two new characters were introduced because of deaths.

After the fight was finally over -- which again, took about a calendar month -- our newest player attempted to initiate roleplay, asking us how we had ended up in this cultist dungeon. We started to answer in character, but the DM quickly talked over us, sounding annoyed, and asking what we were going to do next so he could prep it. It killed any in-character talk and we just moved forward into the next fight. Likewise, I asked if I could commune with the gods for an answer to a question and was laughed at by the DM for wanting to waste a spell slot on something outside of combat.

I really get the sense that others might also want to have more roleplay time, as I've spoken to a few of them, but we don't want to upset the DM who has a very dominant personality. How can we best broach the topic that we would like some time between fights to explore our characters? The DM is a very nice guy who works really hard, but he does have a DM-versus player mentality when it comes to the game. Any advice?

How To Ask A DM To Let Us Roleplay

Dear Roleplayer:

A DM is required to have an adversarial mentality when it comes to the game; that's part of the gig. Your DM sounds like a bit of an ass...Commune is an excellent spell (there's good reason why it's included, why it is limited in use, and why it is only available at higher levels)...but providing players with challenging encounters is part of a Dungeon Master's responsibility. 

But that's not the main thrust of your gripe, which is the lack of time being allowed space for "roleplaying" and "character exploration" during sessions. I infer from your letter that you seem to think the DM's "brutal," combat-heavy style contributes in some way to his "aversion" to roleplaying.

Maybe. But not necessarily. His "being an ass," may contribute to the "ass" way he acts when you try to engage in "roleplaying," but to me he's just trying to run the game. If a player at my table tried to have an "in-character conversation" with other players about "why are we in this dungeon" in the middle of the session, you would find I'm rather curt about shutting this down myself.

And I'm a pretty nice guy. 

I'm writing this again, for the upteenth time, and it seems as crazy to me now as it ever has that I have to put these words in print: THIS IS NOT ACTING CLASS. The game is not about performance. It is not about character exploration. Jeez-Louise...even back in 2009 the OSR folks had the mantra "we explore dungeons, not characters;" it's as true today as it was then. We are playing a game called Dungeons & Dragons...a GAME.

Why do you have 300+ page rule books? Why do you have dice? Do these things help you portray your character better? Do they make you a more "believable" tiefling bard (or whatever)?

There is a difference between "role-playing" and "roleplaying." In a roleplaying game (RPG) you take on a particular role in the game using your character (again, the GAME term) as your vehicle for exploring the imagined setting and situation. You are not "portraying" anyone...the player character is YOU, your "game piece" with which you interact with the game. Without a character, you have no way to interact with the game.

"Role-playing," on the other hand, was coined by the psychiatrist Jacob Moreno in 1934 to describe a therapeutic method of acting out conflicts in order to understand different perspectives...a technique still used today in various fields.

That's not what we're doing in an RPG. When you sit down to play an RPG, you automatically engage in the act of "roleplaying," as you interact with the game through your particular "vehicle" (character). You are still using YOUR OWN perspective, just filtered through the lens of an individual who can cast spells, or fight with a sword, or that has pointy ears. And you do this in order to participate in a game of fantasy adventure...not a game of understanding the psychology of a dwarf or half-elf with childhood trauma. 

Does this not make sense? You're sitting at the table to play a game in which you are pursuing fortune and glory (the latter modeled as advancement or "leveling up") by facing dangerous challenges that your DM places between you and your goal.  I mean, that's the game in a nutshell.

What part of that involves pretending that you don't know "how we had ended up in this cultist dungeon?" Why on Earth would you waste time having an imaginary discussion in-character about something that is self-evident? 

This is performative narcissism. What? Are you hoping to win a Tony for your portrayal of Kettlewood the Gnome?  

For me, the REAL question is: why are you playing this game called Dungeons & Dragons? If you'd rather be acting, why aren't you polishing up your monologue and auditioning for roles? If you'd like to "explore your character" why aren't you writing a novel (or even a short story!) diving deep into the character's inner journey of discovery? If you want to do improvisational theater, why aren't you forming a troupe with these like-minded friends? If you want to do "collaborative storytelling," why don't you just do THAT? Grab some collaborators and tell some stories!

Why in the name of all things holy do you need a 900 page GAME to do these things? Is it such a BADGE OF HONOR to be labeled as a D&D nerd? Christ Almighty! Most of us hid this fact from our "normal" friends, back in the day.

Here's my advice, friend:

You write that you "have been mostly having a great time." You write that your "DM is a very nice guy who works really hard." That's a leg up over a lot of tables! And you have a chance to game in-person (as opposed to on-line)? That's the best way to play the game...human interaction! Yay!

SO if you want to play a game of D&D, and you have an in-person game with a DM who is both "nice" and "hard working" and the sessions are (mostly) "a great time" THEN quit your bitching. Do your flavor of "roleplaying" away from the table...i.e. between sessions. Hang out with your friends over drinks and talk and act in character...no one's stopping you! DO your "character exploration:" write a journal! In-character! Share it with the group! See if the other players want to do the same and share with you! 

This is all stuff you can do OUTSIDE the game at the table, and it can be fun...just in the same way a DM, working on their campaign setting, creating "lore" that players will probably never see can be a fun and enjoyable activity for the DM. I'll tell you a dirty secret of mine: my friends and I used to do this kind of stuff ourselves (back in the late-80s) because we were so invested in our characters, we couldn't even put them down when we were away from the table. We were big geeks, okay?

BUT...we didn't bring that stuff to the table. It may have contributed to situations and adventures, but we weren't "acting" in character...we were still PLAYING A GAME when we sat down. 

Focus on what you're doing when you're doing it. That's my best advice.

Sincerely,

JB

"Dear JB" Mailbag #48

Dear JB:

Over the past few years I have noticed a sort of divide between segments in the fan base. I’m sure most people are aware of it but maybe can’t put it precisely into words (at least I have an issue doing so). I want to talk about 3 of these quickly before I get into the main point. There will obviously be overlap between them, but I imagine them as multiple overlapping circles.

1. The new age enthusiasts- these are typically younger people in my experience. Very much into the hobby as a whole; watching lots of YouTube videos on topics, picking out new dice constantly, buying all the new books, really enjoying character art etc. Maybe they don’t play that often, but they love the hobby and they interact a great deal with the community. They also seem to be the most interactive and present in online spaces.
2. The old age enthusiasts- These people share similar overlap with the Grognard, but aren’t inherently insufferable. They seem to enjoy specific over general (in most cases), they like to have explicit rules, and they don’t typically care for the simplification of races/classes. They also don’t tend to care for the smushing together of races, like the change to half-orc and half-elf. There seems to also be a bent for more realism or more explicit rules for how and why things work in certain contexts.
3. genuine exclusionists- This group of people would like nothing more than to exclude every person, or type of person, they don’t like from the game. They are the biggest gatekeepers and the first ones to chastise someone else for simply playing a different way or wanting to follow a non normative story beat. They dislike the race changes in 5.5 because they genuinely think orcs are some sort metaphor for certain real word people and it helps them justify in their minds their racism. They also like the overcomplexity of the game because it is another way they can gatekeep people who don’t share their near obsessive need to know all the rules and break them in a way that aggrandizes themselves.

Now my main point. It definitely seems when compared with older books, 5e seems to lean towards “DM’s now have the flexibility to make it up, run the games how they want, and our rules are here to facilitate that.” But that’s not really true at all because that’s always been the case. I play 3.5 a fair bit and there are tons of rules that we have over time either ignored or change because they felt right for our table. 5e seems to be intentionally sparse of precise information about things.

I’ve always viewed myself as a bit of a mix between groups 1 and 2. I enjoy a lot of the dnd content in the hobby, I like to buy new books, I watch lots of YouTube videos, but I do like my rules (at least at a baseline) to have specificity and my lore to have depth. This does not seem to be the case for a lot of the content released by WotC recently. I just finished going through the Heroes of Faerun book and while a lot of it is good, there’s just a bunch of lacking information, especially in regard to the factions.

For the Order of the Gauntlet, a faction that the 5e developers have basically made themselves, they reference the Code of Scales and Weights multiple times in their entry. They even state that initiates are required to learn by heart the code itself. But where is the code? Literally, where is the code? Even a small creed? How is this knightly order any different from any other knightly Paladin-esque order that we’ve all made? Some people in group 1 may say, “Well, the DM can make the code because they may want the group to be different in their world.” But I don’t buy these books so they can do basic brainstorming for me. I buy these books because I want to play in a community known setting, with things like this already thought of. If I wanted to make a new Paladin order and write my own code, I’d do it.

It just feels extremely negligent and lazy on the part of WotC when it comes to stuff like this. It’s like they don’t want to add any constraining features or guidelines to their lore under the guise of allowing DM freedom but in actuality it’s just the shirking of actual lore creation. There’s just a vagueness everywhere in these books when there shouldn’t be.

It seems like Wizards has taken the enthusiasm from group 1 for granted because the company knows that releasing books with a few character options (some obviously untested- banneret) and some updates with a great deal of vagueness for the various regions will still sell to people. And then when group 2 points this out, or had complaints, there’s often accusations of them belonging to group 3. My main point is that I still obviously love the game. But I feel there has been backlash against any pushback of the vagueness and what seems like the dumbing down or simplification of the rules. Or what feels like sterilization of races like the orc. It feels weird that every race is just as good as all the other races at everything, despite us all knowing that orcs are just generally stronger than most races. And I don’t feel like it’s being exclusionary, or God forbid racist, to point that out and then not be lumped with the crack pots of group 3.

This turned into a rant. Apologies. I’d love to hear others thoughts on this topic though.

Disappointment With New Books (aka SunnySpade)

 

Dear Disappointment:

This isn't a rant. This is an expression of your feelings of disappointment and frustration, carefully and succinctly explained. Here are my thoughts (since you asked):

#1  You have to understand that the company currrently publishing D&D (WotC/Hasbro) cares far less about you...or even the game...than it does about making money. You can call this "corporate greed" or you can call it "performing their fiduciary duty for their shareholders" but regardless, this is how it is. In order to do this, they have shifted their product to have THE BROADEST APPEAL to THE MOST CUSTOMERS possible, in order to MAXIMIZE PROFITS. It has long been known that the most profit is made every time the company can compel its fanbase to purchase (yet another) set of "core rule books;" this is the main impetus for putting out a newer version of the game every 8-10 years. But if you want to know WHY the designers feel lazy, negligent, and uninterested in "constraining features or guidelines" (what some might call "rules") it comes back to this:

Broadest appeal.

Most Customers

Maximize profits.

This is their business strategy. They don't want to be "niche" or "boutique;" they want to take advantage of the game's incredible international popularity and global presence to reap as many dollars as possible. To do that the game must be "everything to everybody" and "easily accessible." Adding (or enforcing) rules, systems, and procedures turns off that pipe line of cash.

#2 You're operating under some false premises when it comes to your perception of (what you call) "old age enthusiasts" and "genuine exclusionists." I shall endeavor to enlighten you so as to disabuse of your false notions (apologies if that sounds condescending...no offense meant).

I am NOT an "old age enthusiast" (which I'd hazard to guess is probably closer to the "OSR" scene). I am an Old Geezer who plays AD&D (1st edition) exclusively. This might cause you to lump me in with the "insufferable Grognard" crowd, but I'm not someone who came to the game out of a wargame tradition (which is where the G-term comes from)...I started with D&D over forty years ago and it's the same game that I still play. Wargames can be fun, but that's not my primary focus, nor my area of expertise.

However, while I have an exclusive preference for AD&D, I am anything but "exclusionary." The gates to my game are WIDE OPEN (so long as there's room at my table) and I have gamed with a huge variety of people of all races, creeds, colors, genders, religions, politics, ages, etc. People come to play D&D...I run D&D. That's not "virtue signaling;" I'm telling you the FACTS.

But I don't play 5th edition. And I don't play "5.5." Partly because, for all their production values, they are extremely poor games. But MAINLY because AD&D is just the best game on the market. And, yes, it's still "on the market" (available as both ebook and print-on-demand).

Am I one of "the first ones to chastise someone else for simply playing a different way?" Absolutely, I am. Because I don't buy into the corporate slogan of the game being "everything for everybody (just give us your money)." But I'm not just telling people YOU SUCK and slamming the door in their faces...I am trying to help people find a better way of playing D&D, so that they can maximize their enjoyment and satisfaction. 

To be clear: I do not think of myself as terribly special when it comes to running D&D. There may not be a lot of people who can "do what I do" but MOST people can get to a fairly close approximation, and I'm sure that quite a few people do it better than me, or could do it better than me with a little time and effort. Even a game with as much "overcomplexity" as AD&D isn't rocket science.

Oh, and also? I don't keep away people "who don’t share [my] near obsessive need to know all the rules." The only person I expect to know the rules of the game is the Dungeon Master (at my table, that's usually me) because the DM is the referee, the facilitator, and the final authority of the game being played. This imperative ("know the rules, DM") applies REGARDLESS of which edition you play. If the rules of 5E are too much for you to glean as a DM, I'd suggest a system with a smaller page count...AD&D, for instance.

#3 I feel for you, that you are facing (what seems to be) "backlash against any pushback of the vagueness and what seems like the dumbing down or simplification of the rules;" this, again, is the way of any insular community that feels 'attacked' from people within their own group. I am sorry you feel afraid for being branded an "insufferable Grognard" and a "racist" simply for being ballsy enough to stand up and say the Emperor has no clothes. Welcome to my world! Remember that ALL of us...geezers and young 'uns alike...started out under the banner of "D&D gamer." The faction-izing of the RPG community is (in large part) TIED TO MONEY. Just remember that.

Seriously. Groups with labels (like the OSR or the NuSR or whatever) have a vested interest in keeping their brand intact because "brand loyalty" equals "returning customers." This is the way business works. Are there other ways business works? SURE. But this is a relatively easy and unimaginative one. Business isn't really rocket science, either.

IMAGINE THIS: what if the business decided to RE-PUBLISH 1st edition AD&D as its ONLY edition, simply updating the artwork and tidying up the rule inconsistencies that came from publishing the books in sequential order, and perhaps organizing the information in a way that was easier to absorb while otherwise keeping the system exactly the same. And, let's say, that they simply became "the company that publishes AD&D" and threw all their corporate support for that system, creating on-line DM tools, adventures, FAQ pages, forums, etc. What would happen?

They'd still sell books. They'd still make money. They'd still attract new people. But the APPEAL of the game would be to a much smaller crowd...meaning they'd sell fewer books and make less money. Which would not satisfy the corporate shareholders who would then oust the CEO in order to find someone with "new ideas" about how to create "more revenue streams."

Because that's the world we live in.

You, Disappointed, are running up against the people who have BOUGHT IN to what the company is selling, the people who see D&D as lifestyle, as an identity, as a way of belonging to a community. And even though that community has been shaped in large part (either purposefully or "organically") by corporate ("business") interests, it still operates like any other community: you're one of us or you're one of them.  You now have four choices available to you:

1. Quit your bitching and get back with the program (buy, sheep, buy!)
2. Join the self-exiled (and possibly stumble into another "community" like the OSR)
3. Waffle between the two (and continue to suffer the pangs of frustration as you are now)
4. Opt out, find a new hobby, or just ignore what's going on in the wider hobby while focusing on your home game.

None of these are particularly easy choices, but they're all doable, and you have the power to make your own choice in the matter...no one's holding a gun to your head and making you buy or play D&D in a particular way. Own your power, pal.

Sincerely,

JB

***EDITED to add Reddit user's handle (per request)***

"Dear JB" Mailbag #47

A birthday present for Yours Truly...

Dear JB:

How much roleplay is there in your games?

Seriously, everytime people here [at Reddit] discuss character choices theres usually a big thread of coments about "oh, that's a great option to roleplay your concerns/fears/doubts/powers into the game". In theory it does indeed sound great but most games I've been a part of are very gygaxian. So any roleplay scenes we do have is usually very short and "oh no, this is terrible" doesn't really go beyond the flavor of the scene for me. So really, how much do you folk actually go into character on your games?

How Much Roleplay

Dear HMR:

I've been playing RPGs for more than 40 years. Started around 1982 (age 9); today, I am 52 years old. Over the decades I've played with more than 100 different individuals (that's a rough count, but I can get to at least that number of people off the top of my head)...from elementary and middle school, through high school and university, a handful of times (briefly) after graduation, and then quite a bit since 2005 or thereabouts, including participation in 4 or 5 gaming conventions.

I've played a variety of RPGs over the years..not just editions of D&D, but all sorts of Palladium games (Heroes Unlimited, TMNT, Rifts), Chaosium games (Stormbringer, ElfQuest), White Wolf games (Ars Magica, Vampire, Mage, etc.), Atlas games (Ars again, Over The Edge), indie games (Risus, FATE, InSpectres, Fiasco, etc.), and, of course, TSR games (MSH, Gamma World, Boot Hill, Top Secret, Star Frontiers). Throw in some Traveller as well (Classic and Mongoose only). Lots and lots of games...ROLEPLAYING games.

By definition, an RPG is a game in which players play a role in the game. You are not a meeple moving around a board; instead you play some sort of character. A soldier. A magician. A scientist. A vampire. A mutant animal. Whatever. How much role-playing have I seen in my role-playing games? I've seen nothing BUT roleplaying in my roleplaying games.

But you're talking about something else.

You're not talking about playing a role. You're talking about role-playing, in terms of the psychiatrist definition, specifically:

"to act out or perform the part of a person or character, for example as a technique in training or psychotherapy"

[that's from Google dictionary]

I've never been to psychotherapy, but I've done more than a few "role-playing exercises" over the years, usually as part of on-the-job training dealing with a customer service component facing our external customers (man, it's been a long-time since I held a real job...I forget all the "corporate speak" I used to know). Usually, this was all done in aid of developing tactics for, um, "crisis mitigation" or "de-escalating conflict" and, uh, "active listening"...or something. Jeez, I don't remember all this jargon. It was...fine. It's stuff I can do in  my sleep, partly because I'm a trained actor and partly because I'm not braindead and I have enough empathy that I can shift my perspective to someone else's shoes. MOST people can do this...so long as they don't have crushing anxiety about "playing pretend" in front of other people. Then again, part of these trainings involved "cultivating a safe environment" in which to do these exercises.

[man, I do NOT miss the office life]

This, however, is not what occurs when I sit down to play an RPG. With a couple-three exceptions, I have ALMOST NEVER SEEN PEOPLE "PERFORMING" IN THIS WAY AT MY TABLE. 

The caps are for emphasis, not "yelling," but perhaps I do want to yell a bit. First, though, I'll talk about the exceptions:

AS A PLAYER: 

I've had the chance to play FATE a couple times at conventions. Once was a 1930s period piece (Spirit of the Century), the other was a Dresden Files session. As a game, FATE provides systems that interact with the "portrayal" of character traits on one's character sheet...in other words, act a certain way and get a bonus, fail to act and take a penalty. It's all good fun and allows a washed-up, ex-performer like myself to 'ham it up' and reap fat mechanical benefits from doing so. That's part of the game.

ALSO, there have been times where I was required to play (again in a tournament setting) a pre-generated "character" that had a literal personality/background to it. This did not require me to play "in character" (i.e. it did not require me to perform or use a silly accent) but it DID require me to "think" or "take action" based on the CHARACTER's motivations, rather than my own. I am thinking specifically of one convention game in which this occurred (a game of Mongoose Traveller)...but, now that I consider, playing Steve Jackson's Paranoia also requires this kind of "brain-shift." Hmm. So does Steve Jackson's Toon.

[as an aside, I tend to dislike Steve Jackson games...Car Wars, as a non-RPG, is an exception...and I especially DETEST Toon. It is really, really crappy]

[***EDIT: both Toon and Paranoia were written by Greg Costikyan, NOT Steve Jackson...although Toon was published by Steve Jackson Games. Costikyan also did WEG's Star Wars and the game Violence, both of which I own, neither of which I play, but (as with his other works) still make for entertaining reading. Thanks to Faoladh for pointing out my mistake!***]

AS A DM/GM:

When acting as the Game Master it is my job to play the part of all the non-player characters, nearly all of which are "not me" and are supposed to have their own motivations, many of which are specific to their "character" and vastly different from my own. In this way, I am "roleplaying" CONSTANTLY as a DM/GM, as I must get out of myself and into the head of the NPC/monster in order to determine what is the thing's appropriate actions/behavior. Sometimes, it is appropriate for an NPC to surrender rather than fight to the death. Sometimes it is appropriate to treat the players' character with deference...or scorn. It just depends.

Now, does this mean I am using odd accents or funny voices? Generally, no. If I "speak" for a character, it is generally because I've got a bunch of information to impart that's not easy to sum up, and it's EASIER for me to simply converse with the players "in character," rather than saying "He tells you this" (and then the players say something) "Well, then he tells you THIS" (and then the players ask some questions) "Then the guys answers this other thing" (etc.). Sometimes it is FASTER and more EXPEDITIOUS to respond as the person being interrogated/questioned. 

And the "funny voices?" That happens for one of three reasons: A) to distinguish ME (the DM/GM) talking versus THE CHARACTER, B) to distinguish one NPC from another NPC, or C) because I'm tired/silly/bored and lapse into something. However, "C" is a much rarer occurrence.

Here's a typical example of "A:" when the neonate vampire PCs are dragged into the room of Axle, the Prince of Seattle, I'll use a "voice" for the Prince (when he's speaking) while I use my "normal voice" to describe what else is happening around the players that their characters can see, hear, etc.

Here's a typical example of "B:" in my home campaign, when players pick up a retainer or NPC party member, I will (RARELY!) give this character a "voice" of its own...usually because the players had reason to interact with the individual. THEN, if I am describing a situation in which the party is conversing with a DIFFERENT NPC (who needs a voice to distinguish themselves from my "normal voice" DM descriptives), that character might get its own distinct voice to create separation for my players' ears. Still, this is something I ALMOST NEVER do, largely because I don't tend to create scenes where I'm talking to myself. That's...ridiculous.

[by the way, it IS helpful to have different voices in your "repertoire" if you (like me) enjoy READING BOOKS TO YOUR KIDS. It's helpful to the listener to be able to distinguish when one character is talking from another. I did this for years (duh). Of course, I was also on the speech team in middle school where this kind of practice is quite necessary. However, playing RPGs is NOT the same thing as "reading to people." At least, it shouldn't be...]

But these "voices" are a tool in the DM's toolkit, used for a specific purpose (or, as said, because it's late at night and I'm loopy from booze and just acting silly)...not because the act of play is performative. Even as a DM my responsibility is to RUN THE GAME; that's the only duty I need to perform. Being a dancing monkey for the players' entertainment? No. If they are 'entertained,' that is a tertiary benefit, at best.

So, then, HMR: to your question.

You talk about wanting to "go into character." You say you've read discussions of "character choices" that provide opportunities to "roleplay your concerns/fears/doubts/powers into the game." You seem to lament that most of your games have been "very gygaxian," whatever that means (I infer you mean it to be the opposite of what you presume an RPG is supposed to do). You SEEM to be talking about scenes in which PLAYERS are performing the act or portraying characters.

Look, pal: I don't run acting seminars. This isn't scene work. We are not working our script, rehearsing for some performance, or improvising high drama. NOT. AT. ALL.

We are playing a game. And that game does NOT have, as its objective, PUTTING ON A SHOW.

If you think that's what playing an RPG means, then sorry, you're wrong. Yes. You are wrong. You are playing the game WRONG. 

BUT...here's what DOES happen, when you play the game RIGHT:

Played correctly, your players should become fully immersed in the action at the table, so engaged with the game play that they lose track of space/time outside of the game. What's more, the MORE they are 'pushed' through the game play, the more they will identify (strongly!) with the character they are playing. They WILL speak as their character. They will act (i.e. BEHAVE) as their character, in game. Not because they are trying to portray "a character." No! Because the character IS the player. And the character subsumes more and more of the player's identity. 

It is not that players portray characters. It's that characters REPRESENT PLAYERS. We are not "acting as" characters; instead, the character is the vehicle which allows US to "act," i.e. take action in the game world.

And what does that look like? It can look like the PLAYER being angry or scared or upset or triumphant or doubtful or righteous...actual, honest-to-goodness emotions. Because the players are so invested in game play that they (momentarily) forget they are playing a game. A game that does NOT have "life-or-death" stakes...just a game! But they won't treat it like a game...instead, they will treat it with deadly seriousness. "We're all going to die!" is the kind of delightful exclamation that every DM wants to hear at their table because it means they are doing their job correctly.

The GM/DM's job is to run a tight game that keeps the players firmly glued (as best as possible) to what's going on. No, that doesn't mean you are putting on a show; heck, it doesn't even mean that you are constantly barraging them with life-threatening perils ("you're jumped by 15 assassins...again!"). No, you keep their attention by keeping them interested and engaged with the game being played...for example, if they hear a rumor of an adventure site, certainly loaded with treasure, while resting in town, let THEM (the players) decide how best to approach the situation. How to get there? What are the logistical difficulties? Do we have the resources to pursue the quest? Is it worth our time, effort, and risk? Let the PLAYERs debate this (while YOU just interject little tidbits to keep their fire stoked), and soon-enough-they'll be worked into a froth just trying to figure out how many wagons to outfit for the excursion.

RPGs are a way of "playing pretend" but they are not ABOUT the "pretending." The pretending is not an object in and of itself. This is not ComicCon...we are not "cos-playing." Cosplay, like LARP, is a different animal from an RPG. RPGs are still games to be played...even if modern RPG gamers seem to have forgotten this fact. 

Yeah, it's a nerdy hobby. So is wargaming and stamp collecting. Doesn't mean it's not enjoyable.

So, yeah: all my RPGs see a ton of roleplaying, but not very much "role-playing" at all. Even so, the players STILL get to feel genuine emotions (as opposed to portraying "fake emotions") and that, HMR, is one of the great joys of this type of game play. Embrace it.

Sincerely, 

JB